Wombat
Well-Known Member
We never get any numbers against the Nix and 5pm is a horrible timeslot.
-
Join ccmfans.net
ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!
If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.
ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.
R2: Mariners V Nix
- Thread starter midfielder
- Start date
We never get any numbers against the Nix and 5pm is a horrible timeslot.
Frustrating game...we really needed to win that. I'm a Mossy fan but tbh that's the 2nd week where i was absolutely perplexed with the starting 11 and also the subs. I was running a little late getting into the ground and when i heard the subs been read out my heart sank. Ando, Caceres and Triff should all have started.
Having said that we looked good for the first 20 and i thought Mossy had proved me wrong.
All i can think of is he is trying to get as many players fit and match ready and thought that he could still play a weakened side and get the points. And create competition.
Poscoliero looks a good prospect and i can understand he might be more comfortable on the ball,but it was a major risk putting him in. Not sure what Ando has done wrong. Affected Boz as well. Saying that i think he will develop into a decent player.
Caceres and Tricky have to start. They both look about our best players when they are on the pitch. Was tough on them having to come on and chase the game. They made a few errors but they are players that are always involved and are comfortable on the ball.
Dukey needs to be be playing as an out and out striker. Looks good.
Monty getting taking off? Not sure on that one.
One out of Sim/Fitzy or Kim to start. Was impressed with Sim.
Where is Vernes? I would have thought he would be getting some game time by now....would like to see him on the bench.
Having said that we looked good for the first 20 and i thought Mossy had proved me wrong.
All i can think of is he is trying to get as many players fit and match ready and thought that he could still play a weakened side and get the points. And create competition.
Poscoliero looks a good prospect and i can understand he might be more comfortable on the ball,but it was a major risk putting him in. Not sure what Ando has done wrong. Affected Boz as well. Saying that i think he will develop into a decent player.
Caceres and Tricky have to start. They both look about our best players when they are on the pitch. Was tough on them having to come on and chase the game. They made a few errors but they are players that are always involved and are comfortable on the ball.
Dukey needs to be be playing as an out and out striker. Looks good.
Monty getting taking off? Not sure on that one.
One out of Sim/Fitzy or Kim to start. Was impressed with Sim.
Where is Vernes? I would have thought he would be getting some game time by now....would like to see him on the bench.
nearlyyellow
Well-Known Member
Totally understand. