BARNET 2 CITY 2 (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Listened to game ont wireless. Commentators were saying the players looked tired in last 20 minutes or so. The same thing happened against Burton last week and they havent played a game in midweek. Blimey, whats going on? Isn't weatherall supposed to be coach? They should be fit enough to play for 90 minutes.

We have conceded 15 goals this season and 12 of them have been in the 2nd half (most in last 30 mins). We have only conceded 3 goals in 1st half and all 3 were against Notts County. I think this says something about the players fitness.

Just as I previously predicted, City would come away from Barnet with a hard fought deserved draw. They've a few players carrying knocks, so they're not playing at 100% for the full 90 minutes. This will set up City just nicely next week, where I am predicting City to come away with all three points. Come On You Bantams!

good point today should have had three on top 90% today .Their second should never have been flynn elbowed in build up to it right in front of the ref but he missed it disgrace yet again from ref & linesman he needs his eyes testing as well

mrshower wrote:
Listened to game ont wireless. Commentators were saying the players looked tired in last 20 minutes or so. The same thing happened against Burton last week and they havent played a game in midweek. Blimey, whats going on? Isn't weatherall supposed to be coach? They should be fit enough to play for 90 minutes.

Two things I have wrong with this.

1) Surely the fitness of the player ultimatley lies with the player. Yes the club do the training programmes, but it it upto the player to put it in every session, THEN do his own training when they are away from the team. All professional sides expect playes to do a certain amount of training in their own time.

2) If the team are looking jaded in the last 20 - 30 mins why is the manager not changing things up and bringing his subs on? The only change today was cause Ramsden was crocked.

Not going down the avenue of slagging McCall off, but at the end of the day, if the players are not cutting it - who is going to change it?

mrshower wrote:
Listened to game ont wireless. Commentators were saying the players looked tired in last 20 minutes or so. The same thing happened against Burton last week and they havent played a game in midweek. Blimey, whats going on? Isn't weatherall supposed to be coach? They should be fit enough to play for 90 minutes.

we sacked the fitness coach and you get what you pay for they say. We are looking tired in patches. I know they are different sports but perhaps we should share the fitness costs with the bulls on the aerobic side that is. It might seem a strange thing to say but the costs would obviously be halfed and players don't train all day every day. Just a thought. It is late though.

dannbradfc wrote:

mrshower wrote: Listened to game ont wireless. Commentators were saying the players looked tired in last 20 minutes or so. The same thing happened against Burton last week and they havent played a game in midweek. Blimey, whats going on? Isn't weatherall supposed to be coach? They should be fit enough to play for 90 minutes.

we sacked the fitness coach and you get what you pay for they say. We are looking tired in patches. I know they are different sports but perhaps we should share the fitness costs with the bulls on the aerobic side that is. It might seem a strange thing to say but the costs would obviously be halfed and players don't train all day every day. Just a thought. It is late though.

At this level do you really need to employ a fitness coach?
McCall, Jacobs and Wetherall have all played at the top level, and would surely be able to use some of the techniques they used in their playing times.
Fair enough if you are talking about dieticians or physiotherapy, but being able to get fit should be understandable to the players and the management.

Watch both goals conceded. The first Rehman is caught out back pedalling. But more disappointing is the second for me. Williams does his job but gets dragged out then the ball comes in and its a free header from an umarked midfielder you then see Flynn behind the scorer. I said a few weeks ago that Flynn is not so keen on the back-tracking and tends to follow/jog behind the man in the hope the balll does'nt go near him. Yes i've heard he was elbowed in the build up but there was plenty of time to get back and he should be goal side. Don't just wanna keep singling him out as otherwise he is a good player albeit not fit enough like a few of the players. Can't tell whether its the fact that we are doing so much work closing down etc that we are tiring or whetehr it is actual lack of fitness full-stop. We definately tire towards the end. The once part-timers have legit excuses as they adjust to been full-time the rest need to take responsibility for their personal fitness. Hope it improves in the next few games as i am enjoying the season and the unbeaten run continues

come on city

Ps any word on Daley yet? Can't wait to see him back and what difference he will make and how the new lads will play alongside him.

valleyofshame wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

mrshower wrote: Listened to game ont wireless. Commentators were saying the players looked tired in last 20 minutes or so. The same thing happened against Burton last week and they havent played a game in midweek. Blimey, whats going on? Isn't weatherall supposed to be coach? They should be fit enough to play for 90 minutes.

we sacked the fitness coach and you get what you pay for they say. We are looking tired in patches. I know they are different sports but perhaps we should share the fitness costs with the bulls on the aerobic side that is. It might seem a strange thing to say but the costs would obviously be halfed and players don't train all day every day. Just a thought. It is late though.

