Skip to content

Comments

  • Thanks for that Dale. (Hope you didn't miss any Diana!)
    Balanced set of views. Disagree that we played no football. The interpassing at speed on our right, leading up to the free-kick from which we scored our first goal, was scintillating. However, it wasn't much in evidence after that and pretty well non-existent in the second half.

    The main difference in the second half was the contrast between the readiness of the Cowleys to change their tactics and the stubborn refusal on our part to depart from a system and formation that wasn't working.

    One or two people referred to the ease with which Sean Raggett handled Akinfenwa. To put that in perspective, it took two of them to manhandle him in the first half and, if he was off the pace in the first half, he'd lost another half a yard in the second. He is clearly well short of match fitness.

  • Good things come to those who wait (or whinge like a spoilt brat on an internet forum). Excellent stuff as ever Vital, thank you.

  • it appears a number of top clubs are chasing Mr Raggett and he may have played his last game for Lincoln.

  • Being heavily linked with Stoke.

  • "Smart tactical change in the 2nd half meant we bossed pretty much most of it."
    Anyone care to explain?
    Read more: http://www.wycombe.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=499645#ixzz4p2AVURCM

  • The views of the Imps fans seemed to mirror those of Keith Scott who was the co commentater on IFollow. Keith was adamant that the hoof ball became ineffective, the difference being Lincoln changed the system, we didn't. Resulting in Lincoln looked the more likely to score a winner but did conclude that a draw seemed a fair result on the balance of chances created?

  • When we scored our 2nd I was adamant we would come away with the win, unless we made a mistake and/or Lincoln switched up their style of play.

    We conceded the 2nd because we switched off, and then looked most likely to concede in the final 10 minutes because they changed their style sufficiently.

  • Ainsworth is stubborn and will stick with this system unless we are getting thumped every week.

  • Ainsworth never seems to have a plan B

  • When Bayo was signed, GA said 'we have a Plan B now', apparently recognising how one dimensional we'd been the previous campaign. Bayo has quickly become Plan A. I'm not sure what Plan B is and can't remember what the previous Plan A was.

    I do like Ainsworth overall and want him to succeed (obviously) but the style of play continues to trouble me and I fear we have regressed tactically over the last three seasons.

    I like the idea someone had of 5-3-2, which would seem to suit the players we have. Müller would be an ideal sweeper to my mind and we could still play a midfield three but with added width from the wingbacks. I'm sure the likes of Southwell and Tyson would be far more comfortable in a front two than being stuck out wide and Bayo would be less isolated.

  • problem being we have no left footed centre half and the balance with 3 right footers won't work, unless JJ is gonna play left side of the 3 like he did at Maidenhead which I didn't think worked too badly but its far from ideal.

  • edited August 2017

    @NorsQuarters From the time they scored, about three minutes into the second half, only one team was going to win the game. While neither team had a clear chance thereafter, we were totally overrun in midfield and on the back foot throughout the rest of the match. Bayo could get nothing going from the long balls coming his way and we were unable to pass the ball through midfield. Couldn't tell from the terraces what they changed, but they were very much the stronger side in the second half without quite being able to get the goal their play perhaps deserved.

    As @bill_stickers wrote, I felt the game was there to be won when we went in ahead - we had a nice tempo and were moving the ball with some variety.

    As for Plan A and B, when Bayo arrived and we were lobbing it up to him rather than Hayes/ Thompson, it just meant that our normal Plan A became more effective. I also like Ainsworth but I was impressed that Lincoln managed to adapt on Saturday. Is it coincidence that we rarely (Newport at Christmas) come from behind to take a game?

  • Having observed during the first half that there was no need to continue with two men marking Bayo tight, the Cowleys decided that Sean Raggett could be released from those duties and play a powerful role in taking the game to Wycombe. They were also encouraged to keep the ball on the deck much more. (I liked the description of one of their fans of our pitch as looking like a carpet.)

  • edited August 2017

    I get quite jealous when I see that some people are able to edit their posts. I was told that putting my finger on that little cogwheel would enable me to edit (or more relevantly, delete!) Works for me - au lait!!

  • Works for me but only, I think, available for an hour after posting.

  • I must have done something different this time. I tried to delete the second question last night within a minute or two. By Jove I think I've got it.

  • @Jonny_King said:
    When Bayo was signed, GA said 'we have a Plan B now', apparently recognising how one dimensional we'd been the previous campaign. Bayo has quickly become Plan A. I'm not sure what Plan B is and can't remember what the previous Plan A was.

    I do like Ainsworth overall and want him to succeed (obviously) but the style of play continues to trouble me and I fear we have regressed tactically over the last three seasons.

    I like the idea someone had of 5-3-2, which would seem to suit the players we have. Müller would be an ideal sweeper to my mind and we could still play a midfield three but with added width from the wingbacks. I'm sure the likes of Southwell and Tyson would be far more comfortable in a front two than being stuck out wide and Bayo would be less isolated.

    I know what you mean about feeling that we have regressed. We have become dead set on going long to Bayo and then trying to play once the ball is in the final third.

    At times it is quite annoying and I feel that we were much more willing to chop and change formations in the 14/15 season (I think that's the right year - play off final?) where we occasionally played wood through the middle, for instance. And seemed blue to swap from 442 to 433.

    Having said that, at least we do have a clear plan. Many teams in this leave don't have a clear strategy and often seem to get lost in games. While our dogmatic persistence with the same game plan is sometimes annoying, at least all the players know their jobs.

    And last season it was fairly effective, especially when Kashkett played alongside Bayo. We could try a new plan, and while it might be better it could equally end up being a disaster.

    It is also worth noting that in the build up to both Lincoln's goals it was out failure to adequately boot the ball upfield that ended up costing us. Southwell should have hooked it out to the touch line for the first and Sido made a mess of clearing the original cross in the lead up to the second.

  • I don't think us moving to a classic 4-4-2 would ever be at risk of a 'disaster'.

    They're hardly tricky/risky formations to play.

    The idea of playing 3-5-2 as some are suggesting makes me much more nervous.

  • It was definitely blue to swap from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3 @Glenactico. If you need help with editing, I'm your man.
    Very much with @bill_stickers again.

  • PS Sido's clearance immediately prior to their equaliser was bog- standard hoof. It just so happened that Raggett, released from his beast minding role, was able to control it and pass it to Woodyard who, in turn, slid an inch perfect through ball to Josh Ginnelly who finished well.

  • I thought we did have a few quite nice passages of play in the first half, Southwell seems like a decent ball player, but have to agree about formation...I'm no football expert...but even I could see Bayo was off the pace and being effectively handled. Once that was clear I was disappointed no changes were made to personnel or tactics after the equaliser. Too often players are on too late to change a game. I would have hooked Bayo for PCH and bunged Southwell and Tyson up top for the fabled 4-4-2. But that's why I'm watching and not managing Real Madrid I suppose. There is something to be said for everyone knowing their job in a 4-3-3, but surely most of them have played other systems before?

  • @micra The worst bit is I'm not even sure what I'd meant to type. 'able to swap' perhaps...

    I disagree re Sido's clearance. Generally we purposefully play long into the opposition half, and typically with a lot of height on the ball. On this occasion he panicked a bit and scuffed it to the halfway line. Had it been a proper up and under we'd have had time to get the line up and regain our shape. I'm not suggesting I especially like our tactics but while belting it up in the air so much does little to help us in attack, it can be quite an effective way of making it tough for the opposition to get any rhythm or territory.

  • Fair comment. From memory I thought Sido's clearance went as far as most.

Sign In or Register to comment.