| That’s a good point isn’t it? 13:23 - Aug 8 with 1546 views | smuttsontour |
I think so anyway lads |  | | |  |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 13:59 - Aug 8 with 1446 views | Hunterhoop |
In hindsight, I think so.
We did not play well. We were nowhere the level we can be, but we still took a point. That, in itself is a positive sign.
I was impressed by Millwall. They pressed well, played with intensity and they controlled the middle of the pitch for much of the game. I think we have better players, but yesterday highlighted even more how 3421 works so much more effectively for us than 3412. We kept getting out numbered 3 to 2 in the middle of the pitch (Willock not dropping deep enough out of possession to support Johansen and Ball), and when we did get it, there was only Willock in between the lines to look for to feet. We had to play it up to Austin and Dykes who were both a bit disappointing in how they didn’t hold onto it. Austin was trying to flick it off with one touch when just holding it up and allowing out midfield and wing backs to move up the pitch would have been better. Dykes was just a fraction off the pace throughout.
As others have said, Chair’s absence was very noticeable. IF Chair was to depart for good money, I’d want us to sign another attacking central midfielder to replace him, not revert to 2 up top and just Willock in behind. Thomas is meant to be a replacement for Chair but there’s something of the Conor Washington about him. He just seems to always be a second or two off the pace and behind the play. Maybe he just struggled to get up to speed yesterday after coming on. Fingers crossed he can step up but he needs to start impacting the game more when he’s on the pitch.
You look at the team that played the last 10-15: no Johansen, Chair, Austin, Field, and that’s quite a bit weaker than the side that played through the second half of last season. Hopefully Dozzell, Thomas, etc can develop improve, but bearing that in mind a draw was not a bad result.
One thing I would say: I thought Millwall were fitter than us. Odubajo and Willock looked gassed in the last 20. Willock was getting cramp. Johansen had to come off - understandable given lack of match time in pre-season - as did Austin. But it looked a bit like as a side we ran out of puff in the last 15. Whilst Millwall were a different gear to us in the first 20 too.
We all wanted a win, but given all the above, a draw was a decent result. Dickie and De Wijs were immense. Without either of those, I think Millwall would have scored a second and beaten us. |  | | |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 14:43 - Aug 8 with 1356 views | terryb |
I think so as well. Beforehand ii said that this would be one of our toughest games & it proved to be so. I was quite surprised as to how much football Millwall played & were a better team than I had realised.
Like Hunter, I don't think we're suited to start a game with a front two & this limited our creation. On the other hand, our three centre backs all looked good/very good. | | | |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 14:44 - Aug 8 with 1355 views | daveB |
I thought Millwall were very good, well organised at the back and made a few brilliant last ditch tackles to deny Barbet in the first half and Dykes near the end
Seemed to me both sides settled for a point with about 15 mins left. Our biggest problem was starting Dykes ahead of an extra midfield player, he was a passenger throughout unfortunately. |  | | |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 14:48 - Aug 8 with 1327 views | Boston |
Agree, Millwall better than expected. | |
| |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 14:50 - Aug 8 with 1319 views | Mick_S |
A very decent point for both sides. We can play far more effectively than we did yesterday, so it’s ok. |  |
| Did I ever mention that I was in Minder? |
| |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 15:07 - Aug 8 with 1261 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
@Hunterhoop
I agree that Willock looked a bit tired at the end but I thought that Odubajo finished strongly causing them problems down the right. Willock should have passed to him at the end too but opted to shoot.
Also I thought Ball played an important part and matched their midfield for strength. On one occasion he was under huge pressure from one of their midfielders trying to barge him out of the way but he stood his ground and headed the ball clear. |  |
| |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 15:34 - Aug 8 with 1169 views | Antti_Heinola |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 13:59 - Aug 8 by Hunterhoop |
In hindsight, I think so.
We did not play well. We were nowhere the level we can be, but we still took a point. That, in itself is a positive sign.
I was impressed by Millwall. They pressed well, played with intensity and they controlled the middle of the pitch for much of the game. I think we have better players, but yesterday highlighted even more how 3421 works so much more effectively for us than 3412. We kept getting out numbered 3 to 2 in the middle of the pitch (Willock not dropping deep enough out of possession to support Johansen and Ball), and when we did get it, there was only Willock in between the lines to look for to feet. We had to play it up to Austin and Dykes who were both a bit disappointing in how they didn’t hold onto it. Austin was trying to flick it off with one touch when just holding it up and allowing out midfield and wing backs to move up the pitch would have been better. Dykes was just a fraction off the pace throughout.
As others have said, Chair’s absence was very noticeable. IF Chair was to depart for good money, I’d want us to sign another attacking central midfielder to replace him, not revert to 2 up top and just Willock in behind. Thomas is meant to be a replacement for Chair but there’s something of the Conor Washington about him. He just seems to always be a second or two off the pace and behind the play. Maybe he just struggled to get up to speed yesterday after coming on. Fingers crossed he can step up but he needs to start impacting the game more when he’s on the pitch.
