Darlington V Blyth

[Emdubya]

Blyth played three days ago and they were also down to the bare bones - making no substitutions said it all.

Before tonight, they had won two of their last nine in all competitions.

Looking forward to hearing the giggles in the PMI tonight.

Why don’t you take your snide shite and just fuck off Fanny.

[Quakers2009]

[jjljks]

Glimmers of hope. Clean sheet, Burton MOTM, one point closed the gap.

[joejaques]

I’ve had the crystal ball out and I predict 6 points from the 2 games this week, both by a 1-0 score line.
Yes nurse I am coming for my medication

Has the nurse brought clean sheets with her?

So the nurse did bring the clean sheet, pity she didn't bring viagra as well, we might have scored.

[Old Git]

I’ve had the crystal ball out and I predict 6 points from the 2 games this week, both by a 1-0 score line.
Yes nurse I am coming for my medication

Has the nurse brought clean sheets with her?

So the nurse did bring the clean sheet, pity she didn't bring viagra as well, we might have scored.

Sadly she forgot the viagra but has promised a double dose on Saturday, so we will win 2-0

[PierremontQuaker03]

Burton and Lawler look a good partnership - Burton looks like he has plenty of pace which has been missing from our defenders. Clearly Blyth were the better footballing side however they offered very little up front just like us. We are in desperate need of a striker that's either big and strong or with some mobility. Hazel cannot do that role, whether Nelson will get back to where he was after his awful bad luck with injuries I don't know, but I think he deserves a place in the squad because he has the ability to finish and might be better coming on late in games.

[AndyPark]

Hazel doesn’t look interested.
Simms clearly isn’t gonna be good enough after being subbed after 45 mins.
Nelson just isn’t gonna be the same player he was.

We desperately need a striker capable of having a shot and taking risks to drive forward. Last night was poor.

[LoidLucan]

I know there's a long way to go this season and a lot of points to play for but, being realistic, I'm having real difficulty seeing where and how we are going to gather the next 42 or so points we will probably need to stay up.

Maybe at some point we will be able to win the odd game of football but even at this stage it looks a tall order to claw our way out of this mess.

The defence looked a bit better last night against a heavily depleted Blyth, who dominated possession,, but we posed very little threat throughout the entire game. Bottom line is there just aren't goals in this squad. Curing that from the current squad or any young reinforcements doesn't look realistic.

Maybe someone can point out some glimmer of hope that this is a battle we can win. Got to admit, I'm struggling with this one.

[Quakerlad]

Good grief, getting excited at a goalless draw at home against a bang average side when we had one shot on target and looked absolutely woeful with no idea of how we want to play.

Defence did ok for a change but so so they should have done. We lined up second half with 5 at back and 2 defensive midfielders in front of them and Blyth played with a lone striker!! JG clearly played that second half to hold on for a point. He says his players should show more ambition and confidence with their play, well he wasn’t showing any with his tactics. Essentially 7 defenders and leaving Hazel isolated up front in a position which we all know he cannot play. Eh!

Presuming that we sign no more players I have no idea how we score goals. New forward looked out of his depth and we have just about Zero creativity in the team.

We have just got used to not winning and seen no change under JG. Just cannot remember the last time I actually enjoyed watching a game which is very sad.

[Spyman]

Wonderful to see young Simms being written off after 45 minutes of football.

He's probably not played an awful lot of football so might need to build up some fitness, and by the sounds of it had bollock all service either. Lets give him a couple of weeks before we start claiming he'll never be good enough and getting on his back shall we?

[lo36789]

Simms clearly isn’t gonna be good enough after being subbed after 45 mins.

Isn't going to be good enough is some declaration!

[poppyfield]

Hazel doesn’t look interested.
Simms clearly isn’t gonna be good enough after being subbed after 45 mins.
Nelson just isn’t gonna be the same player he was.

We desperately need a striker capable of having a shot and taking risks to drive forward. Last night was poor.

If we can't get a new striker in , I would try Salkeld up front with either Nelson or Simms, Salkeld is wasted in the position Josh keeps persisting with, he's got something about that suggests we are not getting the best out of him. We have nothing to loose as the currant situation is dire, if Josh want's his player out wide then use Rivers.

[AndyPark]

Clearly Gowling didn't think so either, hence why he was taken off after 45 mins.

I paid my money to watch the game last night and that's my opinion. Happy to be proved wrong, but can't see it. Offered absolutely nothing last night.

Jake Lawlor offered more up top last night than any x3 of the strikers on that pitch.

[LoidLucan]

Wonderful to see young Simms being written off after 45 minutes of football.

He's probably not played an awful lot of football so might need to build up some fitness, and by the sounds of it had bollock all service either. Lets give him a couple of weeks before we start claiming he'll never be good enough and getting on his back shall we?

