TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Glostergull wrote:Wellling is in about 2 or 3 weeks if I'm not mistaken.

We played them away on September 12(1-1) and February 23rd(2-0).

lucy6lucy wrote: We played them away on September 12(1-1) and February 23rd(2-0).

Should win then, or at least a point

Thought we played well for much of the game, mostly resisting the temptation to hoof the ball forward. We did lack width though and I guess we always will if we play Racchi in front of the back four and then three midfielders and two up front. Perhaps we should play 4141 and keep some width in midfield - certainly having two forwards playing so far apart does not work.

Boreham Wood 3 Dover 0
Macclesfield 2 Grimsby 1
Torquay 0 Eastleigh 1
Welling 2 Woking 1
There is a pattern here - all four winning teams played on Friday and the losing teams played on Saturday, thus the 'Friday' teams had an extra day to recover from their first match over the Easter. The only team to buck this trend was Wrexham's victory over Cheltenham this evening. In all of the other fixtures, both teams played on either the Friday or Saturday - e.g. Aldershot v Braintree both played on Friday, Barrow v Halifax both played on Saturday. There is a distinct advantage for a team having two days rest between matches as opposed to a team having just one day as was the case with today's match and I think it showed.

I thought we were unlucky not to come away with a point. Just a bit of a break or more sharpness in front of goal was all that was needed. I thought Eastleigh kept their shape better but they weren't anything special. Ref was a fussy little prat. I've never seen a ref speak to both managers before - captains yes, but not managers. What was all that about?

Other thoughts on today - young Sam Chaney can be very pleased with his first start. He had a very good game. Aman Verma picked the short straw to fill the right back position. No worse than Dale Tonge, but he's not a natural right back. If Nicho has decided that he is the one to fill this position, then we must hope he grows into it. I hope Nathan Smith isn't out for long. Gerring is an accident that will happen sooner or later in a match. It was his needless clumsy challenge for the free kick that the goal was scored from and his 'distribution' consists of thumping the ball high in the air and hoping it falls to a team mate (mostly it didn't) or thumping it out of touch. Andre Wright and Blissett played too far apart. Andre plays better wide and I would perhaps like to see him played wide with Blissett and Harrad up front although I'm yet to be convinced by Harrad. Good to see Luke Young back on the pitch. He could still play a large part in our final 7 games. Apart from Boreham Wood, the other results weren't too bad. I think Southport will be okay and Chester should be. Welling and Kidderminster are doomed I think so that leaves two places to be taken by Guiseley, Torquay, Altrincham or Halifax. In view if our goal difference, we probably need a minimum of 49 points and the games against Chester, Altrincham and Guiseley are going to be big, big games.

We have played welling twice already. 1-1 at their place early in the season and 2-0 at Plainmoor on 23rd February

Modgull wrote:Thought we played well for much of the game, mostly resisting the temptation to hoof the ball forward. We did lack width though and I guess we always will if we play Racchi in front of the back four and then three midfielders and two up front. Perhaps we should play 4141 and keep some width in midfield - certainly having two forwards playing so far apart does not work.

I expect Nicho selected the side to be solid through the middle especially, after the 5-0 hammering and no experience alongside McDonald, If we had taken our chances we may have won. Your idea of 4-1-4-1 I think is good but Chaney would not have been selected and he was one of the better players. Iffy has struggled out wide since his first game.Thought the same about the two stikers Harad is the best partner for Blisset.

Harrad isn't the answer. He has scored 1 goal in 11 appearances and has proved a very poor signing.

Guildford Gull wrote:Harrad isn't the answer. He has scored 1 goal in 11 appearances and has proved a very poor signing.

Nobody is saying he's the answer but he's the best type of player we've got to play with Blisset. Wright plays on his own and would be a better wide player.]

Agreed. Harrad is doing what is asked of him and is a model pro around the younger players which is a huge improvement over players like Hurst and Marsh.

Very commendable but at the moment we don't need a model pro we need someone to stick the ball in the back of the net. Bassed on his current scoring rate that isn't Harrad.

He wasn't brought in to score them he was brought in to provide the ammunition for others. The fact Blissett hit a rich scoring patch isn't coincidental IMHO.

flippen eckythump.. I didnt realise we had to have ammunition. i had better get my blunderbuss out. now where is the gunpowder?

Guildford Gull wrote:Very commendable but at the moment we don't need a model pro we need someone to stick the ball in the back of the net. Bassed on his current scoring rate that isn't Harrad.

Blisset has scored all his goals with Harrod by playing closer to him and a good work ethic.

Agree with many of the comments about formation, lacking width and our two front men never near enough to play together, but yes we had chances to get a result. However, we do not seem to learn from the goals we concede, as we wasted so many set-piece situations by hoofing hopefully to the far corner of the penalty area - a tactic which consistently was either easily defended or was just over all the heads. And yet, particularly, Forest Green, Wrexham, Eastleigh put balls into the near post for runners and cause all sorts of mayhem to score; why do we never try this obvious variation. The only decent corner we took was by Racchi at the end of the first half aimed at the six-yard line with some pace - this led to melees and their keeper having to make two sharp saves on the line.
Nico, for pity's sake, try to make the opposition goalkeepers earn their money by actually having to do something instead of watching our harmless lofted balls cause no threat.
And for good measure, learn from Eastleigh's throws-in - nearly always to feet, play a neat triangle with support, and leave us trailing; but how do we take nearly every throw-in? - yep, up in the air again to two players marked by five opponents, hence just throwing away possession.
It's not rocket science in this league, one goal scored in six matches, how do we expect to score when we hardly target the goal????

Been away for couple of days and had time to reflect on Monday, I probably didn't give enough credit for the last 25 minutes the only time in the match our team really started to peg Eastleigh back, but the rest of my view point on this game stands.

There's no guessing our team lacked width it was blindly obvious, this formation didn't come in because the Dover defeat, we were playing before Dover and at Dover, it doesn't work in my view.

I fully understand how it is supposed to work. The width is supposed to come from the full backs getting forward, but you need the right players for it to work, and we haven't got them.

You need players who can control the ball, hold it up, and pass from one yellow shirt to another, thus giving time for the full back to get forward, most of our midfield/forward line isn't capable of doing that with anywhere near enough consistency, hence we lose possession, quickly and cheaply far to often, so the full backs end up sitting.

As I keep saying, give basic footballers, and basic way of playing. Actually thinking about with Wright's pace and strength put him out wide to accommodate Harrad , with either Allen or Ajala on the other side, lets start getting some natural width in our play and try at least to stretch the opposition back lines.

As a fan I've no problem with relegation, will still go to games, but if the team is to be relegated lets put up some sort of fight, and not the surrender we've seen over the last few games.

What ever the formation is meant to be at the start of the game, it's quickly morphing in to some " T " formation, with 4 at the back, and the rest right up the middle.