Down in the Forest, something stirred..V. Forest Green away, 8-11-22. 3-O'clock.

[Worthy4England]

“Stick with the plan”

The plan can be "play high" "step them out" but you still need to look across your line and not assume putting your hand up will help.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Before the midweek game we were told the two wingback selections weren't attacking enough. Both changed for forward-minded wide 'uns but we still haven't laid a glove on a poor team.

May be heretical but I'm beginning to suspect that perhaps, just maybe, MJ & Thomo aren't the new Gattuso and Pirlo. Sexy Kieran also badly off-form.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Iredale on for Johnston.

[Worthy4England]

Before the midweek game we were told the two wingback selections weren't attacking enough. Both changed for forward-minded wide 'uns but we still haven't laid a glove on a poor team.

May be heretical but I'm beginning to suspect that perhaps, just maybe, MJ & Thomo aren't the new Gattuso and Pirlo. Sexy Kieran also badly off-form.

Not heretical, they certainly aren't. For the current cunning plan, either Bradley or [Insert LWB] really need to work well and create. But. That's what they're in the team to do.

[BWFC_Insane]

Iredale shouldn’t have bothered covering back then. Should just put his hand up.

[DJBlu]

santos.png

Ball has yet to be played. That's how offside the guy would have been.

Jones is in no mans land.

You cannot play off side with no pressure on the ball facing your own goal. Santos cannot even see the run in behind as he’s watching the ball and has no idea where the line is.

If that’s the plan it’s a shockingly bad one. When you are facing the right way it’s a different story.

It's not a plan, it's basic defending. Moving as a unit. It didn't and you're blaming Santos for allowing a man who, had the defence stuck to the basics, would have been a mile offside. But no you're looking at Santos because for some unfathomable reason you dislike.

What's the reverse of rose tinted?

[Mar]

santos.png

Ball has yet to be played. That's how offside the guy would have been.

Jones is in no mans land.

You cannot play off side with no pressure on the ball facing your own goal. Santos cannot even see the run in behind as he’s watching the ball and has no idea where the line is.

If that’s the plan it’s a shockingly bad one. When you are facing the right way it’s a different story.

Clutching at straws there. He's played their player offside and you're trying to portray his body positioning and viewpoint to fit your narrative rather than identifying that there are other issues in that passage of play that we could be far more critical of, such as tactic or Jones being too far back.

[Mar]

Referee seems somewhat adverse to giving us any sort of free kick from the looks of it.

Just checked the stats, we've conceded 4 fouls and they've conceded 8. Surprising.

Great ball by Iredale, Charles would usually do better there.

[DJBlu]

Dion, ffs that's shocking.

[DJBlu]

Referee seems somewhat adverse to giving us any sort of free kick from the looks of it.

Just checked the stats, we've conceded 4 fouls and they've conceded 8. Surprising.

Great ball by Iredale, Charles would usually do better there.

Could easily be 16 if you include the number of fouls on Kachunga.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Beautiful Iredale cross bungled over by Charles. Come on Whites.

[BWFC_Insane]

santos.png

Ball has yet to be played. That's how offside the guy would have been.

Jones is in no mans land.

You cannot play off side with no pressure on the ball facing your own goal. Santos cannot even see the run in behind as he’s watching the ball and has no idea where the line is.

If that’s the plan it’s a shockingly bad one. When you are facing the right way it’s a different story.

It's not a plan, it's basic defending. Moving as a unit. It didn't and you're blaming Santos for allowing a man who, had the defence stuck to the basics, would have been a mile offside. But no you're looking at Santos because for some unfathomable reason you dislike.

What's the reverse of rose tinted?

It’s basic defending to play the offside trap when you’ve been turned round and there is no pressure on the ball. Ok. Whatever you say. From now on I don’t expect to see any defender covering in behind. Or tracking a runner. Just put your hand up. It’s the plan.

It’s complete tosh. Complete and utter tosh.

[Mar]

Referee seems somewhat adverse to giving us any sort of free kick from the looks of it.

Just checked the stats, we've conceded 4 fouls and they've conceded 8. Surprising.

Great ball by Iredale, Charles would usually do better there.

Could easily be 16 if you include the number of fouls on Kachunga.

MJ committing a late tackle and not getting penalised for it, not even showing for advantage. I suspect the ref is bottling some of these calls.

[DJBlu]

santos.png

Ball has yet to be played. That's how offside the guy would have been.

Jones is in no mans land.

