|
Post by andycapp on Sept 8, 2007 15:47:57 GMT
Losing 2-1 with mins to go.
Bad Start by the looks of it.
Come on England at rugby and football
|
|
|
Post by os on Sept 8, 2007 17:54:07 GMT
Well that's 4 bad starts in a row now, the oppos first attack today resulted in a goal as did there second! AJ a good player as he is was at fault for both goals giving far to much room and space away to the forward. We fought back well and if we could shot we would of got ourselves at least a point we had the opportunities but wasted them. Overall the performance I don't think was bad and there is a decent team trying to get out but we can't keep giving goals away and not capitalising on our chances or the result will be Ryman Prem footy
|
|
|
Post by Amber Aleman on Sept 8, 2007 20:12:00 GMT
We lost 3-1. On the strength of our second half performance, we wouldn't have been flattered by a draw. But we must learn to stop giving our opponents a head start. Today's game was the third this season in which we've conceded inside the first 10 minutes - and, of course, we went on to lose all three of those matches.
We're not very good at chasing games, and today made things even more difficult by going 2-0 down. Phil made a couple of good saves to stop Dorch moving out of sight, and Warren pulled a goal back, but the equaliser that we threatened after half-time never came. They then got a breakaway third in injury time.
Charlie Henry (at Cambridge City last season) did most of the damage, helping to set up the opener and scoring their other two.
That result leaves us fourth from bottom.
|
|
|
Post by manchesteru on Sept 8, 2007 22:00:05 GMT
Certainly a better performance than Weston and Maidenhead, but why oh why are we so slow at the start of the game? The defence just gifted Dorchester their 1st goal, and the 2nd wasn't much better. After losing 2 rather silly goals in the 1st 20 minutes it was always going to be an uphill struggle. To be fair the lads didn't really let their heads drop and we created a couple of oppertunities before McBean pulled a goal back. In the 2nd half Scarborough and Tanner both went very close but to no avail, and Dorchester who always looked dangerous on the break killed the game off late on with a 3rd from a counter-attack. Not the worst performance, but if we keep on giving away early goals than we will struggle, but i'm not going to a doom-merchant yet.
|
|
|
Post by swedishchapter on Sept 9, 2007 10:04:02 GMT
I did not, for obvious reasons, see the the game yesterday, but if it was not the worst of performance, what is? Losing 1-4 or 1-5? To me losing is losing and we are only losing at the moment..:-( So even if it was a better performance than Weston and Maidenhead, what difference does it make?? Still no points in the bag..:-(
|
|
pete
Newbie
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_red.png)
Posts: 66
|
Post by pete on Sept 9, 2007 10:24:34 GMT
We werent bad, played well after we conceded the goals, but we seem to have a problem when we get near the opposition box. At times you just wish they would shoot. Was a couple of chances yesterday where we may have had a pop, only to play the ball back out again and the attack break down.
|
|
|
Post by swedishchapter on Sept 9, 2007 10:56:34 GMT
Good to hear that we play well, and sure, we must give Ian Hazel some time to get things right....
|
|
Rax
1st team Player
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by Rax on Sept 9, 2007 11:04:15 GMT
It seriously sounds like my bloody 5-a-side team. We play well and still lose damn near every sodding week! Good news is we're playing well(ish) by the sounds of it, although the only league game I've managed to get to is Maidenhead where we were dire. Bad news is you don't get points for playing well and unless we start getting something from our efforts we're screwed.
Come on U's!!
|
|
|
Post by suttonview on Sept 9, 2007 13:06:34 GMT
Since beating Basingstoke last March, our league record is:
P 17 W 2 D 6 L 9
Points: 12 out of 51
|
|
|
Post by Del on Sept 9, 2007 15:27:46 GMT
Don't want to be over critical but why did we change the defence around again yesterday.Lewis had a good game at the back but Charles is a tall centre back and i can't help but notice that our opposition nearly always have large defenders.Surely it would be better if Charles and Scooby were our central defenders and either Lewis or Alan were at left back.
|
|
|
Post by os on Sept 9, 2007 16:25:28 GMT
Not sure tall defenders would have made much difference yesterday as their first two goals were just the result of poor defending full stop. As someone said last week I think we give goals away like christmas presents while we get very little back (Eastleigh excepted). I like attacking football and we are not playing that badly overal but the bottom line is attack starts with defence and ours thinks its a charity. I don't think we will be a relegation team but do think we are throwing away a chance to be a good top half table side and creating pressure for ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by momaan23 on Sept 9, 2007 16:57:06 GMT
I've played footie with AJ for bout 6 years and AJ's best position is center back. He's not the tallest but he will out jump most strikers. Thats where he was playin for the reserves and that is where he is most comfortable. Ian should play him there and u will see a different player.
|
|
taz
Top Performer
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 3,760
|
Post by taz on Sept 10, 2007 10:51:05 GMT
Crap start. 2-0 down and chasing it. Although should have been at least level by the break with the chances we created.
Once Tanner missed his chance second half, that was it. We just ran out of ideas and I thought the introduction of the 1st 2 subs completely killed us off.
If we can learn to defend even reasonably well, it'll hopefully give the rest of the side a chance to actually get at sides offensively and build some confidence, rather than having to chase a 1-2 goal defecit for 70 minutes.
|
|