|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Feb 28, 2015 22:04:16 GMT 1
A disappointing afternoon in front of a great 25,000 + crowd (well we won that signing battle about 6-1).
I think the system we started with was similar to the one last Tuesday v Reading
3-4-1-2 with Wallace, Hudson, Edgar the 3 centre backs and Bunn in the middle behind the front 2 of Vaughan and Miller.
Well if it worked at home it certainly didn’t work here!
Charlton were finding space almost from the off particularly down our right side where there was a lot of uncertainty between Edgar and Scannell. Charlton exploited that pretty well and got in and around Edgar a lot. He looked as though he wasn’t sure if he was a right back or a right centre back – I guess he had to do both. It led to a lot of crosses in to the box and several threatening situations usually mopped up by Wallace or Robinson. Smithies was assertive in collecting balls in to the box as well and looked solid. I thought we looked pretty comfortable down the Robinson/Wallace side in the first half.
The other area they were starting to find space was through the middle of our midfield. There was a bit of a gap between the midfield and defence, especially when we had been on the attack. The first goal came from one of these situations. One of their midfielders/forwards running from deep. Edgar tracked him quite well but then he changed direction and Edgar couldn’t do much other than bring him down about 25 yards out left central to our goal. Simple free kick routine. Right footed player ran over it and left footed player curled a beauty in to the top corner. Not sure Smithies could have done much with what looked like the perfect free kick. Goals win games and the first was important because Charlton looked eminently beatable.
We were not short of possession before or after the goal but Charlton seemed a lot more incisive with theirs. We had a couple of good moves. One when Scannell got free down the right and into the box and hit a low cross which evaded everybody. We also had a slick move down the left between Robinson, Bunn, Butterfield and Vaughan which led to a good shooting chance for Miller which he dragged just wide from the edge of the box.
1 – 0 to them was a fair reflection at half time. They missed two good chances themselves with easy and clear shooting chances in the box from left wing crosses.
We were still in the game although not quite at the races.
Almost before we had settled down in the second the game was virtually over. Again one of our attacks broke down – couldn’t quite see how the goal developed but a good finish from one of their lads pushing in to the box. He seemed to travel a long way without anyone getting a challenge in.
We huffed and puffed for longish period and had plenty of pressure but couldn’t quite deliver much on target or of great quality. By then we seemed to have reverted to a more 4-4-2 formation with Bunn on the left flank and eventually Smith came on for Edgar (long overdue) and Coady for Hogg - it didn’t seem to make a great deal of difference.
If we had have pulled one back then we might have got something out of the game but not to be and they put the game away with a great finish from around the edge of the box after about 70 minutes. For the rest of the game it was just a matter of waiting for the final whistle.
Desperately disappointing. If ever a game illustrated why you need to have 3 in central midfield one of them holding in front of the back 4 – this was it. Thought Butterfield was very good and Hogg fine as individuals. They played alongside each other with Hogg towards the right and Butterfield towards the left. Every time we went forward they left a gaping space behind them and in front of the back 3/4. Can’t blame Wallace and Hudson too much because they often had midfielders and forwards running unopposed at them through the centre – and we all know most centre halves can’t do much about that.
I don’t go with any of this “they were more up for it than us” or we didn’t work hard enough (we did look a bit lacklustre – Scannell in particular) – its was a tactical system failure for me. We needed 3 in central midfield and not a great Charlton side exploited the space available to them very well, and didn’t allow us a similar amount of space between their midfield and defence.
Edgar looked all at sea. Smith seems to have a much better understanding with Scannell. I thought Miller did well and outshone Vaughan – both worked hard Miller was more advanced and had more opportunities but couldn’t quite convert. I’m very happy to have him for the rest of the season at least. Lolley came on for the last 20 and easy to see why he hasn’t been starting games. Undoubted potential but he was easily shoved off the ball.
A game we could of won – we were well beaten.
The ref was ok!
|
|
|
|
Post by shawsie on Feb 28, 2015 22:15:17 GMT 1
Very balanced........we were clearly second best and a disappointing day which seem to be par for the course a lot in the games with big support this season....Leeds, Fulham, Charlton, Rotherham!
