[Archived] Portsmouth v Rovers

[blueboy3333]

1 minute ago, tomphil said:

According to Kevin Gallagher the team was set up to counter attack at home from the off on Saturday.  Oldham and their fans turned up with a sod it lets just have a go attitude probably expecting to be under the cosh straight away. Our lot almost followed the script from the first game at their gaff with another no show.

Why hasn't anything been learned ?  Why not the same approach as the Shrewsbury game where it was try and get on top of them straight away ?

 

Exactly mate, shrewsbury and rotherham are the two of the rare times we have genuinly started on the 'front foot'. 2nd half saturday we did it too once Travis went in the middle. These matches stand out because they are exceptions. 

[G Somerset Rover]

Raya
Nyambe Lenihan Mulgrew Bell
Travis Smallwood
Payne Dack Armstrong
Graham

Tell Smallwood to go gung ho for 45 then get Bennett on once he finally gets the booking. Sneaky feeling we'll pull it off tomorrow night.

[JamieUK]

1 minute ago, blueboy3333 said:

Caddis for Nyambe? Nyambe's made a couple of mistakes recently but to suggest he drop out because caddis offers more of an attacking threat is just wrong. Nyambe was the only one trying to get forward 1st half saturday, he's like Ronaldo compared to Caddis. And if we dropped defenders because they made a defensive blunder them Mulgrew would rarely get a game.

Yes - I thought he looked a liability at the weekend. He's been directly responsible for us conceding 2 goals in recent home games. I didnt suggest dropping him as Caddis offered more of an attacking threat - it was the total opposite. My reasoning for bringing Caddis in is I think he's looked a bit more solid defensively - whilst he hasn't looked spectacular when I've seen him I don't recall him making costly mistakes.

[Tom]

Big game, need a win but think we'll end up grateful if we can get a point.

I'd possibly bring in Travis for Smallwood but not sure, he was decent the other day but I'm not as convinced as others that it was a game changing performance. He looked poor out wide so wouldn't consider him there.

Nyambe is twice the player Caddis is and is playing well I just think he needs some support when left as the lone man back on corners.

Bell has to be back to left back, he's at his best on the overlap.

[G Somerset Rover]

Apologies if I missed this, but for those of us driving, does anyone know if this is up to date parking wise: 

http://www.footballgroundguide.com/leagues/fratton-park-portsmouth.html#adirections-and-car-parking

Sounds like the school may be the best bet? I haven't been to Fratton Park for years.

[Mattyblue]

Around 800 travelling.

Superb again, not a new ground/somewhere we've not been for decades either.

[chaddyrovers]

3 hours ago, Biz said:

Question; if we started 352 like we finished on Saturday, would the score be the same?

Both games had Evans and Smallwood as centre midfield pair. I don’t think other examples of those starting together are as positive.

wouldn't have Evans in the team

2 hours ago, DE. said:

I've basically been thinking the same thing whilst reading the last couple of pages.

The simple truth is that if you stop Dack then we don't have much to offer. Thank goodness for Mulgrew's set pieces, but when you're so heavily reliant on two players then you really are walking a tightrope, especially when one of those is notoriously injury prone. Unfortunately no formation is going to change that.

that's why I said playing Graham and Armstrong so Dack has more options and can create space for him

2 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Does anyone else feel we have missed Antonnsson? He always seemed to pop up with a goal or an assist. I wonder will he come straight back into the team? I wouldn't be against it. 

We have a lot of players now, Mowbray has some tough calls to make. Even if that means leaving players completely out of the run in. Unless he changes the team every week, 3-4 players who themselves would expect to be playing won't be, a couple won't even make the bench

we deffo missed his goals

2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Quite honestly for long periods of Saturday I couldn't tell you what we are playing. We did start the 2nd half with Nyambe, Williams and Mulgrew at centre half though. When I read the team sheet I thought we'd set up with 3 at the back but we didn't, or at least didn't seem like we did.

