Matches Last 10 Games

[Sheik djibouti]

The squad is solid ,so what's been missing?

Game time together for fit players.

 

[LeftSideLarry]

I agree with MustardYellow

 

[Bath Yellow]

We are too inconsistant, great performance of the season last Saturday, even Pompey fans were saying how well we played when we were leaving and should not have lost, then another time we just dont turn up, our last few home games have been shocking, thats where the problem lies. Promotion, dont think so, much as i would like it to happen

 

[CCYellow]

Me when I see MustardYellow is yet again contradicting himself on which players are suddenly good enough for a top 2 team

(Murphy, Browne, Henry (who are never fit enough to play), Long, Thorniley)

At least he's not claiming Harris is good enough after consistently slagging him off before.

 

[Scotchegg]

Me when I see MustardYellow is yet again contradicting himself on which players are suddenly good enough for a top 2 team

(Murphy, Browne, Henry (who are never fit enough to play), Long, Thorniley)

At least he's not claiming Harris is good enough after consistently slagging him off before.

There are a few who are the same. Never a good word for any player, barely anyone good enough for a "top 6 league one team" yet Buckingham is falling by not being in the autos.

But then I've seen one poster say that we're now where near good enough for the autos but should definitely be in the top 4, despite 4th place only being 3 points off second with a game in hand!

I think that some are just angry but forget what they are angry about at times.

 

[m]

I think that some are just angry but forget what they are angry about at times.

Maybe they're angry about those who participate only to make others angry?

 

[Scotchegg]

Maybe they're angry about those who participate only to make others angry?

Anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

 

[Jonny G]

1994/5 Season as well. We were storming the league until Christmas, then fell over in a heap and missed out on the play-offs.

Ouch! I was trying to forget that one! It was all going really well until Wycombe on 29-ish of December too! :O lol

 

[SteMerritt]

Ouch! I was trying to forget that one! It was all going really well until Wycombe on 29-ish of December too! :O lol

Yeah sorry about that... We were terrible for the whole calendar year of 1995 - if we could completely erase that year, and join the first half of 1994/5 to the second half of 1995/6 we'd probably have won over 100 points!

 

[Scotchegg]

Yeah sorry about that... We were terrible for the whole calendar year of 1995 - if we could completely erase that year, and join the first half of 1994/5 to the second half of 1995/6 we'd probably have won over 100 points!

98 points if you take August - end December 94 and January - May 96.

The whole of 1995 got us 59 points which was actually slightly better than it felt like at the time!

 

[MustardYellow]

Game time together for fit players.

Didn't Manning bring in 11 players and still manage to win 10 out of 15 despite them not having 'game time together'?

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Didn't Manning bring in 11 players and still manage to win 10 out of 15 despite them not having 'game time together'?

And lest we forget also had a pre-season to get them playing together, with a settled/established coaching team coaching them yes. Not to mention the fact that all 11 players we're not (have never been)the starting 11 were they?

And by that logic, how would you explain the appalling 2-0 and 5-1 drubbings in the first 2 competitive games of the season, followed by a squeaky 1-0 win at home against comfortably the worst team in the league? The line up against Cambridge on the opening day included 5 new Manning signings, the line up agaisnt Bris C included 4 and then 4 against Carlisle.

So in reality, a whole pre-season with a settled staff in place, plus 3 pretty dreadful performances in the first 3 competitive games. After that, the team clicked and we saw a very good late August/September, where we saw the true potential of that strongest 11 was realised. I remember saying at the time that the team was performing at a level greater than the sum of its parts and that we were finding a way to grind out results, even if the performances weren't entirely convincing. I can actually remember hoping back then that we could sustain it until the January window where Manning would get the chance to strengthen a squad in serious need of strengthening.

Alas, what we've seen since that early good form (some call it over-performance. .. and there's a whole load of stats to back up this assertion too) is the squad behind that best 11 was paper thin at best when the injuries came. It was simply unsustainable and made worse by an utterly unexpected and forced change of manager and assistant (still not resolved, unless you actually think Hackett IS the AM?).

So yes, it would appear that competitive game time together IS rather important to how a team performs.

 

[Ox4Eva]

It's all about momentum, how often have we seen a side hit some form and come up on the rails and get into the playoffs when least expected.

Yes it's hard to see it being us, but keep the faith, up the U's!

 

[MustardYellow]

And lest we forget also had a pre-season to get them playing together, with a settled/established coaching team coaching them yes. Not to mention the fact that all 11 players we're not (have never been)the starting 11 were they?

And by that logic, how would you explain the appalling 2-0 and 5-1 drubbings in the first 2 competitive games of the season, followed by a squeaky 1-0 win at home against comfortably the worst team in the league? The line up against Cambridge on the opening day included 5 new Manning signings, the line up agaisnt Bris C included 4 and then 4 against Carlisle.

So in reality, a whole pre-season with a settled staff in place, plus 3 pretty dreadful performances in the first 3 competitive games. After that, the team clicked and we saw a very good late August/September, where we saw the true potential of that strongest 11 was realised. I remember saying at the time that the team was performing at a level greater than the sum of its parts and that we were finding a way to grind out results, even if the performances weren't entirely convincing. I can actually remember hoping back then that we could sustain it until the January window where Manning would get the chance to strengthen a squad in serious need of strengthening.

Alas, what we've seen since that early good form (some call it over-performance. .. and there's a whole load of stats to back up this assertion too) is the squad behind that best 11 was paper thin at best when the injuries came. It was simply unsustainable and made worse by an utterly unexpected and forced change of manager and assistant (still not resolved, unless you actually think Hackett IS the AM?).