You cannot play off side with no pressure on the ball facing your own goal. Santos cannot even see the run in behind as he’s watching the ball and has no idea where the line is.

If that’s the plan it’s a shockingly bad one. When you are facing the right way it’s a different story.

It's not a plan, it's basic defending. Moving as a unit. It didn't and you're blaming Santos for allowing a man who, had the defence stuck to the basics, would have been a mile offside. But no you're looking at Santos because for some unfathomable reason you dislike.

What's the reverse of rose tinted?

It’s basic defending to play the offside trap when you’ve been turned round and there is no pressure on the ball. Ok. Whatever you say. From now on I don’t expect to see any defender covering in behind. Or tracking a runner. Just put your hand up. It’s the plan.

It’s complete tosh. Complete and utter tosh.

Bore off. You're clearly on a wind up.

[BWFC_Insane]

santos.png

Ball has yet to be played. That's how offside the guy would have been.

Jones is in no mans land.

You cannot play off side with no pressure on the ball facing your own goal. Santos cannot even see the run in behind as he’s watching the ball and has no idea where the line is.

If that’s the plan it’s a shockingly bad one. When you are facing the right way it’s a different story.

It's not a plan, it's basic defending. Moving as a unit. It didn't and you're blaming Santos for allowing a man who, had the defence stuck to the basics, would have been a mile offside. But no you're looking at Santos because for some unfathomable reason you dislike.

What's the reverse of rose tinted?

It’s basic defending to play the offside trap when you’ve been turned round and there is no pressure on the ball. Ok. Whatever you say. From now on I don’t expect to see any defender covering in behind. Or tracking a runner. Just put your hand up. It’s the plan.

It’s complete tosh. Complete and utter tosh.

Bore off. You're clearly on a wind up.

No you are making an utterly ridiculous argument.

You can’t seriously think that’s anything other than poor defending. If you are relying on offside there you will concede a shedload. Jones is watching the man on the ball unless he’s got eyes in the back of his head he has no chance of keeping a line. In reality no team can keep a line in that scenario as your still shows perfectly. If the player on the blind side runs in behind santos then even if you had a line you will be in a world of trouble.

[BWFC_Insane]

Neither of the front two look like scoring to me.

[DJBlu]

santos.png

Ball has yet to be played. That's how offside the guy would have been.

Jones is in no mans land.

You cannot play off side with no pressure on the ball facing your own goal. Santos cannot even see the run in behind as he’s watching the ball and has no idea where the line is.

If that’s the plan it’s a shockingly bad one. When you are facing the right way it’s a different story.

It's not a plan, it's basic defending. Moving as a unit. It didn't and you're blaming Santos for allowing a man who, had the defence stuck to the basics, would have been a mile offside. But no you're looking at Santos because for some unfathomable reason you dislike.

What's the reverse of rose tinted?

It’s basic defending to play the offside trap when you’ve been turned round and there is no pressure on the ball. Ok. Whatever you say. From now on I don’t expect to see any defender covering in behind. Or tracking a runner. Just put your hand up. It’s the plan.

It’s complete tosh. Complete and utter tosh.

Bore off. You're clearly on a wind up.

No you are making an utterly ridiculous argument.

You can’t seriously think that’s anything other than poor defending. If you are relying on offside there you will concede a shedload. Jones is watching the man on the ball unless he’s got eyes in the back of his head he has no chance of keeping a line. In reality no team can keep a line in that scenario as your still shows perfectly. If the player on the blind side runs in behind santos then even if you had a line you will be in a world of trouble.

maxresdefault.jpg (92.34 KiB) Viewed 364 times

[Worthy4England]

Isn't big Ric "defence leader?" Clearly it's not him stood in the wrong place, but you can't step the backline for an offside trap when one of the troops are three yards adrift, irrespective of what the plan might have been...I'm not trying to blame Santos, but if it's your call on the step out, you need to look across your line.

[Mar]

Isn't big Ric "defence leader?" Clearly it's not him stood in the wrong place, but you can't step the backline for an offside trap when one of the troops are three yards adrift, irrespective of what the plan might have been...I'm not trying to blame Santos, but if it's your call on the step out, you need to look across your line.

Maybe theres a breakdown in communication in terms of telling the players to play offside.


Charles getting the ball in the back of the net. Well after of the whistle being blown.

[officer_dibble]

I can’t get worked up about the defence, that’s not the reason we won’t get any points here - we can’t keep creating nowt and scoring nowt and pick up points. That’s the issue.