It was just a really odd team selection. It was almost as if Mowbray was in two minds and that was reflected in the players selected. Our 2nd half performance was very good though and could have quite easily won it, or on the other hand lost it too. It was a good half of football. That could probably be because they had 15 minutes to reflect on being 2-0 down to Oldham at home as opposed to an immediate change in system though.

first half was 4-2-3-1 formation but Like I said on Saturday night, Bell and Payne didn't wide enough and stretch their defence. I also said the team selection wasn't right. 

Second we played 3-5-2 formation with Bell and Bennett staying wide and stretching their defence and midfield with Payne and Dack playing 10 roles with Travis has the holding midfielder with Nyambe, Mulgrew and Williams. Graham and Armstrong played well together and Armstrong gave us more movement and pace

2 hours ago, JHRover said:

It certainly seems that way. If the threat of a suspension is affecting his performances and influencing the manager's decision to substitute him every week then it is ridiculous. He'd have been better getting booked weeks ago, wiping the slate clean, having a week off to rest and then come back fresh with a clean disciplinary record.

We were getting told last week after Plymouth that Corry Evans is now fit, fresh, raring to go for the remainder of the season. Yet he didn't feature vs Oldham. Surely if he is in good condition and ready to claim his place in the team then it would have been better to lose Smallwood now, let him serve his ban, so then Smallwood is back in business for the crucial last 15 games rather than continuing with this policy of trying to avoid him getting banned, which Is likely to be futile anyway.

wouldn't have Evans anywhere near the team. Travis played in his position and performance better than Evans done all season. 

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I think the lack of movement may be down to Graham. He is a great striker, but compared to some like Armstrong I am not sure he asks enough questions of defenders. Being on his own upfront doesn't help. As we have seen, when Dack is marked out of it, we are predictable. Leads me to wonder would we be better with 2 upfront or even playing Armstrong there with his pace  

The issues defensively is because we don't have an aggressive and dominant centre half, simple as that really. Hence why 3 centre halves with 2 wing backs may be the answer....

That's why Ive been saying play Armstrong and Graham up front with Dack in 10 role. Armstrong would give us a striker with pace who would be looking to get in behind the defence and stretch the game  hopefully giving Dack more space to play in. 

3 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

4-2-3-1 saw us through 18 games without a loss. To suddenly change the formation after two less than pleasing results is a bit of an overreaction. Especially when you are advocating changing the formation to one where we've had a 0% win rate playing it.

I'd argue that Mowbray has signed players to fit into that system but it begs the question why he has done that in the middle of a run using a completely different formation. Dropping Williams for Bell, sticking with 4 at the back and alternating Payne, Armstrong, Dack, Graham, Samuel, Antonsson and Chapman when he's fit in the front 4 should be more than enough to see us up.

 

I suggest the 3-5-2 formation for number of reasons which ive explained and why. 

 

1 hour ago, Sparks Rover said:

Chaddy knows best though

no need for that sort of comment, we have different opinions and that what happen in football

[Bigdoggsteel]

The squad are surely flying to Portsmouth today? Hardly a team bus? 

[Lancaster Rover]

We've had 2 poor first halves recently but prior to that we had 'started on the front foot' in a number of games, against both Walsall and Scunthorpe we got at the opposition from the very off and in both games scored fairly early on. I personally think the issue in the last couple of games, especially first half is that we have had too many players who play in the pocket, we've played in front of defences and made it easy for them at times. We've had nobody willing to bust a gut to get beyond the last man or play on the shoulder of the centre half, we did that well against Walsall and got behind them a number of times and on another night would've had 7.  It was the perfect antidote to the ponderous build up play against Northampton and seemed to have returned against both Plymouth and Oldham. Matters weren't helped on Saturday by our midfield disintegrating as their man waltzed straight down the middle of the pitch!

