London Crawleying. An away Clash with Crawley Town, Sat 28th of Sept. 12-30.

[DJBlu]

Santos straight down the tunnel again there I see. Do not see him being here next season.

Doesn't matter if he keeps the clean sheets coming.
Might be just what we needed and he will come round to it.

He might've asked to not be captain and is embarrased. As long as we continue to be successful I doubt anyone will care.

[Bertie Wooster]

Santos straight down the tunnel again there I see. Do not see him being here next season.

Probably really fed up with the fan criticism, understandably so. It's a shame, we all want him to do well.



Tis a funny league this one. We beat Reading 5-2, lost to Huddersfield 4-0 and they've just finished 2-1 to Reading.

He'll stop sulking eventually, the criticism of Santos IMO was over the top and he's obviously not happy about being a scapegoat for Wembley and losing the captaincy etc which is understandable. He is a good player and we need him, he played well today as did the rest of the team.

[Worthy4England]

3 points, good. Away from home, good. Two good goals, good. Clean sheet, good.

The possession thing, for me, isn't anywhere near as black and white as 70% = bad and 30% = good. They're not the hottest team in front of goal and we still conceded 2 last week. The thing that grinds is possession for possessions sake and drifting aimlessly with it.

Santos was not to blame for Wembley. Evatt was. IMO.

[The_Gun]

Cracking goal, cracking performance, and cracking result.

Some people might want to reevaluate that Reading win in light of their result today, as well.

[jmjhb]

Absolutely no complaints with that performance. More of that please.

[officer_dibble]

Cracking goal, cracking performance, and cracking result.

Some people might want to reevaluate that Reading win in light of their result today, as well.

Or the Huddersfield defeat in light of them being absolute dogshit since?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

3 points, good. Away from home, good. Two good goals, good. Clean sheet, good.

The possession thing, for me, isn't anywhere near as black and white as 70% = bad and 30% = good. They're not the hottest team in front of goal and we still conceded 2 last week. The thing that grinds is possession for possessions sake and drifting aimlessly with it.

Santos was not to blame for Wembley. Evatt was. IMO.

I fully agree with that entire post and everything in it, but I'd like to particularly hurrah the bolded section.

I too get frustrated with penetration-free possession when we need a goal. I sometimes understand why it happens, but it still frustrates me. However, if we're winning, why would having the ball be a bad thing? We spent two-thirds of that game without the ball, and therefore having to be hyper-alert and active either physically (chasing the ball) or mentally (watching and waiting). I'm not sure how anyone would deny that's more tiring than having the ball and making the opposition run after you.

I'm very glad we managed to win - and to keep them at more than arm's length: the end-of-match highlights featured precisely nothing from the second half until waste-of-money McAtee's wonder-strike. I'm slightly worried the nature of the win will diminish our chances of doing the same (or better) at Northampton on Tuesday, but that's a higher-class problem.

Evatt still has to keep winning. As long as we're winning, it's fine. Bigger tests await.

[boltonboris]

Enjoyed that performance. Everything we've not been this season.

We controlled the game without the ball, to coin a Freedman Phrase and looked dangerous when we broke. Schon looked like the player we though we'd signed. Aggressive, intense and got us going down that side. Sheehan was excellent and the back 3, whilst not hugely challenged did everything well. Johnston went almost unnoticed, which is no bad thing when you're playing at centre back.

The thing I'm most happy about is that their fans would have walked out of that stadium thinking "Bolton are a right bunch of shithouses", which is a long time coming. Got about the ref, bought fouls, made tactical fouls, killed the clock and wound them up. Love it

McAtee's goal was brilliant. From back to front and that finish... Bang..

Wasn't pretty (doesn't have to be) and there'll be bigger challenges for sure, but another step in the right direction.

[BorsdaneWhite]

Just knew McAtee was suited for this game when he came on. What a goal, lad. I hope that’s the first of many. Total shouthise, tricky, and physical.

Really tricky with riches up front, now. Vic and Dion have a more traditional partnership, and McAtee and Collins look terrifying off the bench—but they seem just to *work*. I can understand Evatt’s desire to have three of them on; it’s just what is sacrificed behind. And I think that sacrifice is too great.

With the about-face, I wonder whether Morley should be recalled. Arfield is a hemi-Dempsey thus far. Need a quarter-back.