It's asking an awful lot to expect a raw19 year old to come into this tough environment and rescue us. But that route is probably the only one open to us and therein lies the problem.

[MB86DFC]

Wonderful to see young Simms being written off after 45 minutes of football.

He's probably not played an awful lot of football so might need to build up some fitness, and by the sounds of it had bollock all service either. Lets give him a couple of weeks before we start claiming he'll never be good enough and getting on his back shall we?

We don’t have the time to allow kids to get up to speed when they’re on a 1 month loan deal. He was utterly lost last night. Not really his fault, he shouldn’t have been thrown in at the deep end. We don’t need kids who haven’t played at this level, we need to organise what we have into a realistic system.

[LoidLucan]

Blyth had a really decent back line and Simms looked no more lost than Hazel did. Mind I doubt being hooked after 45 minutes will do him much good.

[onewayup]

I thought for the first time this season the team showed spirit had a never been say die attitude alibet it was lacking creativity, we have to remember that the manager has brought in younger lads obviously hoping that they hit the ground running, well he got the running but alas no end product,
I think we were better last night but still fall short i keep fingers crossed it works out with the newbies fitting in well ,liked Burton was deffo MOM. Although lawler not far behind with will Hatfield giving his usual 110% the sign's are there for recovery how long that takes is the ultimate Question. Hopefully quickly and we start to gain a bit of ground on the rest. Keep the faith lads we can we will and all that keep the support going.

[al_quaker]

We looked like we had made some progress defensively. The shape looked solid, Burton looked decent, and Lawlor had his best game in ages. Hopefully the other new defender will help improve that side of things further. That of course is caveated by playing a team who were happy to have the ball and didn't look that creative themselves.

However, I just cannot see where the goals are going to come from. We are devoid of any creativity. The strikers in the first half were far too isolated. It improved slighlty in the second half with the tweak in formation, with Ngandu and Hatfield getting pushed up behind Hazel, but I just cannot see how we are going to create enough chances. We don't get our wing backs invovled in the game enough going forward, which is essential for the 5 at the back being played. We, understandably, don't have any confidence on the ball. Hazel clearly cannot play as the focal point of the attack, and needs to be alongside a big man. The same can probably be said about Nelson, and Simms looks to be similar. I still believe it's not neccessarily the strikers which are the problem - we know Hazel and Nelson can finish, and presumably Simms can too with his youth record- but most strikers would struggle in a team which just doesn't create chances. What were the chances last night- a Lawlor shot after it fell kindly to him in the box?

Maybe a different formation might be better, but the lack of creativity has been evident all season, if not longer, so I think it's just a fundamental flaw in our squad rather than a system issue per se. And it's one which is difficult to sort out at the best of times, let alone mid season with the budget spent. The players clearly care an are working hard, but we're not far off a third of the season played and are 7 points adrift (and comfortably the worst goal difference in the league) - we're in real danger.

[Darlo_CR]

We played well defensively however I'm concerned by the post match interview from JG. His reference to 'getting to grips with Blyth's shape' caused problems in the first half when they play a 5-4-1 every week is alarming, especially when we have a data analyst?! Surely we'd have known how to deal with it before kick off..

As for 'a morale boosting point'...

[beatroute66]

Seeing lots of mixed/contradictory responses online to last night's game, to be honest.

"We were set up not to concede..." - well, partly, thank goodness (and we didn't...), but also not entirely true given we did start with two up top and wing backs, so it wasn't ten-men behind the ball from minute one.

I think Josh wisely spotted that we were being over-run in midfield in the first half, and they were getting lots of the ball in pockets in front of our back line, so hooked Sims (let's give him some time, huh...), changed formation a wee bit and we looked a lot more solid thereafter.

"We played for a 0-0..." - we didn't. We set up to keep it tight, rightly, and started with two up top. It didn't work and we read the situation correctly (in my view) in the changes that we made.

"It was only Blyth..." - they've started the season in good form and we haven't. We've been shipping goals for fun and not scoring many. On that basis, not conceding against a side 7th in the table *right now* is an improvement on what has been poor leading up to this point (both under AA and JG).

Burton had an excellent debut, Lawlor was MOTM for me (just) and Kal did a great job as that third 'CB'. No issues with Robson's performance.

Granted we're struggling up top and that needs work. Not shipping last night and looking tighter was an important step. We need to harness that and make it stick at the other end. Then we'll be okay.

[lo36789]

Clearly Gowling didn't think so either, hence why he was taken off after 45 mins.

I paid my money to watch the game last night and that's my opinion. Happy to be proved wrong, but can't see it. Offered absolutely nothing last night.

