MATCHWATCH : Bolton Wanderers (a)

[Hound]

We definitely weren’t defensive last night. Suicidally offensive at times

We’ve got to get players closer together. The two AMs whoever they are need to be closer together Wing, the wingers need to be closer to the CF. We’re so spread out all of the time it makes it impossible to keep ball. Also why we constantly resort to long balls to two small wingers and a CF who isn’t good in the air

Camara and Elliott helped as they didn’t press everything like madmen and kept position.

If Wing has to play in that very deep role then get the FBs into the midfield and play 3 at the back whenever we’ve possession (we do this sometimes). Or get savage and Fraser to play deeper and closer to wing and the FBs wide and the wingers closer to the CF

[Snowflake Royal]

We definitely weren’t defensive last night. Suicidally offensive at times

We’ve got to get players closer together. The two AMs whoever they are need to be closer together Wing, the wingers need to be closer to the CF. We’re so spread out all of the time it makes it impossible to keep ball. Also why we constantly resort to long balls to two small wingers and a CF who isn’t good in the air

Camara and Elliott helped as they didn’t press everything like madmen and kept position.

If Wing has to play in that very deep role then get the FBs into the midfield and play 3 at the back whenever we’ve possession (we do this sometimes). Or get savage and Fraser to play deeper and closer to wing and the FBs wide and the wingers closer to the CF

If by offensive, you mean our press was too high and disorganised, yes. But I consider that to be fldefensive starting from a high line.

There was nothing offensive about our performance for 70 odd minutes. Just panic charging forward to immediately lose the ball.

[Hound]

We definitely weren’t defensive last night. Suicidally offensive at times

We’ve got to get players closer together. The two AMs whoever they are need to be closer together Wing, the wingers need to be closer to the CF. We’re so spread out all of the time it makes it impossible to keep ball. Also why we constantly resort to long balls to two small wingers and a CF who isn’t good in the air

Camara and Elliott helped as they didn’t press everything like madmen and kept position.

If Wing has to play in that very deep role then get the FBs into the midfield and play 3 at the back whenever we’ve possession (we do this sometimes). Or get savage and Fraser to play deeper and closer to wing and the FBs wide and the wingers closer to the CF

If by offensive, you mean our press was too high and disorganised, yes. But I consider that to be fldefensive starting from a high line.

There was nothing offensive about our performance for 70 odd minutes. Just panic charging forward to immediately lose the ball.

I guess it depends how you term offensive. We didn’t stay compact, ever sit in a block anywhere on the pitch , pressed with 5 players, and constantly had 4 or 5 players ahead of the ball

For me that means we had an extremely offensive shape. We were playing something like 4-1-5 half the time

Note it wasn’t effective offensive play. Anything but. I guess it was difficult to see how we’d set up in possession as we just kept giving it away

[Snowflake Royal]

We definitely weren’t defensive last night. Suicidally offensive at times

We’ve got to get players closer together. The two AMs whoever they are need to be closer together Wing, the wingers need to be closer to the CF. We’re so spread out all of the time it makes it impossible to keep ball. Also why we constantly resort to long balls to two small wingers and a CF who isn’t good in the air

Camara and Elliott helped as they didn’t press everything like madmen and kept position.

If Wing has to play in that very deep role then get the FBs into the midfield and play 3 at the back whenever we’ve possession (we do this sometimes). Or get savage and Fraser to play deeper and closer to wing and the FBs wide and the wingers closer to the CF

If by offensive, you mean our press was too high and disorganised, yes. But I consider that to be fldefensive starting from a high line.

There was nothing offensive about our performance for 70 odd minutes. Just panic charging forward to immediately lose the ball.

I guess it depends how you term offensive. We didn’t stay compact, ever sit in a block anywhere on the pitch , pressed with 5 players, and constantly had 4 or 5 players ahead of the ball

For me that means we had an extremely offensive shape. We were playing something like 4-1-5 half the time

Note it wasn’t effective offensive play. Anything but. I guess it was difficult to see how we’d set up in possession as we just kept giving it away

I'm mainly referring to personnel, with Fraser being a more defensive option than Elliott.

