supporter wrote:I thought yesterday was Coopers best game for us after a nervous start he won the penalty and had a good second half. Neil I've just read your comments about MF tactics and assume at just after 7 yesterday when you wrote them you'd had a couple of beers. Firstly you say something like MF's tactics were off from the start- was this allowing for OB's injury? Secondly you say after 20 minutes you turned to those around you and said he should get Matt on and if he had done this instead of 26 minutes later it would've had a quicker impact, Neil Matt came on a lot earlier than you think-20 minutes plus 26 is either first half injury time or the first minute of the second half. Thirdly you say you would've taken Semenyo off instead of Sheehan thus keeping the shape the same instead of going 3 up front which changed the game. Those Neil are the reasons why your in the stands or on the terrace and MF and his management team are making the big decisions. Andrew Perry.

Yes I still believe that MF got his starting formation totally wrong with Amond and Semenyo up front because they were offering absolutely nothing in holding the ball up , closing down their defence or making runs in behind them . O'Brien going off so early was a huge set back but still after he brought on Cooper the play didn't change as we had nowt up front and the midfield were being overun. Having seen us beat Cambridge away in the cup you could see they struggled with balls played up to a big target man ( Matt played in that game as did Amond. Pace wasn't their problem it was the high ball they struggled with.
As soon as Lambe scored their second goal was the time I would have made the change and brought on Matt...( I would have started with him but as MF chose not to then that was the time) IMO..Form the time the second goal went in and Matt was brought on if Cambridge had scored another goal I believe it could have been as bad as the Yeovil game as we would have gone deeper into our shell and probably conceded a few more. Thats why I believe MF made the wrong starting 11.
I think we were lucky to be given the penalty because even though I believe it was a good a penalty claim as you could get knowing who the ref was I think it was a 50/50 decision that thankfully went in our way.
From that moment on , if we could get an early goal in the second half there was only going to be one winner as Matt was starting to cause their defence all sorts of problems.Thankfully we scored and the rest is history.

Yes I would have taken Semenyo off instead of Sheehan as I didn't believe Semenyo was offering anything. He is fast , can nick a few goals but he doesn't make runs into the channels to offer attacking options , doesn't lose his marker and cant hold the ball up very well

Brave MF ? I honestly believe he realised he had selected the wrong 11 to start the game and needed to get Matt on , that's why he brought him on in the first half even though it was using 2 of his subs so early in the game. He saw that things needed changing but was IMO a little bit cautious in waiting so long. If they had scored in the time between their second goal and the time he came on things may have been completely different.

Nobody on here has mentioned the wonderful save that Townsend made to stop Lambe getting his and Cambridge's third goal when he was clean through one on one. If he hadn't have made the save things could have been a lot harder for us in the last 10 mins or so as Cambridge were getting on top

Show a bit of respect. If it wasn’t for Corky we’d still be in the National League. Don’t you remember JEd changing his tactics / formation after reading Corky’s pearls of wisdom on here back in 2012 ?[/quote]



Thats nice

I dont know why I expect reasonable posts on this board

Neil the change in formation won the game not just bringing Matt on, also bringing a player off just after they scored would've been a knee jerk reaction. MF took his time didn't panic and made the correct substitution and change of formation at the right time.

Christ we won the game .... however the game played out, however the result was gained ..... surely it was proved that MFs decisions were correct?

I thought Cooper did well yesterday after a nervous start. He works tirelessly and always has his head up when receiving a pass. Some of his long range passes were excellent at spreading the play out wide. Of course, some of his passes didn't come off but usually they were risky ones that tried to open up a defence. It was noticeable to me on Sat that he got better as the game went on due to his confidence increasing. I thought he was much more effective than Bakinson on Sat.

Cooper is no more than a squad player at present, but done ok Saturday. Personally, and sadly I think the same can be said for Sheehan, I see him being nothing more than a bit part player this season, once our midfield is fully fit. Given the proficiency of Amond & Matt in the air I see Robbie taking his place for his work rate , crossing ability and his dead ball strengths.

I found it interesting to see Flynn try Sheehan a little deeper vs Chelsea and Cambridge.

I think he gets bullied off the ball too easy higher up the pitch but might be better operating deeper with more time on the ball. Played some nice diagonals and kept the ball moving well vs Chelsea. Problem with playing him deeper would be the need to pair him with someone physical.

supporter wrote:Neil the change in formation won the game not just bringing Matt on, also bringing a player off just after they scored would've been a knee jerk reaction. MF took his time didn't panic and made the correct substitution and change of formation at the right time.