I'd like to see Armstrong up top in a 2, playing on the last man, he'd force defenders into mistakes and creates space for midfielders to move into with his pace and movement.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, Lancaster Rover said:

We've had 2 poor first halves recently but prior to that we had 'started on the front foot' in a number of games, against both Walsall and Scunthorpe we got at the opposition from the very off and in both games scored fairly early on. I personally think the issue in the last couple of games, especially first half is that we have had too many players who play in the pocket, we've played in front of defences and made it easy for them at times. We've had nobody willing to bust a gut to get beyond the last man or play on the shoulder of the centre half, we did that well against Walsall and got behind them a number of times and on another night would've had 7.  It was the perfect antidote to the ponderous build up play against Northampton and seemed to have returned against both Plymouth and Oldham. Matters weren't helped on Saturday by our midfield disintegrating as their man waltzed straight down the middle of the pitch!

I'd like to see Armstrong up top in a 2, playing on the last man, he'd force defenders into mistakes and creates space for midfielders to move into with his pace and movement.

This is why I keep saying Graham and Armstrong up front with Dack in 10 role. 

[Lancaster Rover]

The issue you have though created by playing 2 up front is how do you accommodate Dack without compromising on cover in the middle and or width. If you put Dack on the 'wing' you run the risk of the play being narrowed and creating a very congested central area plus not having a man wide to provide cover to the full back. Swithing to 3-5-2 also leaves the middle of the park rammed and difficult to stretch a team to create space for your front 2 at times. 

[BlackburnEnd75]

4 hours ago, arbitro said:

 

We simply have to play a back four to give us a platform to keep a clean sheet.

Completely disagree about this. We haven't been keeping clean sheets with 4 at the back anyway. 

The goals we tend to concede are from set pieces and on the counter attack. I think a back 3  could help solve the problem we have on the break especially at home. With the way we play at the moment the full backs bomb on for width and the two wide men either push up or float further forward so we essentially have the two cb's and the 2 cm's so when a team breaks out theres too much space to move into for their forwards they've always got an outlet, they just have to pull out into the fullback slots.

I also think it could stop us being so Rigid in our build up play, its a more fluid system and if done right we should be able to move the ball around a bit more freely, the width we get is starting higher up the pitch and that'll spread the pitch more and if we press like we should then we can really assert ourselves om the opposition. 

It suits a lot of our players too. Mulgrew in the middle of the 3 can sweep and bring the ball out and ideally has pace either side so isn't as exposed. It suits Williams, possibly Lenihan, possibly Nyambe, Travis, Bell, Graham (When people get around he is very good at bringing them), Armstrong and Antonnson can play through the middle, Payne, is a better way of getting Payne and Dack both in the team. Bennett would suit playing right wing back more than he would a right winger in a 4-2-3-1.

Obviously when we last tried this from the start against Doncaster it was a complete disaster. But the squad has changed a bit since then, for a start we didnt have any wing backs last time which made it a back 5. Ward couldn't play it out from the back, Whittingham and bennett as the two behind the striker who dropped very deep to get the ball completely isolating Graham who was isolated and essentially gave up. 

I've never advocated us playing a back 3 until recently but I think its time to give it a go especially at home. Maybe 4-2-3-1 is still the way to go away but good teams now are able to switch systems regularly. But we don't have the right players to be effective in a 4-4-2 so I don't why some people are advocating it on here. Play the hand we've been dealt.

 

[DE.]

I think we're going to concede whether we play a back two or three. We just don't have particularly good defenders, even Mulgrew is more of a set-piece threat than a top class defender. Great on the ball but we've shipped a lot of goals with him organising the back line, so, I'm not convinced that's his specialty. Our best form of defence is to attack, imo, whatever formation that entails. The less time the opposition spends in our half the better. We have the players to pen teams back and we need to use them properly, especially at home. Playing defensive counter attacking football against Oldham at home is just laughable and we must not see a repeat of that this season. 

[G Somerset Rover]

8 minutes ago, DE. said:

I think we're going to concede whether we play a back two or three. We just don't have particularly good defenders, even Mulgrew is more of a set-piece threat than a top class defender. Great on the ball but we've shipped a lot of goals with him organising the back line, so, I'm not convinced that's his specialty. Our best form of defence is to attack, imo, whatever formation that entails. The less time the opposition spends in our half the better. We have the players to pen teams back and we need to use them properly, especially at home. Playing defensive counter attacking football against Oldham at home is just laughable and we must not see a repeat of that this season. 