[Esteban]

Agree with the above. There's been a lot of disorganisation across the pitch too. Williams helped to sort out the defence last night, but the rest needs time on the training ground.

[Armadillo Roadkill]

At one point in the first half our pass completion was under 50%.

That is the first thing that needs to be addressed. Presumably the professional footballers haven't lost the ability to kick a football with a reasonable degree of accuracy; it's more that they're too far apart, or the intended recipient is in the wrong place to make a pass possible.

Haw many times this season have you thought "where's his option? Give him an option."

That's MoM's big problem. He's never in the right place to receive a pass.

[West F]

Maybe we should have offered Wareham more than 1 year. He'd have started every game so far.

At the time, I thought that amongst all the fanfare of a spectacular transfer window and exciting signings, it made sense. In retrospect, the facts are that we couldn’t match what he was offered at Excreter. I think that most fans would have him here over what we have as a replacement. Which is next to nothing. Or, less than nothing being that it is a loan. I wonder how many football league clubs there are about who don’t have a striker on the books. Or even in the Academy.

[morganb]

Who was the last decent striker the Academy produced?

[Esteban]

Maybe we should have offered Wareham more than 1 year. He'd have started every game so far.

At the time, I thought that amongst all the fanfare of a spectacular transfer window and exciting signings, it made sense. In retrospect, the facts are that we couldn’t match what he was offered at Excreter. I think that most fans would have him here over what we have as a replacement. Which is next to nothing. Or, less than nothing being that it is a loan. I wonder how many football league clubs there are about who don’t have a striker on the books. Or even in the Academy.

I don't know what was offered to Wareham in terms of contract length or salary, but he'd only had an ok 6 months at that point. O'Mahony isn't working out, but that can happen with any transfer. I'm still glad we didn't offer Wareham more than we thought he was worth, that kind of thinking got us into a huge mess under Dai. I'm not convinced Wareham would make a huge difference at the moment anyway, the way Hunt has us set-up.

Recruitment doesn't always work out for the best, some will be hit and miss. They've only got 12 days to fix it though.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Hmm. Not sure what to make of it all really. Still feel that Hunt is within a grace window what with having to start essentially from scratch this season with a new roster of players, and want to afford the same grace to those players too - it’s rare to hit the ground running, and they will of course need time; this isn’t really something to blame Hunt for.

At the same time, Hunt does seem to be repeating a few questionable decisions that isn’t doing him any favours in terms of fan patience. While he is of course stuck with the players he has, and the time it takes for them to settle, he doesn’t always seem to play the right ones, or put them in the right positions.

I was saying to the missus last night though; if it’s obvious to us as armchair shitmunchers to start so-and-so, or play thingo wherever, it will be obvious to Hunt, so if he’s NOT doing that he is probably privy to more information we are not.

I really do think a decent striker will turn things around. Sometimes it just takes one little thing to fix a broken engine. The worry is whether we will indeed sign such a player! If we don’t, we could be in trouble.

In the midfield issue, there are basically two complaints and issues the fans consider obvious errors.

1) Wing playing as the quarterback rather than further forward.
2) Fraser playing in Knibb's position rather than Elliott/Doyle.

I try to put myself in the manager's place and ask myself why he's doing what so many people think is wrong. Whether I agree or not.

I think 1 should be pretty obvious. It's where Wing played successfully last season under both Selles and Hunt. It plays to many of Wing's strengths, he has [usually] great distribution, both long and short. He can retain possession, deal with a high press, slide tight balls forward into midfield and the wings, and play Hollywood 60 yards, usually with great accuracy turning defence into attack and getting us in behind. And he can ghost into space outside the box for those netbusters. Space he's less likely to get playing further forward in congestion. This one, I tend to agree is pretty valid.