I'm not sure Gowling taking him off after 45 minutes, following a tactical change, is because he thinks he will never be good enough.

It's entirely fair to say "he wasn't good enough" last night.

I am not sure declaring his football career at NLN standard and above as over based on 45 minutes is entirely fair.

[QUAKERMAN2]

Wonderful to see young Simms being written off after 45 minutes of football.

He's probably not played an awful lot of football so might need to build up some fitness, and by the sounds of it had bollock all service either. Lets give him a couple of weeks before we start claiming he'll never be good enough and getting on his back shall we?

How must the lad feel being pulled by Gowling at HT.At least give him another 10 mins in the 2nd half.

Sent from my SM-A145R using Tapatalk

[beatroute66]

It was a tactical substitution for formation/shape, as Josh said in his PMI. Granted he didn't bang two in and have us all chanting his name, but it was his first 45 minutes with his new club. A firm judgement based on that alone is pointless.

Lindley hasn't even trained with us yet, but had a solid 45 minutes.

Why doesn't anybody get any time anymore? Fire Gowling, Sims isn't good enough, etc, etc. Madness.

[al_quaker]

Wonderful to see young Simms being written off after 45 minutes of football.

He's probably not played an awful lot of football so might need to build up some fitness, and by the sounds of it had bollock all service either. Lets give him a couple of weeks before we start claiming he'll never be good enough and getting on his back shall we?

How must the lad feel being pulled by Gowling at HT.At least give him another 10 mins in the 2nd half.

Sent from my SM-A145R using Tapatalk

It was a change of system which improved us. People would be complaining if Gowling stuck with something that was clearly leaving us second best.

[Old Git]

To be fair to Josh he saw a problem and reacted to it and changed the shape of the team to counter that. That is something that Armstrong failed to do on numerous occasions, so you have to give credit for that.

[Yarblockos]

However, I just cannot see where the goals are going to come from. We are devoid of any creativity. The strikers in the first half were far too isolated. It improved slighlty in the second half with the tweak in formation, with Ngandu and Hatfield getting pushed up behind Hazel, but I just cannot see how we are going to create enough chances. We don't get our wing backs invovled in the game enough going forward, which is essential for the 5 at the back being played. We, understandably, don't have any confidence on the ball. Hazel clearly cannot play as the focal point of the attack, and needs to be alongside a big man. The same can probably be said about Nelson, and Simms looks to be similar. I still believe it's not neccessarily the strikers which are the problem - we know Hazel and Nelson can finish, and presumably Simms can too with his youth record- but most strikers would struggle in a team which just doesn't create chances. What were the chances last night- a Lawlor shot after it fell kindly to him in the box?

I know people keep saying that Hazel needs to be alongside a big man, but given that effective big strikers are hard to find, it would seem better to try and offload Hazel and replace him with someone who can play as a focal point, or at least can hold the ball up, lay it off, and link up with his team mates. Yes, Hazel can finish, but only when he is in a team that is full of creative and hardworking players who make loads of great chances for him. As that is not going to happen, I don't much point in persisting with him.

[Spyman]

I know people keep saying that Hazel needs to be alongside a big man, but given that effective big strikers are hard to find, it would seem better to try and offload Hazel and replace him with someone who can play as a focal point, or at least can hold the ball up, lay it off, and link up with his team mates.

Replace him with an effective big striker, you mean?

[onewayup]

I think Josh is wrong playing 5 across the back .
For me it would be better balance 4-3-3 .
Lawler . Burton,Hedley, Griffith,or sukar.
Ngandu, Hatfield, platt or rivers,
Hazel, Nelson, salkeld or curry.
I think salkeld can play just behind the two front men ,
Like wise Nelson could play that role should curry be favoured over salkeld.
Might be totally wrong with this but I believe we have the players to get results,
5 at the back leave,s your team short at the front
Which is a troubled area,
Anyway it's just a thought I believe would work.

[loan_star]

I think Josh is wrong playing 5 across the back .
For me it would be better balance 4-3-3 .
Lawler . Burton,Hedley, Griffith,or sukar.
Ngandu, Hatfield, platt or rivers,
Hazel, Nelson, salkeld or curry.
I think salkeld can play just behind the two front men ,
Like wise Nelson could play that role should curry be favoured over salkeld.
Might be totally wrong with this but I believe we have the players to get results,
5 at the back leave,s your team short at the front
Which is a troubled area,
Anyway it's just a thought I believe would work.

Playing Salkeld behind the front 2 means you take away Hatfields effectiveness.
442 all the way for me.

[jjljks]

Still lumping too many aimless balls up front to lose possession. Really need to see someone running at their defence, causing panic & creating attacking options.