that from the number of mildly venomous postings from 'anonymous' sources that somebody either in the team, at the Club or has their own agenda is trying to undermine a couple of people?
Seems there was much to be pleased with in the first half from reports read and peoples comments. Failings in defense are not new and can't be a surprise that team like Boston show them up. Would be nice to see a set formation in two games on the trot for once mind you, players probably can't remember where the hell they are supposed to be. The pendulum has swung back to the deeply negative on here again hasn't it?
The anonymous postings are not from me but from where I stood on Saturday they don't seem wide of the mark. We battled it out fairly well first half but in the second we were a shambles.Yet again lack of quality and worse still lack of fitness were very obvious. I think that it is fair to say that we have not really moved on in the last 7 weeks under BFG and there is much to do - whether he can do it remains open to legitimate debate. As for our exchange about Chris Sharpling a week back he's not getting any closer to scoring and I heard someone ask on Saturday whether this was the longest run by any Woking number 10 without scoring a league goal.
He is clearly a quality player but he doesn't look like scoring - the only player that did on Saturday was Steve Perkins.
I think that Sharpling HAS to be reunited with Charlie Griffin on Boxing Day. Surely that's obvious? Patmore's still out, and for all his effort I really don't think Steve West is a striker that's going to frighten any Conference defences.
I too was baffled as to why Moore was dropped, although I'd agree that he's not been brilliant lately.
What did you think of Webber Buzza? I thought he looked good in the first half, and then in the second half he looked like he was playing several leagues above his level. I'd like to see him again but I'd be worried about chucking him in the deep end on Boxing Day as surely that's (another) must win game?
I agree with everything you have said, perhaps we should form a new managerial partnership, Sisters for Success can be our motto. One further thought do you know if Chris Ingram goes to away games or participates on this board?
Sisters for Success eh? Alright then ...
but would they accept such a radical management team at the football club?
As far as Chris Ingram is concerned I don't know if he goes to away games - I don't know if he's seen this site either. I was too scared to speak to him at the meeting ... how shameful!
can't believe it was 15 league games but he may have been saving himself for West Brom. The man is quite simple the greatest and still knocking them in I see.
The fact that we lost 4-0 or the fact that I'm neither shocked, surprised or angry about it when I should be.
Yes Chris the first half was "better than expected" and actually resulted in us having 4 or 5 decent chances for us to score... However as every minute of the half went by the defending became more and more panicky and the team as a whole got deeper and deeper.
The second half was every bit as shambolic as anything yet seen this season. We created one chance in the second half to their 8 or 9 (at a guess).
I think the important points made are :-
1) Progress. There just plain hasn't been any under Chapple. And to answer you point, we are (currently) playing a fixed formation. It was 4-4-2 on Saturday same as it has been since Ed Saunders return, so at least 4 games now. What's more the defence has been made up of the same 5 players in that time, but I still feel the need to go and introduce them to each other before each game. They do not cover each other well, and (to nick someone else's appraisal) it was like watching schoolboy defending, all our defenders being dragged to the near post leaving men completely free at the back post.
2) Constant changes. Not in formation but in players. Another 2 new ones introduced this weekend. Neither really looked up to the job, and obvious comment of the weekend was "I wish Lloyd Webber would stick to music." Looked slow and not hugely bothered. Big lad, but was not "putting it about" in the slightest. I do not believe for one second that D'Sane and Webber did better for us than Huckerby and Roddis would have been able to, but still the side is being fiddled with whilst "Rome burns". What we need is someone to make the best of what we have, which is a set of players who should be higher up the league than we are. Instead we're going through a period of change and inconsistancy at exactly the point we need to be getting some results together.
The problem, as I see it, is that BFG has a certain style and this team does not seem to be able to match that style.
So he either has to change the team or change his style. He is unlikely to do the latter and in some reality cannot not afford to do the former. Coaching his way out is an option of course.
So here we are "rabbits in headlight syndrome" management frozen and the team in that other farmyard mode "headless chicken"
So we either need a manager who can work with 70% or so of what we have got, find an excellent coach or some serious funding needs to be found to pay of the team and find others.