At this level do you really need to employ a fitness coach? McCall, Jacobs and Wetherall have all played at the top level, and would surely be able to use some of the techniques they used in their playing times. Fair enough if you are talking about dieticians or physiotherapy, but being able to get fit should be understandable to the players and the management.

i totally agree but there is something not quite right and the specialists have tests and such like which are monitored. Apperley bridge has never helped the situation neither, whatever they say its not the greatest training ground.

are we analysing saturdays game in a bit too much detail? would it be easier to say the keeper is useless? a bit of a hollywood dive for one goal and coming for a none existant punch for the other. how much confidence do the defence have in him? cant be much. back from whence you came lad, we're not here to break keepers in for the numpties

Overall a very good result in the grand scheme of things although we seemed to have a lot of chances to kill the game off. Well done City. Stuart, keep up the unbeaten run!

I honestly claim little association with those intent on decrying the effort and determination of a team that utterly outplayed Barnet for all but a couple of patches in the second half. Absolutely two points lost.

Unfortunately, those patches brought two equalisers. Barnet got the rub of the green, the ball sitting up nicely and largely against the run of play. I'm not convinced that the looping O'Flynn header was intentional and with equally dished out fortune, we'd have been four up at half time. As it was, we got a point away from home and Barnet will be the most relieved to come away with anything.

Altogether, the midfield looked commanding and with great support from LO'B. Well taken goal by the skipper and Hanson/Evans never stopped.

Lest we forget, this is Division 4 and the quality of player is such that mistakes and lack of composure on the ball will happen. I'll happily pay to see that with ample drive and commitment. And what's this 'Players tired in the last 20 minutes'? I can't remember seeing us play with that much energy and movement. And don't forget we were playing up a bloody great hill in the second half. Nielson's counter runs from halfway in the last fifteen minutes do not suggest a tired team, especially when Hanson was up there on the square.

Just a little snipe too, but as lame a game from the City away faithful I've not seen in many a year. Delia Smith would have given birth to a shelf full of pasties on that performance. Need drummer boys back...

All round good performances but my MOM was Hanson, with LO'B closely following. Always room for improvement, but at last we are starting to look like a team of Stuart McCalls.

38 games to go plenty of time plenty of points to pick up

mrshower wrote:
Listened to game ont wireless. Commentators were saying the players looked tired in last 20 minutes or so. The same thing happened against Burton last week and they havent played a game in midweek. Blimey, whats going on? Isn't weatherall supposed to be coach? They should be fit enough to play for 90 minutes.

I think your point is worth noting and maybe the reasons for this being analysed by the support staff down at VP (who knows, it may be down to tactical changes made by opponents that have resulted in so many goals being conceeded in the 2nd half of games). On the positive side I think that it is refereshing that City players are working so hard that they are starting to tire towards the end of games. If this type of work rate continues during each game the fitness of the players will improve. The players SHOULD be feeling like they have given everything physically after a game. Fitness training is about building up the players for competition but can result in over training -or if you like, under resting- if not done carefully and methodically. A number of the City players, like many footballers, have suffered slight strains and injuries etc. which also interferes with a consistant fitness regime. These may or may not be reasons why the players are -if indeed they are- 'tired' near the end of matches. However, the results and effort put in by the players at the moment should be acknowledged and appreciated by all fans. (sec word: work-more! lol)

dannbradfc wrote:

mrshower wrote: Listened to game ont wireless. Commentators were saying the players looked tired in last 20 minutes or so. The same thing happened against Burton last week and they havent played a game in midweek. Blimey, whats going on? Isn't weatherall supposed to be coach? They should be fit enough to play for 90 minutes.

we sacked the fitness coach and you get what you pay for they say. We are looking tired in patches. I know they are different sports but perhaps we should share the fitness costs with the bulls on the aerobic side that is. It might seem a strange thing to say but the costs would obviously be halfed and players don't train all day every day. Just a thought. It is late though.

I don't think your idea is 'strange' at all. However, individual players and different players would require individual training programmes to suit the aerobic/anaerobic requirements of the role they are required to play in the game. I remember when City were in the premier league and Carbone had his own personal 'fitness coach' . This bloke took over part of the training down at Apperley Bridge and what an amateurish performance that was: he set up cones for 'shuttle-runs' without having measured the distance between them and then proceded to pretend to take a mental note of the times of ALL the individual players. I understand a 'fitness coach' has volunteered to help-out at VP voluntarily and I think that is great news.

