The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

Just one thing I'd say Footyman. You say confusing decisions as if you are right and others (manager) is wrong. Yours is an opinion..totally valid one...but others will maybe differ...im one of them...Whybrow on a night like that not a chance for me...but hey it's an opinion.

What always upsets me is opinion presented as fact along with incredulity that anyone could think differently....Present it as opinion but give others the credit for having a different one maybe with good reason...

Just saying

blackcountrydiamond wrote:Just one thing I'd say Footyman. You say confusing decisions as if you are right and others (manager) is wrong. Yours is an opinion..totally valid one...but others will maybe differ...im one of them...Whybrow on a night like that not a chance for me...but hey it's an opinion.

It is indeed an opinion. And the Whybrow opinion was for him to start at Woodford.

I think the management got it spot on last night, we have looked leaky in defence over the last few games, they have noticed and addressed it by changing the formation and we ground out a 2-0 win 3 points and thank you very much, so what if someone got 5 mins, 10 mins, wasn't there. The object is to win games and get 3 points, now onto wisbech.

I am really pleased that some players are hurting that they didn't start last night, what would we be like if they weren't bothered.

It's a 16 man squad game, some will play more than others, but the result and points are the most important things.

We certainly didn't give their dangerman, Byrne, a sniff at a goal scoring opportunity last evening with this new formation something that I was particularly concerned about going into the match.

I wonder if we will see a similar formation against Wisbech?

Starm's changed the formation last night to get more solid defensively, it worked as someone else said Desborough could have still been there at 11.00 and not scored.

In my opinion our wide players don't go outside the full backs often enough so playing a three behind Dunks played to their strengths and also gave Dunks more options. We saw at PNS how they negated Dunks by playing the CB's in front and behind of him and letting the full backs worry about Alfie. With the 4-2-3-1 that wasn't possible and he defence was more stretched.

I would have played exactly the same team at Woodford. It's a cup game, regardless of opposition you win the game and then make the changes.

Good win yesterday, it was horrible for the later part of the first half.

I admit to being a bit surprised by the formation, but it did the job last night - and it's clear it's only going to be used where the opposition strength demands it. It was certainly better than the failed experiments with 4-3-3.

Another side who offered very little going forward, I thought we did a professional job on Byrne, which was a credit to our defence.

To be honest, I was expecting Desborough to be a very good side, but like others have said, they didn't look like scoring.

Regarding Lance, I don't understand why he didn't start. He was obviously frustrated on twitter, along with two others who weren't happy, but like Bozzer said, it shows they care.

Seen Byrne three times and he's spent 250 minutes in Deaks pocket.

Won`t use the dreaded word "professional" as nobody has stated more than me on this forum we are no longed a full time p word Club. However IMO last night was a very workmanlike performance by all involved. One of those crap nights when something horrible could have happened but they were restricted to one half decent attempt in the opening 30 seconds, and result never looked in doubt. 2-0 flattered them, wouldn`t totally agree it wasn`t much of a performance, as had Dunks not put a match ball into orbit in the 1st half, Dunks & Kingy not missed straight forward headers, and a couple of other chances not gone begging ie Alfie shooting when 2 were lined up for a tap in, the same team performance could have resulted in a 6-0 + win which i`m sure away at Desborough everyone would have raved about.
The above by the way is by no means a criticism of those who missed chances it`s football it happens just highlighting how totally dominant we were.
IMO the system was not that bad, got more options around Dunks, though work to be done on the communication front as he seemed unsure at times where to play it and others unsure where he was going with it, and occasions when 2 going for the same ball with a pair of holding midfield players, and due to him missing a few games recently Sean was always going to win that battle (think he may have even tackled Brad a couple of times :lol:) but possibly the case they have never played together in the roll they did last night.
Disappointed with the opposition, No 8 looked good, a few average inc DG, some to be honest piss poor, could have done with more people running at the right back as he looked dodgy at best, and the No 5 :oops: if the pitch was the other way round it still would not have been wide enough for most of his misdirected lumps down the lines, or as was the case into No 48s garden and beyond.

I thought Desborough's floodlights were particularly good and the lux lighting levels far exceeded what we usually experience at our level probably due to more lamps on old school pylons.
I was, however, told that plans are 'in hand' to improve the lighting levels at the Dog & Duck.