[jmjhb]

The 2 up-top seems a lot more potent and successful and Evatt would be mad to change it back. I don't think it's an issue, all 4 will get plenty of game time with rotation and injuries.

Could Lolos play that quarter-back role?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

We controlled the game without the ball, to coin a Freedman Phrase

Ha yeah that phrase occured to me - fittingly enough, while on the bog

With the about-face, I wonder whether Morley should be recalled. Arfield is a hemi-Dempsey thus far. Need a quarter-back.

That's an interesting idea. We let Moz go when we seemed to have too many midfielders (what with only playing two in the XI). Now we seem somewhat short of depth, and Morley was always the most natural dep for Sheehan at 6. Interesting... if perhaps slightly unlikely, at least before January.

Could Lolos play that quarter-back role?

Evatt described him just this week as able to play 8, 9 or 10. We'll see about that, but 6 is a whole other thing. I'd guess he's more suitable as an 8 in this formation (where the 8s can get forward) than the far bigger discipline required of the two centre-mids in a 3-4-2-1.

On the forwards - yeah, three of the four have scored this week and the other has largely played well, so that's good. Not precisely a surprise, though - I did expect us to be strong up top.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

[irie Cee Bee]

Good away performance. Focused on winning the game rather than on possession. Created chances and scored two really good goals, one from a set piece and the other from a brilliant counter attack and strike. Charles looked dangerous, and when Collins and McAtee came on, we stepped up on quality.

Points is all that matters right now, and Crawley showed how we look when we just play possession football. Hope we continue in the future to look to score rather than improve our passing stats.

[jmjhb]

That's the Szabi Schön we've been looking for.

[HMX]

Just got back (it was only a trip up the A23!) and I’m happy with that performance. We let Crawley have the ball but they rarely looked like doing something dangerous with it. Could be a description of our play sometimes. Referee… yeah, awful. Not sure how Crawley only ended up with two yellow cards. Two off the ball incidents and one of them could’ve been a red. Dempsey my MOTM. Ran everywhere, scored, committed himself completely. We’re lucky to have Mac and Collins come on and change things up. Happy days!

[Worthy4England]

3 points, good. Away from home, good. Two good goals, good. Clean sheet, good.

The possession thing, for me, isn't anywhere near as black and white as 70% = bad and 30% = good. They're not the hottest team in front of goal and we still conceded 2 last week. The thing that grinds is possession for possessions sake and drifting aimlessly with it.

Santos was not to blame for Wembley. Evatt was. IMO.

I fully agree with that entire post and everything in it, but I'd like to particularly hurrah the bolded section.

I too get frustrated with penetration-free possession when we need a goal. I sometimes understand why it happens, but it still frustrates me. However, if we're winning, why would having the ball be a bad thing? We spent two-thirds of that game without the ball, and therefore having to be hyper-alert and active either physically (chasing the ball) or mentally (watching and waiting). I'm not sure how anyone would deny that's more tiring than having the ball and making the opposition run after you.

I'm very glad we managed to win - and to keep them at more than arm's length: the end-of-match highlights featured precisely nothing from the second half until waste-of-money McAtee's wonder-strike. I'm slightly worried the nature of the win will diminish our chances of doing the same (or better) at Northampton on Tuesday, but that's a higher-class problem.

Evatt still has to keep winning. As long as we're winning, it's fine. Bigger tests await.

Well Sir, there's no shortage of "switched off" moments from last season. Quite a few 2-up early, games where we just watched the remainder like sat in a library. Not entertaining. I like hyper-alert, physically and mentally. Saves dulling the senses.

The comparison from one of my sports, egg chasing, is having a dominant pack and keeping the ball tight in the forwards. As someone who played in the pack, I can admire all the great qualities of that level of domination and understand why it might be good from a purists perspective. Makes for a winning game but not necessarily a joy to behold.

[BWFC_Insane]

3 points, good. Away from home, good. Two good goals, good. Clean sheet, good.

The possession thing, for me, isn't anywhere near as black and white as 70% = bad and 30% = good. They're not the hottest team in front of goal and we still conceded 2 last week. The thing that grinds is possession for possessions sake and drifting aimlessly with it.

Santos was not to blame for Wembley. Evatt was. IMO.

I fully agree with that entire post and everything in it, but I'd like to particularly hurrah the bolded section.