City played very well, an encouraging performance. Let's face it, Barnet deserved nothing from this game and will count themselves lucky to have got a point!

keefluarr wrote:
I honestly claim little association with those intent on decrying the effort and determination of a team that utterly outplayed Barnet for all but a couple of patches in the second half. Absolutely two points lost. Unfortunately, those patches brought two equalisers. Barnet got the rub of the green, the ball sitting up nicely and largely against the run of play. I'm not convinced that the looping O'Flynn header was intentional and with equally dished out fortune, we'd have been four up at half time. As it was, we got a point away from home and Barnet will be the most relieved to come away with anything. Altogether, the midfield looked commanding and with great support from LO'B. Well taken goal by the skipper and Hanson/Evans never stopped. Lest we forget, this is Division 4 and the quality of player is such that mistakes and lack of composure on the ball will happen. I'll happily pay to see that with ample drive and commitment. And what's this 'Players tired in the last 20 minutes'? I can't remember seeing us play with that much energy and movement. And don't forget we were playing up a bloody great hill in the second half. Nielson's counter runs from halfway in the last fifteen minutes do not suggest a tired team, especially when Hanson was up there on the square. Just a little snipe too, but as lame a game from the City away faithful I've not seen in many a year. Delia Smith would have given birth to a shelf full of pasties on that performance. Need drummer boys back... All round good performances but my MOM was Hanson, with LO'B closely following. Always room for improvement, but at last we are starting to look like a team of Stuart McCalls.

I wasn't at this game but the commentary on the radio did state a few times that we were looking tired. I've noticed this at other games too but i agree with another poster that i would rather see this knowing that the team had put in the effort. That said do you not think that Flynn for instance was 'top heavy' when he arrived and is still not up to getting up and down the npitch has we would like. Flynn is a good player particularly at this level but i just get the feeling that he could be even better with the correct fitness levels. As i've said the non-leaguers are just getting used to full-time football and will grow stronger in time. Overall all though these are just small areas that could possibly improved to make the season even more enjoyable for all of us

Although i agree that Flynn doesn't look fit enough i'm not too concerned with the whole teams fitness in general.When Stuart says we don't have the ability we had last season he is correct, but this team more than makes up for that with hard graft and sweat,this will leave us looking tired against some better teams late on.Look at how much more work Hanson and Evans do compared to Boulding and Thorne,even Flynn puts in more than McClaren ever did!!! In fact i would say collectively this teams runs a half marathon more than last seasons each game.This does not help when at Cheltenham where the ref added an extra 8 mins at the end and on Sat where the first half alone nearly 8 mins were added alone.Does evereyone realise that Barnet didin't muster a single shot for the entitre first half even with the slope in our favour it was a tremendous achievement and can only be achieved with hard work.So we tire but as this team grows most teams will be well beaten by half time and i for one can only see positive times ahead.Another thing ,although never a big Daley fan, i can see what he will bring to our team and that can only help as this team tires to have someone who can take the ball down the other end in 30 seconds relieving the pressure on the defence in the process defensively as important as his attacking

Surely it is churlish to suggest that we ran out of steam and lost two points.

this result against a strong team is far better than last year's result and we played with a much younger inexperienced team.

In fact this may well be seen, as the season progresses, as an excellent result against a team which will be there or thereabouts.

Congratulations to the squad. As people know I am not a great fan of SMs managerial skills but, I believe, he is getting better and long may it continue.

I hope the board will find some money for him to strengthen maybe with another loan player in midfield or upfront: those funds could be generated by off loading a few of our fringe players on loan.

did anyone notice that Jon Shaw has been shipped out to Barrow by Rochdale and he is scoring again. I honestly believe that he may be a good addition to our squad.

This is definitely 1 point gained as opposed to 2 points dropped. As Zesh said on Saturday, this is a game we would have lost last season, but the never-say-die attitiude helped us collect a valuable point.

However, I have 2 issues to make which agrees/disagrees with views above. Firstly, I agree with those that state we tired in the 2nd half again. I hear the arguments that we were playing up the slope, but we don't have a slope at VP and we ran out of steam last time out too.

I understand this is due to the extra work put in when closing down opponents, but McCall MUST replace players that are flagging. What is the point in having a bench if he isn't going to use it? On Saturday, both Flynn and J O'Brien looked tired, but did McCall replace either with Brandon for the last 20-25 minutes? He could also have used Boulding when the 2 lads up front had tired, or even Osbourne. The only change he made was enforced, when Ramsden took a hefty challenge and had to be replaced by Bateson. This is one area that still lets McCall down.