Agreed. I genuinely do think Lenihan will help though. I know we shipped a lot with him last season, but he and Mulgrew can't have started too many together before. He brings physicality, more speed and is a more natural leader, than Downing for me.

[Lancaster Rover]

As daft as it sounds Lenihan is probably the only defender we have who enjoys a tackle. Mulgrew is good at reading the game so stops a lot of danger before a tackle is needed however tackling isn't his strong suit. Nyambe is athletic but again, not a natural tackler and whilst he has improved a great deal this year he still doesn't use his physical attributes as well as he should/could, he's too nice. Williams doesn't make many tackles and certainly isn't physically imposing. Bell defended well against Walsall when required but has the speed to be able to get himself out of most situations without requiring a tackle. Downing is a bit of a lump, puts himself about but isn't the best. Lenihan is the only player you'd be worried about him coming through the back of you or giving you a kick, the others whilst good players don't really have an aggressive or nasty bone between them.

[Bigdoggsteel]

29 minutes ago, Lancaster Rover said:

As daft as it sounds Lenihan is probably the only defender we have who enjoys a tackle. Mulgrew is good at reading the game so stops a lot of danger before a tackle is needed however tackling isn't his strong suit. Nyambe is athletic but again, not a natural tackler and whilst he has improved a great deal this year he still doesn't use his physical attributes as well as he should/could, he's too nice. Williams doesn't make many tackles and certainly isn't physically imposing. Bell defended well against Walsall when required but has the speed to be able to get himself out of most situations without requiring a tackle. Downing is a bit of a lump, puts himself about but isn't the best. Lenihan is the only player you'd be worried about him coming through the back of you or giving you a kick, the others whilst good players don't really have an aggressive or nasty bone between them.

He probably played GAA. 90%of which is hitting your man off the ball. 

[Lancaster Rover]

24 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

He probably played GAA. 90%of which is hitting your man off the ball. 

Aye, he's from Meath isn't he? Chances are he'll be big into GAA if so

[Dreams of 1995]

1 hour ago, Lancaster Rover said:

As daft as it sounds Lenihan is probably the only defender we have who enjoys a tackle. Mulgrew is good at reading the game so stops a lot of danger before a tackle is needed however tackling isn't his strong suit. Nyambe is athletic but again, not a natural tackler and whilst he has improved a great deal this year he still doesn't use his physical attributes as well as he should/could, he's too nice. Williams doesn't make many tackles and certainly isn't physically imposing. Bell defended well against Walsall when required but has the speed to be able to get himself out of most situations without requiring a tackle. Downing is a bit of a lump, puts himself about but isn't the best. Lenihan is the only player you'd be worried about him coming through the back of you or giving you a kick, the others whilst good players don't really have an aggressive or nasty bone between them.

We have lacked this for a long, long time. There were calls to bring in a tough hitting centre back in the summer and we ended up bringing a more conservative type Downing. Don't get me wrong he's been a good signing despite his recent dip in form but the area we lack most in is centre backs. I don't see how Mowbray or his coaching team aren't seeing something most other fans are.

Of course there are some that claim we are more than prepared in that position but then I'd just point them to the "goals against" column for us compared to Wigan and Shrewsbury.

[DE.]

1 hour ago, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

Agreed. I genuinely do think Lenihan will help though. I know we shipped a lot with him last season, but he and Mulgrew can't have started too many together before. He brings physicality, more speed and is a more natural leader, than Downing for me.

It's hard to say at this point. Lenihan has been out of the first team for some time now, and is going to be thrown in with a lot of pressure on his shoulders to perform. There's obviously also the possibility that his injury will relapse or he'll pick up another injury due to his lack of match sharpness, so I don't think we can put too much reliance on the lad. I hope he does come through for us this season, though, as that would be a huge boost for the run in. 