You look at the team that played the last 10-15: no Johansen, Chair, Austin, Field, and that’s quite a bit weaker than the side that played through the second half of last season. Hopefully Dozzell, Thomas, etc can develop improve, but bearing that in mind a draw was not a bad result.
One thing I would say: I thought Millwall were fitter than us. Odubajo and Willock looked gassed in the last 20. Willock was getting cramp. Johansen had to come off - understandable given lack of match time in pre-season - as did Austin. But it looked a bit like as a side we ran out of puff in the last 15. Whilst Millwall were a different gear to us in the first 20 too.
We all wanted a win, but given all the above, a draw was a decent result. Dickie and De Wijs were immense. Without either of those, I think Millwall would have scored a second and beaten us. |
v good analysis mate. |  |
| |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 16:05 - Aug 8 with 1078 views | joe90 |
I'm probably the only one who thought Millwall were rubbish. Faded out of the game after our goal, tactically limited. Agree they looked fitter but I think we looked flat because of our midfield. We defended well, but nothing from Dykes and Austin. Wouldn't say that was a good point as neither side looked like scoring second half. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 16:35 - Aug 8 with 990 views | dmm |
Neither Dykes nor Austin did well though, as has been said, they didn't get much service. The games stats however showed Dykes well ahead of anyone else on the pitch in winning his headers so he was putting in the effort. |  | | |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 16:36 - Aug 8 with 987 views | davman |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 13:59 - Aug 8 by Hunterhoop |
In hindsight, I think so.
We did not play well. We were nowhere the level we can be, but we still took a point. That, in itself is a positive sign.
I was impressed by Millwall. They pressed well, played with intensity and they controlled the middle of the pitch for much of the game. I think we have better players, but yesterday highlighted even more how 3421 works so much more effectively for us than 3412. We kept getting out numbered 3 to 2 in the middle of the pitch (Willock not dropping deep enough out of possession to support Johansen and Ball), and when we did get it, there was only Willock in between the lines to look for to feet. We had to play it up to Austin and Dykes who were both a bit disappointing in how they didn’t hold onto it. Austin was trying to flick it off with one touch when just holding it up and allowing out midfield and wing backs to move up the pitch would have been better. Dykes was just a fraction off the pace throughout.
As others have said, Chair’s absence was very noticeable. IF Chair was to depart for good money, I’d want us to sign another attacking central midfielder to replace him, not revert to 2 up top and just Willock in behind. Thomas is meant to be a replacement for Chair but there’s something of the Conor Washington about him. He just seems to always be a second or two off the pace and behind the play. Maybe he just struggled to get up to speed yesterday after coming on. Fingers crossed he can step up but he needs to start impacting the game more when he’s on the pitch.
You look at the team that played the last 10-15: no Johansen, Chair, Austin, Field, and that’s quite a bit weaker than the side that played through the second half of last season. Hopefully Dozzell, Thomas, etc can develop improve, but bearing that in mind a draw was not a bad result.
One thing I would say: I thought Millwall were fitter than us. Odubajo and Willock looked gassed in the last 20. Willock was getting cramp. Johansen had to come off - understandable given lack of match time in pre-season - as did Austin. But it looked a bit like as a side we ran out of puff in the last 15. Whilst Millwall were a different gear to us in the first 20 too.
We all wanted a win, but given all the above, a draw was a decent result. Dickie and De Wijs were immense. Without either of those, I think Millwall would have scored a second and beaten us. |
Generally agree with that Tom apart from the fact that whilst 'Wall started like a train, they faded, so I am not sure that they were that much fitter than us. The game sort of drifted to a finish; even though we didn't look great, I thought that we were the most likely to score in those closing 10 minutes or so although to be fair, no-one scoring always looked the most likely. I'd have taken a draw after 50 minutes.
Totally up with the one up top thing - either Dykes OR Austin; not both as I am not convinced a two is the way to go. If you play Willock AND Chair (which is our best option) then there is no space for two up top.
Interesting dilemma on what to do when one of those two is out. IMO we have no-one like the two of them in the squad. My boy and a few others here might like Adomah in there, but I don't think that he is the quick, incisive passer that the two of them are. Maybe we need to find a third like them as we may well need them throughout the season. |  |
| |
| That’s a good point isn’t it? on 16:40 - Aug 8 with 974 views | NW5Hoop |
I thought we played the first half as if we thought we had already won. As if we were already promoted, in fact. It seemed like the sloppiness of over confidence — so many passes were lazily hit and surrendered position. I don't know what Charlie Austin was doing trying to play everything with the outside of the boot; and everyone seemed to fancy reverse passes without looking, or playing round the corner without looking. Our central defenders kept us in the game, and in the second half we were better, but without ever looking like the team we all hope they can be. We'll see. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