The other point I want to make is regarding our defending. Having had opportunity to watch the goals again, I cannot help thinking that Rehman was at fault for both. Their first equaliser was a free-header, when Rehman just stood off the attacker and allowed him to head unopposed. Then for their 2nd goal, Williams was tracking their player (Adomah) and forced him wide. However, Rehman also went across, failed to cut out the ball and their player had an easy chance with no defenders anywhere near him. Bully was on the line, but could do nothing. Why did Rehman go to the ball, leaving a striker free in the middle?

Is it a case of tired legs = tired minds?

waynus71 wrote:
This is definitely 1 point gained as opposed to 2 points dropped. As Zesh said on Saturday, this is a game we would have lost last season, but the never-say-die attitiude helped us collect a valuable point. However, I have 2 issues to make which agrees/disagrees with views above. Firstly, I agree with those that state we tired in the 2nd half again. I hear the arguments that we were playing up the slope, but we don't have a slope at VP and we ran out of steam last time out too. I understand this is due to the extra work put in when closing down opponents, but McCall MUST replace players that are flagging. What is the point in having a bench if he isn't going to use it? On Saturday, both Flynn and J O'Brien looked tired, but did McCall replace either with Brandon for the last 20-25 minutes? He could also have used Boulding when the 2 lads up front had tired, or even Osbourne. The only change he made was enforced, when Ramsden took a hefty challenge and had to be replaced by Bateson. This is one area that still lets McCall down. The other point I want to make is regarding our defending. Having had opportunity to watch the goals again, I cannot help thinking that Rehman was at fault for both. Their first equaliser was a free-header, when Rehman just stood off the attacker and allowed him to head unopposed. Then for their 2nd goal, Williams was tracking their player (Adomah) and forced him wide. However, Rehman also went across, failed to cut out the ball and their player had an easy chance with no defenders anywhere near him. Bully was on the line, but could do nothing. Why did Rehman go to the ball, leaving a striker free in the middle? Is it a case of tired legs = tired minds?

physically tiredness reduces mental alertness :of that there is no doubt.

I thougt SM had said his players would be on personal fitness regimes and that these would be monitored.

Notwithstanding that I do think that playing and training on the flat fields without strong gym work could be improved upon say with several running stints on the hills of Northcliffe.

tyker wrote:

waynus71 wrote: This is definitely 1 point gained as opposed to 2 points dropped. As Zesh said on Saturday, this is a game we would have lost last season, but the never-say-die attitiude helped us collect a valuable point. However, I have 2 issues to make which agrees/disagrees with views above. Firstly, I agree with those that state we tired in the 2nd half again. I hear the arguments that we were playing up the slope, but we don't have a slope at VP and we ran out of steam last time out too. I understand this is due to the extra work put in when closing down opponents, but McCall MUST replace players that are flagging. What is the point in having a bench if he isn't going to use it? On Saturday, both Flynn and J O'Brien looked tired, but did McCall replace either with Brandon for the last 20-25 minutes? He could also have used Boulding when the 2 lads up front had tired, or even Osbourne. The only change he made was enforced, when Ramsden took a hefty challenge and had to be replaced by Bateson. This is one area that still lets McCall down. The other point I want to make is regarding our defending. Having had opportunity to watch the goals again, I cannot help thinking that Rehman was at fault for both. Their first equaliser was a free-header, when Rehman just stood off the attacker and allowed him to head unopposed. Then for their 2nd goal, Williams was tracking their player (Adomah) and forced him wide. However, Rehman also went across, failed to cut out the ball and their player had an easy chance with no defenders anywhere near him. Bully was on the line, but could do nothing. Why did Rehman go to the ball, leaving a striker free in the middle? Is it a case of tired legs = tired minds?

physically tiredness reduces mental alertness :of that there is no doubt. I thougt SM had said his players would be on personal fitness regimes and that these would be monitored. Notwithstanding that I do think that playing and training on the flat fields without strong gym work could be improved upon say with several running stints on the hills of Northcliffe.

When you are closing down opponents all the time and never stop running, it is bound to take more out of you. As others have said, I am pleased to see players run themselves into the ground and use all the energy they have. My problem is that we should be utilising our subs more when this happens. what is the point of having players run themselves ragged and almost fit to drop when we have fit, energetic lads on the bench with energy to waste?

McCall has improved in some areas this season. However his substitutions or lack of them still concerns me.

