FC United v County: FA Cup Match Thread (03/10/2017)

The only good thing to have read last night is a tweet like this:



Sadly the lack of creativity/goal threat last night was hardly surprising. The highest goalscorer in the match squad was Winter (2). Usually you can then look to set plays but, while we have scored from Walker's corners 3 times and from FK crosses from Walker/Hampson, Oswell has been the one putting them in (except 1). We've had no goals from CBs - no matter how many of them we play. So, again, there was a statistical inevitability to the 15+ corners leading to nothing. Ball was probably the best bet for a goal 'on paper' based on last season's tally as a #10... but it sounded like he ended up at CB.

So, as bad as losing a 3 goal lead and then losing to 9 men is - and ultimately no-one can make excuses for a repeated shambles in terms of results - there's also the above reality of simply not having a second #9 to score in the absence of Oswell and too little creativity in the absence of Warburton.

I echo everyone's comments above about wanting JG to remain. At the moment though, the individual 'asks' on players seem too high a jump for the reality of their abilities. At the same time, the entire team - and remember, lots have considerable experience - looks confused by the ever-changing shapes. While JG knows more about tactics than most pro coaches, it's irrelevant if instructions are too complicated for players. Yes, we can say the players need to leave but for what outcome... replacements who also won't be able to be floating CBs or play 3 or 4 systems well within the same game?

In my work, I have to keep things simple for those adults I work with to make things achievable for them. I may know about sociocultural theory and I could talk at length to parents about children in liminal spaces but, no matter how well they want to do for their kids, it's not going see a positive outcome. I'm sure the same is true for each of us in our work.

But we know JG can 'show it' and for it to be positive. I just feel that we need to see more of his 'Minihan' improvements - slight adjustments to a player's existing game in a role he can play well already. If each player can have something added to their game then that's something a lot of coaches can't achieve. When it's then added to the other things few could achieve for us - the off-field professionalisation, the strong focus on discipline and the very simple but effective moves (like 2 on 1 = short corner) then the best of JG will shine through onto the pitch.

It's genuinely so pleasing to see something simple carried out well and to know JG's behind it. Sometimes, it just seems like the sheer 'want' to make us better leaves him feeling that he has to put the ball in the net himself, keep the clean himself etc... and so he must change something given that's all he can actually do from the sidelines.

When we have a good squad but know individuals and the team can improve, that's not a bad place to be in. When we have a good manager but know he can improve bits himself and convert his experience and knowledge to achieve the improved players/team, then we know we have the right man. Hopefully nothing dramatic happens and we see JG work through this disappointment and ignore any ridiculous calls for him to go. I appreciate that sometimes my own posts question things - and I think that's healthy from all fans - but I'm in no doubt that to get rid of JG would not bring the improvements JG can bring.

I appreciate the point you're making but if, for reasons of understanding or ability the players can't cope/adapt with/to the ask, the ask has to change. If the players aren't up to it then one has to question why they are at the club?  

I don't know if it is an issue of complexity / lack of understanding, or more one of unfamiliarity / lack of time to adapt or adjust. As a general rule, I think part-time teams with limited training time should be aiming to find a consistent formation and use players in roles they are familiar with. Jimmy Ball ended up at CB during both games against FCUM, and we played yesterday without a recognised striker because we don't have a cover player in the squad. Alongside this, we seem to start every game with a different formation -- and then change it at HT.

This seems to go against a lot of Gannon's own principles. In his first spell, we had a solid shape with a consistent defensive approach, and a clear game plan to use a point attacker when going forward. Last year was the same, albeit the quality of the strikers wasn't what we had hoped.

I can understand how being tactically flexible is a great idea, but it's tough when you have restricted time to practise and players who are learning new roles and positions. I think we would be better off working out our strongest setup and then building in some variations through personnel and attacking shape.