2 is the real headscratcher. It's a departure from last season. It doesn’t seem to fit the system, or the players. My gut feeling is that because we've started badly, Hunt thinks we need to be conservative and play a more defensive game, because our midfield is being played through and overrun. So Elliott/Doyle will be too lightweight and make that worse.

I have some sympathy for that view, especially away and against the better teams. But if that’s Hunt's reasoning, I think he’s got it very wrong. Because it does far more damage to our ability to keep the ball, string passes together and create chances than it helps keep us solid. If you don’t carry a threat and the ability to retain the ball, the opposition has to put very little effort and focus into defending and can just dedicate themselves to attack.

It's this one that has to change for me, and Elliott (or Doyle) has to start in the midfield three. If he makes the change, we'll see if we're right and Hunt was wrong, or if Hunt saw something in training to show him it won’t work or they're not up to it, and we were wrong.

Yeah, I'd go along with this (said very similar on the Hunt thread; I promise I wasn't cribbing).

I also added that sometimes a ship seemingly full of holes has only one, and that little fix makes a surprising difference. With the right balance in midfield (Elliot/Doyle for Fraser) and/or with a decent striker, along with some refereeing decisions going our way, I can imagine we'd be looking at an entirely different set of results.

The striker thing is out of Hunts hands, but surely he'll be starting Elliot or Doyle in central midfield for the next game. No disrespect to Fraser - I think he's going to be a neat signing - but if Wing HAS to play deeper, let's not square-peg any more players into round holes.

[Whore Jackie]

At the time, I thought that amongst all the fanfare of a spectacular transfer window and exciting signings, it made sense. In retrospect, the facts are that we couldn’t match what he was offered at Excreter. I think that most fans would have him here over what we have as a replacement. Which is next to nothing. Or, less than nothing being that it is a loan. I wonder how many football league clubs there are about who don’t have a striker on the books. Or even in the Academy.

Always find it slightly surprising that we seem so short of strikers throughout the Club. At grassroots level there's loads. There'll be better placed watchers of our Academy, but striking wise we have Basil Tuma and Jeremiah Okine-Peters. Is that it? Anyone standing out in the U18s?

Plus the recently recruited Reece Evans and Miles Obodo. As noted before Reece Evans got a two-year deal, so there must be something about him.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Who was the last decent striker the Academy produced?

Danny Loader?

[Esteban]

Who was the last decent striker the Academy produced?

I suppose you could say Kelvin E, given how many games he's started up front for us. Not much competition though.

Uche Ikpeazu would probably be next in line, I think? Nearly 300 games as a professional.

We've produced some quality forwards in our time, but for out and out strikers, it's pretty slim pickings. Certainly not many that stick in the memory.

[Brogue]

Who was the last decent striker the Academy produced?

Loader?

[Esteban]

Who was the last decent striker the Academy produced?

Danny Loader?

I was going to say Loader, but is he an out and out striker?

[Armadillo Roadkill]

Who was the last decent striker the Academy produced?

Wareham.

[Hendo]

Who was the last decent striker the Academy produced?

Probably Smith, if you're talking out and out striker.

Ben House has made a fair career out for himself at Lincoln.

[Hound]

It’s a good question. Smith and Loader the obvious ones. But fair to say both developed massively after leaving us? Loader still seems to be finding his way a bit (at a decent level) whilst Smith is a solid champ/L1 striker

Would prob say Kelvin E counts. Still a lot of development to be done there but he’s contributed and played a fair few games

[Sutekh]

Who was the last decent striker the Academy produced?

Wareham.

No. It was Sam Smith. Reading had a spell of top class striker youngsters coming through 20 or so years ago (Tyson, Henderson, Cox plus Austin on the Academy books too) but there’s been no real quality produced since the late 00s. Perhaps it’s a sign of the trend in coaching changing as as much as anything as everyone flocks to the latest false 9 fad.

[WestYorksRoyal]

It's more than our academy. The game has a lot more attackers who play across the line and as an attacking midfielder than out and out strikers. Which is odd as on the playground everyone wants to be the one scoring goals.