Nothing to get too downhearted about mind......beat brentford on tues and Rotherham next sat and we are safe IMO!
|
|
|
|
Post by keithAM11532 on Feb 28, 2015 23:32:19 GMT 1
A disappointing afternoon in front of a great 25,000 + crowd (well we won that signing battle about 6-1). I think the system we started with was similar to the one last Tuesday v Reading 3-4-1-2 with Wallace, Hudson, Edgar the 3 centre backs and Bunn in the middle behind the front 2 of Vaughan and Miller. Well if it worked at home it certainly didn’t work here! Charlton were finding space almost from the off particularly down our right side where there was a lot of uncertainty between Edgar and Scannell. Charlton exploited that pretty well and got in and around Edgar a lot. He looked as though he wasn’t sure if he was a right back or a right centre back – I guess he had to do both. It led to a lot of crosses in to the box and several threatening situations usually mopped up by Wallace or Robinson. Smithies was assertive in collecting balls in to the box as well and looked solid. I thought we looked pretty comfortable down the Robinson/Wallace side in the first half. The other area they were starting to find space was through the middle of our midfield. There was a bit of a gap between the midfield and defence, especially when we had been on the attack. The first goal came from one of these situations. One of their midfielders/forwards running from deep. Edgar tracked him quite well but then he changed direction and Edgar couldn’t do much other than bring him down about 25 yards out left central to our goal. Simple free kick routine. Right footed player ran over it and left footed player curled a beauty in to the top corner. Not sure Smithies could have done much with what looked like the perfect free kick. Goals win games and the first was important because Charlton looked eminently beatable. We were not short of possession before or after the goal but Charlton seemed a lot more incisive with theirs. We had a couple of good moves. One when Scannell got free down the right and into the box and hit a low cross which evaded everybody. We also had a slick move down the left between Robinson, Bunn, Butterfield and Vaughan which led to a good shooting chance for Miller which he dragged just wide from the edge of the box. 1 – 0 to them was a fair reflection at half time. They missed two good chances themselves with easy and clear shooting chances in the box from left wing crosses. We were still in the game although not quite at the races. Almost before we had settled down in the second the game was virtually over. Again one of our attacks broke down – couldn’t quite see how the goal developed but a good finish from one of their lads pushing in to the box. He seemed to travel a long way without anyone getting a challenge in. We huffed and puffed for longish period and had plenty of pressure but couldn’t quite deliver much on target or of great quality. By then we seemed to have reverted to a more 4-4-2 formation with Bunn on the left flank and eventually Smith came on for Edgar (long overdue) and Coady for Hogg - it didn’t seem to make a great deal of difference. If we had have pulled one back then we might have got something out of the game but not to be and they put the game away with a great finish from around the edge of the box after about 70 minutes. For the rest of the game it was just a matter of waiting for the final whistle. Desperately disappointing. If ever a game illustrated why you need to have 3 in central midfield one of them holding in front of the back 4 – this was it. Thought Butterfield was very good and Hogg fine as individuals. They played alongside each other with Hogg towards the right and Butterfield towards the left. Every time we went forward they left a gaping space behind them and in front of the back 3/4. Can’t blame Wallace and Hudson too much because they often had midfielders and forwards running unopposed at them through the centre – and we all know most centre halves can’t do much about that. I don’t go with any of this “they were more up for it than us” or we didn’t work hard enough (we did look a bit lacklustre – Scannell in particular) – its was a tactical system failure for me. We needed 3 in central midfield and not a great Charlton side exploited the space available to them very well, and didn’t allow us a similar amount of space between their midfield and defence. Edgar looked all at sea. Smith seems to have a much better understanding with Scannell. I thought Miller did well and outshone Vaughan – both worked hard Miller was more advanced and had more opportunities but couldn’t quite convert. I’m very happy to have him for the rest of the season at least. Lolley came on for the last 20 and easy to see why he hasn’t been starting games. Undoubted potential but he was easily shoved off the ball. A game we could of won – we were well beaten. The ref was ok! Thanks mate - top post |
|
|
|
Post by terrier13 on Mar 2, 2015 10:22:44 GMT 1
Perfect description of the game - nice one goodshot.
For me, the main differences between the two teams were:
1. How much more decisive Charltons passing was compared to ours. Always to a man, always to feet, always a solid pass. Our passing was slow, innacurrate and generally met with a poor first touch by the receiving player.
2. As a direct concequence of the above, when Charlton broke their transition between midfield and attack was quick and presice - as goodshot mentions they were creating holes behind our midfield throughout the second half. Our forward play was quite the opposite and by the time we were half way into their half Charlton had 11 men behind the ball.