Anyone want a toffee?

waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote:

waynus71 wrote: This is definitely 1 point gained as opposed to 2 points dropped. As Zesh said on Saturday, this is a game we would have lost last season, but the never-say-die attitiude helped us collect a valuable point. However, I have 2 issues to make which agrees/disagrees with views above. Firstly, I agree with those that state we tired in the 2nd half again. I hear the arguments that we were playing up the slope, but we don't have a slope at VP and we ran out of steam last time out too. I understand this is due to the extra work put in when closing down opponents, but McCall MUST replace players that are flagging. What is the point in having a bench if he isn't going to use it? On Saturday, both Flynn and J O'Brien looked tired, but did McCall replace either with Brandon for the last 20-25 minutes? He could also have used Boulding when the 2 lads up front had tired, or even Osbourne. The only change he made was enforced, when Ramsden took a hefty challenge and had to be replaced by Bateson. This is one area that still lets McCall down. The other point I want to make is regarding our defending. Having had opportunity to watch the goals again, I cannot help thinking that Rehman was at fault for both. Their first equaliser was a free-header, when Rehman just stood off the attacker and allowed him to head unopposed. Then for their 2nd goal, Williams was tracking their player (Adomah) and forced him wide. However, Rehman also went across, failed to cut out the ball and their player had an easy chance with no defenders anywhere near him. Bully was on the line, but could do nothing. Why did Rehman go to the ball, leaving a striker free in the middle? Is it a case of tired legs = tired minds?

physically tiredness reduces mental alertness :of that there is no doubt. I thougt SM had said his players would be on personal fitness regimes and that these would be monitored. Notwithstanding that I do think that playing and training on the flat fields without strong gym work could be improved upon say with several running stints on the hills of Northcliffe.

When you are closing down opponents all the time and never stop running, it is bound to take more out of you. As others have said, I am pleased to see players run themselves into the ground and use all the energy they have. My problem is that we should be utilising our subs more when this happens. what is the point of having players run themselves ragged and almost fit to drop when we have fit, energetic lads on the bench with energy to waste? McCall has improved in some areas this season. However his substitutions or lack of them still concerns me. Anyone want a toffee?

yes I was very surprised to see that the subs were not used other than for the injury: why was that,

The midfield players, especially Flynn, has not got too many game sunder their belt, and could have been replaced.

However the point represents an improvement and there are signs that SM is getting ateam worthy of a cahllenge for promotion.

May be now is the time to off load some of the reserves and try get someone in who will give some competion for places.

waynus71 wrote:
This is definitely 1 point gained as opposed to 2 points dropped. As Zesh said on Saturday, this is a game we would have lost last season, but the never-say-die attitiude helped us collect a valuable point. However, I have 2 issues to make which agrees/disagrees with views above. Firstly, I agree with those that state we tired in the 2nd half again. I hear the arguments that we were playing up the slope, but we don't have a slope at VP and we ran out of steam last time out too. I understand this is due to the extra work put in when closing down opponents, but McCall MUST replace players that are flagging. What is the point in having a bench if he isn't going to use it? On Saturday, both Flynn and J O'Brien looked tired, but did McCall replace either with Brandon for the last 20-25 minutes? He could also have used Boulding when the 2 lads up front had tired, or even Osbourne. The only change he made was enforced, when Ramsden took a hefty challenge and had to be replaced by Bateson. This is one area that still lets McCall down. The other point I want to make is regarding our defending. Having had opportunity to watch the goals again, I cannot help thinking that Rehman was at fault for both. Their first equaliser was a free-header, when Rehman just stood off the attacker and allowed him to head unopposed. Then for their 2nd goal, Williams was tracking their player (Adomah) and forced him wide. However, Rehman also went across, failed to cut out the ball and their player had an easy chance with no defenders anywhere near him. Bully was on the line, but could do nothing. Why did Rehman go to the ball, leaving a striker free in the middle? Is it a case of tired legs = tired minds?

I have looked at the clip of Barnet's goals and can't find Zesh at fault for the 2nd goal. First of all he covers Williams, the ball is then to Zesh's left and he then covers O'Brien. When the ball is played past O'Brien he goes to close down the player with the ball, at this stage Williams is 'ball-watching' and the centre of our 18 yd box is left to an unmarked Barnet player. If Williams had looked around to see who should be picked up if the ball was played into the box he MAY have been able to challenge the goal-scorer however, as I say, he got caught ball-watching. Anyway, an excellent result.