So yes, it would appear that competitive game time together IS rather important to how a team performs.

Des has been in over 4 months - much longer than pre-season. Browne and Edwards are the only players to have been injured the majority of that time, and they're still not playing so largely irrelevant.

No one would've been too upset if Des' first couple of games weren't great, but the issue is it started not great and hasn't got much better. You're right that the performances under Manning weren't always brilliant/fun to watch, but we largely still won - isn't that the sign of a good manager? Manning brought in players and had them playing really well. Leigh & Rodrigues spring to mind - both were great under Manning. Yes Leigh had an injury, but he's been back 2 months now and is nowhere near as good as he was. Rodrigues.... well what's happened there then???

Point is, Des has had ample time to work with the squad, make his own signings, implement his style of play etc. It's very telling that after over 4 months we still don't actually know what his style of play is.

 

[SteMerritt]

Des has been in over 4 months - much longer than pre-season.

I think the point was in pre-season you can actually get to work with the players for extended periods of time which you just can't do during the season - especially if you are having weeks of playing Sat - Tue - Sat.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

I think the point was in pre-season you can actually get to work with the players for extended periods of time which you just can't do during the season - especially if you are having weeks of playing Sat - Tue - Sat.

I didn't think it was that hard to understand either

 

[m]

I didn't think it was that hard to understand either

It's not.

It's pretty easy to wilfully misunderstand.

 

[IsleofWightYellow]

Given the seeming impossibility of taking over a successful side halfway through the season and either improving on or continuing that success, due to all the excuses reasons listed above, it does rather make you wonder how some coaches manage to take over a side in an awful run of form, absolutely bereft of confidence, and without a pre-season (or even a transfer window sometimes) still massively turn them around…

 

[m]

Given the seeming impossibility of taking over a successful side halfway through the season and either improving on or continuing that success, due to all the excuses reasons listed above, it does rather make you wonder how some coaches manage to take over a side in an awful run of form, absolutely bereft of confidence, and without a pre-season (or even a transfer window sometimes) still massively turn them around…

Regression to the mean.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Given the seeming impossibility of taking over a successful side halfway through the season and either improving on or continuing that success, due to all the excuses reasons listed above, it does rather make you wonder how some coaches manage to take over a side in an awful run of form, absolutely bereft of confidence, and without a pre-season (or even a transfer window sometimes) still massively turn them around…

I'd suggest, it's easier to take over and underperforming team and improve them, than it is to take and overperforming team and maintain them, especially when you've got some senior players sulking (according to @Leysboy) because they didn't get the manager they wanted

Just looking back over our fixtures and the first thing that is clear is Greg Leigh has not been back 2 months as @MustardYellow is claiming, and certainly not as a regular starter. His first appearence as a sub was against Carlisle on 13th Jan. he played the last 21 minutes of that game (which we won 3-1 incidentally - better than the result Manning managed after a full pre-season).

The next game after that against Barnsley, he managed 45 mins and that was forced after Joe Bennett went off injured. Prior to that incident, Sam Long had scored an own goal (was that the managers fault because of how he's being coached?) prior to being forced off after 35 mins to be replaced by Oisin Smyth...because there was nobody else who could remotely play at right back. We ended up losing 1-0 against the team currently sat in 4th.

Then Bristol Rovers on 27th January was Leighs first start, where injuries to both Bennett and Long forced our hand at the back, plus no Murphy meant Leigh playing in midfield, where he hadn't been very effective under Manning.

Next up was Portsmouth and a creditable draw against the leaders, despite both Cumming and Stevens being forced off with yet more injuries.

Neither featured in the next game against Reading. Negru at RB (cover your eyes) and still no sign of Murphy, where we drew and should've won - we even scored their goal for them - what on earth is Buckingham teaching them!!

Next up a draw against Blackpool - a promotion rival. Murphy finally back on the bench, but still missing Stevens and Bennett at the back. Mark Harris only denied a second by Marvin Ekpiteta's face on the line.

4-2 drubbing of Wigan next - First goal of the season for Murphy, coming off the bench. Other goals from Rodrigues, Brannagan and Goodrham. Decent enough performance.

Bore draw against Wycombe next. 0-0 and only 19 shots and 6 on target mustered by the two teams. Exactly what we expect from Wycombe's anti-football approach. We were also missing our captain Elliott Moore through injury and no Marcus McGuane either. Still no Stevens, Bennett an unused sub.

Next up Northampton, which we should've won, if it weren't for that inexplicable Sam Long back pass an the events that unfolded after that. What on earth was Buckingham thinking to train them to play like that???

Next up Leyton Orient. Absolutely fabulous team goal, scored by Goodrham. Still no Elliott Moore. Fin Stevens and Bennett unused subs on the bench. Matete looked ike he was wading through treacle for large parts, replaced by McGuane (returning from injury) on 75. SIX game unbeaten run brought to an end.

Then Portsmouth. Elliott Moore finally back. We outplayed them for the majority of the game - bad mistake from Cumming for their first to lose it in the sun and let it in (what has Buckingham been teaching him in training???) Buckingham said after the game that this is the way he wants them to play...and most fans seem to think that's a good sign. We had 18 shots on goal with 6 on target and 8 blocked. Portsmouth had 11. Everyone said Portsmouth aren't all that, but they have a habit of grinding out results, which is (funnily enough) what Champions do!