A couple of positives from a negative result - Jack Robinson, who was easily our best player. Goodshot, I'd suggest that they attacked down our right much more because they weren't finding a way past Jack. Alex Smithies looked solid for the most part, made two very good saves and couldn't do anything for their goals. Lastly our fans; my Dad and I said after the game that if the team had performed like the Town fans we would have trounced them. Quality atmosphere all the way through and the 24,000 Charlton fans couldn't get a word in.
|
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Mar 2, 2015 11:55:15 GMT 1
I thought Robinson was solid as well and yes they quickly sussed out we were weak down our right side and "behind" the midfield - so hope CP is not in denial about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boaty McBoatface on Mar 2, 2015 12:18:56 GMT 1
Goodshot - excellent report and almost exactly how I saw it, and certainly a lot more effort went into your report than our manager spent devising tactics for the game.
The only thing I disagreed with was when you said that Charlton were eminently beatable. Have you forgotten the half dozen excellent chances Charlton had before they actually scored? It was a miracle we only went in 1-0 down at half-time. It was truly the most inept Huddersfield performance I've ever seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintlyterrier on Mar 2, 2015 13:12:27 GMT 1
Good report - thanks. You were right to point out that the ref was OK. Some early posters were blaming him - that's unjust.
I thought the team played with a conventional back four. If it didn't, perhaps that demonstrated that perhaps the tactics were either not fully conveyed by the manager or not fully understood by the players. Unlike some on DATM, I have not given up on David Edgar, but he is NOT a full back. At Bournemouth he put in a good shift as a defensive midfield player. Perhaps the same tactics used at Bournemouth could have been employed once more, with Smith at RB and Edgar in midfield. (At Charlton, Hogg started OK and there was a period in the first half where he and Butterfield were dominant, but his lack of fitness showed later.)
I concur with Chumlee that Charlton did create more chances than Town. They were far sharper in midfield, so that their counter-attacking was really rapid (better than Bournemouth, on the day). They won all 50/50 balls, especially in the second half. They simply wanted to win, more than Town did. They fully deserved their victory, though I suspect that, had Town's strikers been more sharp, their defence might have crumbled.
Goodshot is right in that the strikers worked hard, Vaughan in particular, but their sharpness wasn't there. The Town midfield was really not in it, despite some clever play and prompting by Butterfield, and was "shot" in the second half.
At the end of match, the two hardest workers, Vaughan and Butterfield, were (as a chap seated near me pointed out) the first to come to applaud the excellent Town support. Rightly or wrongly, I read a lot into that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 13:22:24 GMT 1
At the end of match, the two hardest workers, Vaughan and Butterfield, were (as a chap seated near me pointed out) the first to come to applaud the excellent Town support. Rightly or wrongly, I read a lot into that. Interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Mar 2, 2015 14:13:53 GMT 1
Goodshot - excellent report and almost exactly how I saw it, and certainly a lot more effort went into your report than our manager spent devising tactics for the game. The only thing I disagreed with was when you said that Charlton were eminently beatable. Have you forgotten the half dozen excellent chances Charlton had before they actually scored? It was a miracle we only went in 1-0 down at half-time. It was truly the most inept Huddersfield performance I've ever seen. Yes we could have easily lost by more - but they still looked there for the taking if we had gone about it the right way. They were better than I expected - but nothing to be frightened of. |
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Mar 2, 2015 14:17:09 GMT 1
Good report - thanks. You were right to point out that the ref was OK. Some early posters were blaming him - that's unjust. I thought the team played with a conventional back four. If it didn't, perhaps that demonstrated that perhaps the tactics were either not fully conveyed by the manager or not fully understood by the players. Unlike some on DATM, I have not given up on David Edgar, but he is NOT a full back. At Bournemouth he put in a good shift as a defensive midfield player. Perhaps the same tactics used at Bournemouth could have been employed once more, with Smith at RB and Edgar in midfield. (At Charlton, Hogg started OK and there was a period in the first half where he and Butterfield were dominant, but his lack of fitness showed later.) I concur with Chumlee that Charlton did create more chances than Town. They were far sharper in midfield, so that their counter-attacking was really rapid (better than Bournemouth, on the day). They won all 50/50 balls, especially in the second half. They simply wanted to win, more than Town did. They fully deserved their victory, though I suspect that, had Town's strikers been more sharp, their defence might have crumbled. Goodshot is right in that the strikers worked hard, Vaughan in particular, but their sharpness wasn't there. The Town midfield was really not in it, despite some clever play and prompting by Butterfield, and was "shot" in the second half. At the end of match, the two hardest workers, Vaughan and Butterfield, were (as a chap seated near me pointed out) the first to come to applaud the excellent Town support. Rightly or wrongly, I read a lot into that. We started off with them definitely playing 3 at the back but it soon morphed into to disorganisation as they quickly sussed out the space and uncertainty around Edgar! I thought we wanted it as much as they did - just that they were better set up or adapted to the game better. |