Let's not wait until it's too late and we have to fight to get back into the conference.
I could actually see BFG dismantling the team throughout the rest of the season without finding any sort of stability (we need someone to make the best of what we've got, which is actually quite good in parts, and underperforming for various reasons - though I admit it's not the finished article by any stretch of the imagination).
I could then see us going down, or finishing in a very lowly position - and BFG leaving, or being asked to leave.
Then we've got a half baked team, perhaps having lost one or two good players just because they didn't fit into BFG's "style" (Patmore?), and a new manager has to come in and pick up the pieces.
Will we then say that we should have had a new manager instead of BFG back in November? Or are we all being alarmist?
I agree with your points. I think BFG is shuffling his "cards" (please excuse the pun) too much. Surely what we need is stability, and on Saturday the only player I would have assumed to be "First XI" that started in midfield was Steve Perkins. One new player from several leagues below was thrown into the action when we had Barry Moore (one of the players of the season so far) on the bench. Actually I thought the problem was more to do with defence than midfield, but you're right - Webber did look slow, as did DSane (I was surprised at that because he's been with Southend).
I'm not sure that throwing untested players into action in a very important league game is a good idea. It's not good for the players themselves, and not good for those expected to play with them and gel with them either. It's a highly pressurized situation, surely? And Barry Moore has featured in almost every game. I could understand it if BFG had brought someone in who was clearly better than Barry Moore (or Scott Huckerby, or Nick Roddis) - but he hasn't, not yet. I just really can't see the logic. If he doesn't rate Barry then fine, but to bring in a lad from Andover with no experience in the Conference? I'm not knocking Webber - don't get me wrong - but Andover are currently 9th in the Wessex league. That's THREE leagues below the Conference, and Boston are top of the table. It's asking an awful lot of the lad, isn't it? And is that really progress?
What we need is someone to make the best of what we have, which is a set of players who should be higher up the league than we are. Instead we're going through a period of change and inconsistancy at exactly the point we need to be getting some results together.
Well, I couldn't agree more. We've seen Tinoi Christie, the lad from Palace whose name escapes me (a defender playing in midfield!), and now Webber and the returning DSane. I know two of those have been in friendlies but can we not have some stability? It's not good for all these triallists, and it's even worse for our established players I would have thought.
Don't know what's more depressing.... The fact that we lost 4-0 or the fact that I'm neither shocked, surprised or angry about it when I should be.
That pretty much sums it up for me as well Mike.
I really don't know what is happening and I find it very worrying that even voicing the slightest criticism on here of Mr Chapple is viewed by many as sacrilige.
We are rapidly running out of games and yet are still experimentimg with the team. Call me negative or disloyal or whatever, but I think we are in for a desperate relegaion battle and I wouldn't like to bet on which way it will go.
I really don't know what is happening and I find it very worrying that even voicing the slightest criticism on here of Mr Chapple is viewed by many as sacrilige.
To be fair that's the way many people who didn't rate Nick Roddis probably felt, Broady. We all have our favourites and we all get a tad over protective at times!
I'm hugely surprised that BFG is employing 4-4-2. The bloke should stick to what he knows - maybe he's trying to prove he's not "yesterday's man' or something? If he is going to play 4-4-2 then I'd say he should have kept someone like Roddis but getting rid of Roddis, in my view, was the very sign that BFG was going to employ 5-3-2 where you need very mobile midfielders. I wonder if BFG, on 8 week probation, is trying hard not to tread on Colin's toes?
Which leads me to another point - if BFG really hasn't already been promised a longer stay then what right does the bloke really have to be shifting players out? That would imply at least one foot safely under the permanent manager's door would it not?
I loved BFG, a big fan am I, but Andy Ellis is the man for the job even teamed up with someone like Colin Fielder who'll put the fear of God into the players at half-time. Oh and one more interesting point - someone on the Yeovil board posted a message saying that they'd spoken with Patmore and he'd expressed a willingness to go back to Yeovil saying he'd "not really settled at Woking". Probably rumour but...