lonniejockstrap wrote:

waynus71 wrote: This is definitely 1 point gained as opposed to 2 points dropped. As Zesh said on Saturday, this is a game we would have lost last season, but the never-say-die attitiude helped us collect a valuable point. However, I have 2 issues to make which agrees/disagrees with views above. Firstly, I agree with those that state we tired in the 2nd half again. I hear the arguments that we were playing up the slope, but we don't have a slope at VP and we ran out of steam last time out too. I understand this is due to the extra work put in when closing down opponents, but McCall MUST replace players that are flagging. What is the point in having a bench if he isn't going to use it? On Saturday, both Flynn and J O'Brien looked tired, but did McCall replace either with Brandon for the last 20-25 minutes? He could also have used Boulding when the 2 lads up front had tired, or even Osbourne. The only change he made was enforced, when Ramsden took a hefty challenge and had to be replaced by Bateson. This is one area that still lets McCall down. The other point I want to make is regarding our defending. Having had opportunity to watch the goals again, I cannot help thinking that Rehman was at fault for both. Their first equaliser was a free-header, when Rehman just stood off the attacker and allowed him to head unopposed. Then for their 2nd goal, Williams was tracking their player (Adomah) and forced him wide. However, Rehman also went across, failed to cut out the ball and their player had an easy chance with no defenders anywhere near him. Bully was on the line, but could do nothing. Why did Rehman go to the ball, leaving a striker free in the middle? Is it a case of tired legs = tired minds?

I have looked at the clip of Barnet's goals and can't find Zesh at fault for the 2nd goal. First of all he covers Williams, the ball is then to Zesh's left and he then covers O'Brien. When the ball is played past O'Brien he goes to close down the player with the ball, at this stage Williams is 'ball-watching' and the centre of our 18 yd box is left to an unmarked Barnet player. If Williams had looked around to see who should be picked up if the ball was played into the box he MAY have been able to challenge the goal-scorer however, as I say, he got caught ball-watching. Anyway, an excellent result.

Forgot to say that the goal scorer was not tracked back by Flynn -who was the nearest player to him- a point picked up as a weakness of Flynn a number of times by dannbradfc.

lonniejockstrap wrote:

waynus71 wrote: This is definitely 1 point gained as opposed to 2 points dropped. As Zesh said on Saturday, this is a game we would have lost last season, but the never-say-die attitiude helped us collect a valuable point. However, I have 2 issues to make which agrees/disagrees with views above. Firstly, I agree with those that state we tired in the 2nd half again. I hear the arguments that we were playing up the slope, but we don't have a slope at VP and we ran out of steam last time out too. I understand this is due to the extra work put in when closing down opponents, but McCall MUST replace players that are flagging. What is the point in having a bench if he isn't going to use it? On Saturday, both Flynn and J O'Brien looked tired, but did McCall replace either with Brandon for the last 20-25 minutes? He could also have used Boulding when the 2 lads up front had tired, or even Osbourne. The only change he made was enforced, when Ramsden took a hefty challenge and had to be replaced by Bateson. This is one area that still lets McCall down. The other point I want to make is regarding our defending. Having had opportunity to watch the goals again, I cannot help thinking that Rehman was at fault for both. Their first equaliser was a free-header, when Rehman just stood off the attacker and allowed him to head unopposed. Then for their 2nd goal, Williams was tracking their player (Adomah) and forced him wide. However, Rehman also went across, failed to cut out the ball and their player had an easy chance with no defenders anywhere near him. Bully was on the line, but could do nothing. Why did Rehman go to the ball, leaving a striker free in the middle? Is it a case of tired legs = tired minds?

I have looked at the clip of Barnet's goals and can't find Zesh at fault for the 2nd goal. First of all he covers Williams, the ball is then to Zesh's left and he then covers O'Brien. When the ball is played past O'Brien he goes to close down the player with the ball, at this stage Williams is 'ball-watching' and the centre of our 18 yd box is left to an unmarked Barnet player. If Williams had looked around to see who should be picked up if the ball was played into the box he MAY have been able to challenge the goal-scorer however, as I say, he got caught ball-watching. Anyway, an excellent result.

I understand what you are saying and I am not saying Williams or Flynn were not also at fault. However, as you allude to above, you cannot just go around following the ball and 'covering' every other player. The fact that he left 'his man' to cover, firstly Williams and then O'Brien is poor defending in my eyes. He failed to cut out the cross, resulting in 'his man' being left unmarked. You are taught, at all levels of football, that you don't just chase after the ball and that you mark your player, unless you know you can clear the danger by leaving your marker. The fact that he left the player nearest to him, to go chasing the ball (or covering as you describe it) and then failing to cut out the cross, leaving a hole where he had just gone from, means he was at fault.