|
|
|
Post by Boaty McBoatface on Mar 2, 2015 19:36:10 GMT 1
Goodshot - excellent report and almost exactly how I saw it, and certainly a lot more effort went into your report than our manager spent devising tactics for the game. The only thing I disagreed with was when you said that Charlton were eminently beatable. Have you forgotten the half dozen excellent chances Charlton had before they actually scored? It was a miracle we only went in 1-0 down at half-time. It was truly the most inept Huddersfield performance I've ever seen. Yes we could have easily lost by more - but they still looked there for the taking if we had gone about it the right way. They were better than I expected - but nothing to be frightened of. Have to disagree. We didn't get going at all and the way we played made Charlton look very frightening, just about every time they ran with the ball. It seemed like we were miles off the pace all the time. The only thing that saved us in the 1st half was that in front of goal, they were terrible, (until they started scoring). Scannell and Edgar were absolutely hopeless (and I'm normally a fan of Sean) but they were playing like the Chuckle Brothers, it was just a matter of time before the floodgates opened. |
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Mar 2, 2015 19:39:43 GMT 1
I don't think much to Edgar tbh and I think Coady has had his best games for us when he has sat in front of our centre halves. Most people think that too. Not sure why CP plays him further forward unless he thinks he has great potential there. In front of the back is where he should be - every game. Maybe in the future I'd like to see him have a go as a centre half. |
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Mar 2, 2015 19:43:55 GMT 1
Yes we could have easily lost by more - but they still looked there for the taking if we had gone about it the right way. They were better than I expected - but nothing to be frightened of. Have to disagree. We didn't get going at all and the way we played made Charlton look very frightening, just about every time they ran with the ball. It seemed like we were miles off the pace all the time. The only thing that saved us in the 1st half was that in front of goal, they were terrible, (until they started scoring). Scannell and Edgar were absolutely hopeless (and I'm normally a fan of Sean) but they were playing like the Chuckle Brothers, it was just a matter of time before the floodgates opened. It was because we didn't have a holding midfielder in the space they were running in to. On the right side I thought Scannell did his job in terms of effort and getting back but he and Edgar were either both picking up the same player, or both leaving the same player! |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Mar 2, 2015 20:01:31 GMT 1
smithies
smith Hudson lynch
coady
scanell hogg robinson
butterfield
bunn
Vaughan
wells cant play where bunn needs to be.. hogg and coady as covering but not always side by side..butterfield to play from around the halfway line..bunn to be inbetween the team and Vaughan and to be free when we don't have the ball to chase around and pressure the opposition long before they move it into our half.. the team above is dependant on us moving towards the ball we don't have a team that can drop away from the ball, whoever you pick or formation you think we have in mind..
|
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Mar 3, 2015 13:12:17 GMT 1
smithies smith Hudson lynch coady scanell hogg robinson butterfield bunn Vaughan wells cant play where bunn needs to be.. hogg and coady as covering but not always side by side..butterfield to play from around the halfway line..bunn to be inbetween the team and Vaughan and to be free when we don't have the ball to chase around and pressure the opposition long before they move it into our half.. the team above is dependant on us moving towards the ball we don't have a team that can drop away from the ball, whoever you pick or formation you think we have in mind.. You mean the old 6 man spine approach  I'd go a bit more spineless for Brentford and use the 4-1-4-1 that was good at Reading and Wolves. Smithies Smith Hudson Wallace Robinson Coady Scannell Butterfield Hogg Bunn Vaughan or Miller I'm really not sure about Vaughan in the old one up front role. Maybe give Miller a go. That's a very flexible formation - we can get a lot back or a lot in the middle if/when needed. We always seem to struggle to get a lot forward though! |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Mar 3, 2015 16:10:51 GMT 1
goodshot..
the idea of the above system is that you 'start' from further up the pitch..simply easier to run 30 yards to be in a forward position than 50..easier to drop 30 yards to holding than 50 to be on the toes of the defenders..
some will say we cant play this way..sorry we can, iv'e seen us .....
some will say we will get murdered by pace, the opposition will at least have to avoid a challenge or two before playing a good ball to get them in, at the moment there isn't much of a challenge and they get close enough to our goal to be able to play an easier ball..
percentage game is to make it harder for the opposition to get to your penalty box, that's all..
percentage game to make it easier to break rather than breaking from our own box all the time..
we have the players to do it, we clearly don't have the players to sit off and allow the opposition on..
|
|