[Butty]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Around 800 travelling.

Superb again, not a new ground/somewhere we've not been for decades either.

That would be more than respectable on a Saturday 3pm down there never mind a Tuesday night!! Huge respect to those making the trip down there, our away support has been absolutely phenomenal this season.

[USABlue]

On 2/10/2018 at 13:23, OnePhilT said:

I'd give Travis a start alongside Smallwood. Travis could really make that second central midfield position his own, because no other player has bothered to grasp that spot this season. Travis has been excellent in his two recent sub appearances, particularly today.

I think we're going to quickly discover that Armstrong is an impact player, and a not a first-teamer. I don't think Toon are going to like that.

I was pondering that one, wondered what others thought of it.

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, Lancaster Rover said:

Aye, he's from Meath isn't he? Chances are he'll be big into GAA if so

Gaelic football in that county. He has the head of a gaa player anyway...

[USABlue]

8 hours ago, Stuart said:

Exactly as I saw it.

The number of times the overlapping run was on into the corner/final third and he just didn’t or couldn’t see it.

Play players in their best positions only - except for in an injury crisis.

Seems like a no brainer, for everyone except the boss.

[arbitro]

3 hours ago, BlackburnEnd75 said:

Completely disagree about this. We haven't been keeping clean sheets with 4 at the back anyway. 

The goals we tend to concede are from set pieces and on the counter attack. I think a back 3  could help solve the problem we have on the break especially at home. With the way we play at the moment the full backs bomb on for width and the two wide men either push up or float further forward so we essentially have the two cb's and the 2 cm's so when a team breaks out theres too much space to move into for their forwards they've always got an outlet, they just have to pull out into the fullback slots.

I also think it could stop us being so Rigid in our build up play, its a more fluid system and if done right we should be able to move the ball around a bit more freely, the width we get is starting higher up the pitch and that'll spread the pitch more and if we press like we should then we can really assert ourselves om the opposition. 

It suits a lot of our players too. Mulgrew in the middle of the 3 can sweep and bring the ball out and ideally has pace either side so isn't as exposed. It suits Williams, possibly Lenihan, possibly Nyambe, Travis, Bell, Graham (When people get around he is very good at bringing them), Armstrong and Antonnson can play through the middle, Payne, is a better way of getting Payne and Dack both in the team. Bennett would suit playing right wing back more than he would a right winger in a 4-2-3-1.

Obviously when we last tried this from the start against Doncaster it was a complete disaster. But the squad has changed a bit since then, for a start we didnt have any wing backs last time which made it a back 5. Ward couldn't play it out from the back, Whittingham and bennett as the two behind the striker who dropped very deep to get the ball completely isolating Graham who was isolated and essentially gave up. 

I've never advocated us playing a back 3 until recently but I think its time to give it a go especially at home. Maybe 4-2-3-1 is still the way to go away but good teams now are able to switch systems regularly. But we don't have the right players to be effective in a 4-4-2 so I don't why some people are advocating it on here. Play the hand we've been dealt.

 

Your point about conceding goals from set plays is valid although I don't believe this is anything to do with systems but more to do with the lack of any real aerial dominance we are clearly lacking. We need to start winning games and the best chance in my opinion is keeping clean sheets. It's not easy but to give ourselves a chance we have to be more solid and two banks of four gives us a platform to do this. The conceding of goals from breakaways is down to a lack of organisation as well as individual errors. Even on Saturday when we had equalised we got caught a couple of times two v two as they broke. Perhaps Lenihan could play a holding role with Smallwood or Evans. It's pretty basic but there should always be a spare man or two to counter this.

By the way we seemed to have stopped conceding from corners by employing a simple tactic. Don't give too many away in the first place ?.

[USABlue]

7 hours ago, JacknOry said:

Smallwood seems too concerned about being booked and it has seemingly affected how he plays. Just get booked and get it out of the way. We have players that can cover for him.

Have to agree, get it out if the way, rest him a couple and send him back fresh after a diet of raw meat.