Can you agree he WAS as fault for the first goal or am I just being too harsh on him.

waynus71 wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:

waynus71 wrote: This is definitely 1 point gained as opposed to 2 points dropped. As Zesh said on Saturday, this is a game we would have lost last season, but the never-say-die attitiude helped us collect a valuable point. However, I have 2 issues to make which agrees/disagrees with views above. Firstly, I agree with those that state we tired in the 2nd half again. I hear the arguments that we were playing up the slope, but we don't have a slope at VP and we ran out of steam last time out too. I understand this is due to the extra work put in when closing down opponents, but McCall MUST replace players that are flagging. What is the point in having a bench if he isn't going to use it? On Saturday, both Flynn and J O'Brien looked tired, but did McCall replace either with Brandon for the last 20-25 minutes? He could also have used Boulding when the 2 lads up front had tired, or even Osbourne. The only change he made was enforced, when Ramsden took a hefty challenge and had to be replaced by Bateson. This is one area that still lets McCall down. The other point I want to make is regarding our defending. Having had opportunity to watch the goals again, I cannot help thinking that Rehman was at fault for both. Their first equaliser was a free-header, when Rehman just stood off the attacker and allowed him to head unopposed. Then for their 2nd goal, Williams was tracking their player (Adomah) and forced him wide. However, Rehman also went across, failed to cut out the ball and their player had an easy chance with no defenders anywhere near him. Bully was on the line, but could do nothing. Why did Rehman go to the ball, leaving a striker free in the middle? Is it a case of tired legs = tired minds?

I have looked at the clip of Barnet's goals and can't find Zesh at fault for the 2nd goal. First of all he covers Williams, the ball is then to Zesh's left and he then covers O'Brien. When the ball is played past O'Brien he goes to close down the player with the ball, at this stage Williams is 'ball-watching' and the centre of our 18 yd box is left to an unmarked Barnet player. If Williams had looked around to see who should be picked up if the ball was played into the box he MAY have been able to challenge the goal-scorer however, as I say, he got caught ball-watching. Anyway, an excellent result.

I understand what you are saying and I am not saying Williams or Flynn were not also at fault. However, as you allude to above, you cannot just go around following the ball and 'covering' every other player. The fact that he left 'his man' to cover, firstly Williams and then O'Brien is poor defending in my eyes. He failed to cut out the cross, resulting in 'his man' being left unmarked. You are taught, at all levels of football, that you don't just chase after the ball and that you mark your player, unless you know you can clear the danger by leaving your marker. The fact that he left the player nearest to him, to go chasing the ball (or covering as you describe it) and then failing to cut out the cross, leaving a hole where he had just gone from, means he was at fault. Can you agree he WAS as fault for the first goal or am I just being too harsh on him.

As you are now agreeing that OTHER players were at fault for the 2nd goal I would only add to my view above by saying that Zesh didn't have a player to mark and therefore didn't 'leave the player nearest to him', maybe you are confusing him with Williams allowing Adomah to move off toward goal 'unmarked'? -are we looking at the same video waynus?. It could be argued by some that Zesh should have stayed in the center of the 18 yd area because that is his position? but if he had done that on this occasion it would have been a '2-on-1' situation against O'B and the player who crossed the ball for their 2nd goal would have been on for a shot on goal himself, from inside the box!. So IMO Zesh made the correct decision. He wasn't able to stop the ball being cut-back but he did close down quickly and looked to be attempting to block any cross aimed across the 6 yd box -SOME-YOU-WIN, SOME-YOU-LOSE. As far as the 1st goal and Zesh's quota of blame, IMO he could have done better in that I would have expected to see their player being challenged for the ball in the air. The ball was hit a fair distance and was in the air long enough and close enough to our goal -the edge of the 6 yd box- to also possibly expect the Goalkeeper to challenge and collect or punch the ball. Therefore, if you are suggesting he and he alone was to 'blame' for the 1st goal, I would have to say IMO I do think you are being a little harsh. I could find 'FAULT' with every player in the City Team -had I the mind to do it- and simply criticise without consideration of what part OTHER players have contributed to the 'coup de grace'. It dosn't seem fair to me to name one player for being 'partly'? to blame for a goal and yet not naming others who could be found wanting during the event!. Oh well, I suppose that now Clarke is not playing 1st Team football at the moment, another individual will have to take on the role of scapegoat.