I too get frustrated with penetration-free possession when we need a goal. I sometimes understand why it happens, but it still frustrates me. However, if we're winning, why would having the ball be a bad thing? We spent two-thirds of that game without the ball, and therefore having to be hyper-alert and active either physically (chasing the ball) or mentally (watching and waiting). I'm not sure how anyone would deny that's more tiring than having the ball and making the opposition run after you.

I'm very glad we managed to win - and to keep them at more than arm's length: the end-of-match highlights featured precisely nothing from the second half until waste-of-money McAtee's wonder-strike. I'm slightly worried the nature of the win will diminish our chances of doing the same (or better) at Northampton on Tuesday, but that's a higher-class problem.

Evatt still has to keep winning. As long as we're winning, it's fine. Bigger tests await.

The issue with having the ball is we aren’t good enough most of the time to have 60% plus possession and threaten teams. It’s one or the other. And nor are we Man City where at some point with possession we have the players who will quickly go through the gears and eventually create something.

So it’s psychological too. Team comes to us as we did to Crawley and sit deeper and wait for their chances. They feel in control and like they can score. We increasingly become less certain and more panicked.

There are clearly going to be games where we naturally dominate possession but trading some of that possession for more urgent and instant threat in the opponents box and around it I think would make us a better team.

I don’t think possession in any way indicates the better side. Often it’s the opposite. We were the best side by a mile today with only 30 odd percent.

[boltonboris]

3 points, good. Away from home, good. Two good goals, good. Clean sheet, good.

The possession thing, for me, isn't anywhere near as black and white as 70% = bad and 30% = good. They're not the hottest team in front of goal and we still conceded 2 last week. The thing that grinds is possession for possessions sake and drifting aimlessly with it.

Santos was not to blame for Wembley. Evatt was. IMO.

I fully agree with that entire post and everything in it, but I'd like to particularly hurrah the bolded section.

I too get frustrated with penetration-free possession when we need a goal. I sometimes understand why it happens, but it still frustrates me. However, if we're winning, why would having the ball be a bad thing? We spent two-thirds of that game without the ball, and therefore having to be hyper-alert and active either physically (chasing the ball) or mentally (watching and waiting). I'm not sure how anyone would deny that's more tiring than having the ball and making the opposition run after you.

I'm very glad we managed to win - and to keep them at more than arm's length: the end-of-match highlights featured precisely nothing from the second half until waste-of-money McAtee's wonder-strike. I'm slightly worried the nature of the win will diminish our chances of doing the same (or better) at Northampton on Tuesday, but that's a higher-class problem.

Evatt still has to keep winning. As long as we're winning, it's fine. Bigger tests await.

The issue with having the ball is we aren’t good enough most of the time to have 60% plus possession and threaten teams. It’s one or the other. And nor are we Man City where at some point with possession we have the players who will quickly go through the gears and eventually create something.

So it’s psychological too. Team comes to us as we did to Crawley and sit deeper and wait for their chances. They feel in control and like they can score. We increasingly become less certain and more panicked.

There are clearly going to be games where we naturally dominate possession but trading some of that possession for more urgent and instant threat in the opponents box and around it I think would make us a better team.

I don’t think possession in any way indicates the better side. Often it’s the opposite. We were the best side by a mile today with only 30 odd percent.

Last season we were the second highest scorers in the whole country. So maybe having the possession did work for us.

As Worthy and DSB both pointed out, it doesn’t have to one or the other. Different styles against different teams and having more than one way of playing is the main thing and today showed us some hope that this has been identified as a tactical decision that can be switched on/off

[TANGODANCER]

Without the goals it was a bit "play for five minutes, free-wheel for 85". I accept that unless they scored we didn't need to kill ourselves, but our inability to win and keep the ball is a bit worrying. Goals were great, a win and three points is all that will stay in memory but all said it was a typical League One game where scoring fist is critical. Midfield and defence were worked hard and stood up well to it. Baxter needs to watch time-wasting because referees are an association and must communicate out of game., but that apart, a solid show. Well done the Whites.

[GhostoftheBok]

We let them play and trusted our spacing to keep them out. Organised at the back and dangerous on the counter.

I enjoyed it.

Far from perfect, but clean sheets and wins will help with confidence and we can build from there.