You call it 'knee jerk' , I call it 'reacting to the situation..'..
The next goal was alays going to be the turning point in the game. Hindsight is a wonderful thing...
Thankfully we got the goal and the game swung in our direction. If they had scored it could have been a totally different outcome. As I don' t posses the value of hindsight it is what I believed to be the right call at the time. Those minutes between Matt coming on and their second goal could have been crucial in the result/outcome of the game. Thankfully for us as County fans no further damage was done , the formation was changed and we went on to win the game.
It still hides the fact that IMO MF chose the wrong starting line up for the game..Matt should have started because of the impact on changing the game that he had and the problems Cambridge had in dealing with his height and the ariel attacking threat we had with him on the pitch . That said I am not saying that Matt should play every game because as others have pointed out he struggled against Oldham when we played a totally different game. You chose your team to try and beat the opposition not just because they may be you first choice 11

neilcork68 wrote:

supporter wrote:Neil the change in formation won the game not just bringing Matt on, also bringing a player off just after they scored would've been a knee jerk reaction. MF took his time didn't panic and made the correct substitution and change of formation at the right time.

You call it 'knee jerk' , I call it 'reacting to the situation..'..
The next goal was alays going to be the turning point in the game. Hindsight is a wonderful thing...
Thankfully we got the goal and the game swung in our direction. If they had scored it could have been a totally different outcome. As I don' t posses the value of hindsight it is what I believed to be the right call at the time. Those minutes between Matt coming on and their second goal could have been crucial in the result/outcome of the game. Thankfully for us as County fans no further damage was done , the formation was changed and we went on to win the game.
It still hides the fact that IMO MF chose the wrong starting line up for the game..Matt should have started because of the impact on changing the game that he had and the problems Cambridge had in dealing with his height and the ariel attacking threat we had with him on the pitch . That said I am not saying that Matt should play every game because as others have pointed out he struggled against Oldham when we played a totally different game. You chose your team to try and beat the opposition not just because they may be you first choice 11

If you listen to MF you would know that Matt Is not fully fit, hence he brought him off Tuesday and does not want to rush him. O'Brien going off after 2 minutes undoubtedly upset the equilibrium of the team, how you cannot see that is beyond me.

You can look at that another way.....MF had to put him on for 50 minutes because we were so poor up front on Saturday and were chasing the game....He could have started him , hopefully get a few goals in front then take him off at half time so as to not 'overplay him ' until he is fully fit.
See it works both ways depending on how you look at things


CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT, that is beyond me ?????

See arguments / discussions have two sides Mr Bryant

Neil even if Matt had started it would not have changed the fact that the defence and midfield were changed after 3 minutes causing disruption. The game winning change was the formation and this is why Sheehan came off, you wanted a centre forward off and the same formation, if we'd done that we would probably of lost the game.

supporter wrote:Neil even if Matt had started it would not have changed the fact that the defence and midfield were changed after 3 minutes causing disruption. The game winning change was the formation and this is why Sheehan came off, you wanted a centre forward off and the same formation, if we'd done that we would probably of lost the game.

HINDSIGHT is a wonderful thing , can you not share it about ????

How do you know if Sheehan had stayed on instead of Semenyo with the introduction of Matt the result wouldn't have been the same ?

Its all about opinions. In mine Sheehan was a better option on the day because of the way Semenyo was playing.

That is my last word on the subject because we will never agree on it.. Your views are with hindsight , mine was what I would have done whilst the game was in progress.

Fact is different to hindsight Neil and the fact is the change of formation won the game.

sblair1979 wrote:I found it interesting to see Flynn try Sheehan a little deeper vs Chelsea and Cambridge.

I think he gets bullied off the ball too easy higher up the pitch but might be better operating deeper with more time on the ball. Played some nice diagonals and kept the ball moving well vs Chelsea. Problem with playing him deeper would be the need to pair him with someone physical.

But it wasn't really a case of 'trying Sheehan deeper'. That starting line up was forced upon him because of Dolan's absence. If he (Dolan) had been fit, Sheehan would have probably been on the bench.

As for the suggestion (by someone else) that Sheehan further forward would have been a better starting option than Semenyo, ..... words fail me!

But it wasn't really a case of 'trying Sheehan deeper'. That starting line up was forced upon him because of Dolan's absence. If he had been fit, Sheehan would have probably been on the bench.

As for the suggestion (by someone else) that Sheehan further forward would have been a better starting option than Semenyo, ..... words fail me!

Possibly but he played noticeably deeper vs Chelsea so I wondered if Flynn sees him thriving deeper like Pirlo or Modric.

Agree about Semenyo, he terrorised their right back and I thought he did well wide on the left cutting inside.