lonniejockstrap wrote:

waynus71 wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:

waynus71 wrote: This is definitely 1 point gained as opposed to 2 points dropped. As Zesh said on Saturday, this is a game we would have lost last season, but the never-say-die attitiude helped us collect a valuable point. However, I have 2 issues to make which agrees/disagrees with views above. Firstly, I agree with those that state we tired in the 2nd half again. I hear the arguments that we were playing up the slope, but we don't have a slope at VP and we ran out of steam last time out too. I understand this is due to the extra work put in when closing down opponents, but McCall MUST replace players that are flagging. What is the point in having a bench if he isn't going to use it? On Saturday, both Flynn and J O'Brien looked tired, but did McCall replace either with Brandon for the last 20-25 minutes? He could also have used Boulding when the 2 lads up front had tired, or even Osbourne. The only change he made was enforced, when Ramsden took a hefty challenge and had to be replaced by Bateson. This is one area that still lets McCall down. The other point I want to make is regarding our defending. Having had opportunity to watch the goals again, I cannot help thinking that Rehman was at fault for both. Their first equaliser was a free-header, when Rehman just stood off the attacker and allowed him to head unopposed. Then for their 2nd goal, Williams was tracking their player (Adomah) and forced him wide. However, Rehman also went across, failed to cut out the ball and their player had an easy chance with no defenders anywhere near him. Bully was on the line, but could do nothing. Why did Rehman go to the ball, leaving a striker free in the middle? Is it a case of tired legs = tired minds?

I have looked at the clip of Barnet's goals and can't find Zesh at fault for the 2nd goal. First of all he covers Williams, the ball is then to Zesh's left and he then covers O'Brien. When the ball is played past O'Brien he goes to close down the player with the ball, at this stage Williams is 'ball-watching' and the centre of our 18 yd box is left to an unmarked Barnet player. If Williams had looked around to see who should be picked up if the ball was played into the box he MAY have been able to challenge the goal-scorer however, as I say, he got caught ball-watching. Anyway, an excellent result.

I understand what you are saying and I am not saying Williams or Flynn were not also at fault. However, as you allude to above, you cannot just go around following the ball and 'covering' every other player. The fact that he left 'his man' to cover, firstly Williams and then O'Brien is poor defending in my eyes. He failed to cut out the cross, resulting in 'his man' being left unmarked. You are taught, at all levels of football, that you don't just chase after the ball and that you mark your player, unless you know you can clear the danger by leaving your marker. The fact that he left the player nearest to him, to go chasing the ball (or covering as you describe it) and then failing to cut out the cross, leaving a hole where he had just gone from, means he was at fault. Can you agree he WAS as fault for the first goal or am I just being too harsh on him.

As you are now agreeing that OTHER players were at fault for the 2nd goal I would only add to my view above by saying that Zesh didn't have a player to mark and therefore didn't 'leave the player nearest to him', maybe you are confusing him with Williams allowing Adomah to move off toward goal 'unmarked'? -are we looking at the same video waynus?. It could be argued by some that Zesh should have stayed in the center of the 18 yd area because that is his position? but if he had done that on this occasion it would have been a '2-on-1' situation against O'B and the player who crossed the ball for their 2nd goal would have been on for a shot on goal himself, from inside the box!. So IMO Zesh made the correct decision. He wasn't able to stop the ball being cut-back but he did close down quickly and looked to be attempting to block any cross aimed across the 6 yd box -SOME-YOU-WIN, SOME-YOU-LOSE. As far as the 1st goal and Zesh's quota of blame, IMO he could have done better in that I would have expected to see their player being challenged for the ball in the air. The ball was hit a fair distance and was in the air long enough and close enough to our goal -the edge of the 6 yd box- to also possibly expect the Goalkeeper to challenge and collect or punch the ball. Therefore, if you are suggesting he and he alone was to 'blame' for the 1st goal, I would have to say IMO I do think you are being a little harsh. I could find 'FAULT' with every player in the City Team -had I the mind to do it- and simply criticise without consideration of what part OTHER players have contributed to the 'coup de grace'. It dosn't seem fair to me to name one player for being 'partly'? to blame for a goal and yet not naming others who could be found wanting during the event!. Oh well, I suppose that now Clarke is not playing 1st Team football at the moment, another individual will have to take on the role of scapegoat.

"Oh well, I suppose that now Clarke is not playing 1st Team football at the moment, another individual will have to take on the role of scapegoat."

Not at all Lonie, I have defended Rehman on several occasions this season. He is not a 'scapegoat', but I do feel his defending of late could be improved.

In relation to the first goal, I cannot agree. The ball was on the corner of the 6 yard box and was never in a position for Eastwood to come and collect. Besides, if the keeper doesn't shout, surely it is down to Rehman to knock it out for a corner and then he can b0ll0ck his keeper for not coming if he believes he should have?

However, having watched the highlights again tonight, I totally agree with you regarding the 2nd goal. Williams in tracking Adomah, loses him and wanders hopelessly in the box. Zesh (not marking anyone) goes across to help O'B and neither stop the cross to an unmarked player who has an easy tap-in. It was, as you rightly pointed out, Williams that had gone out of position and didn't work hard enough to recover his position. Fair play to you.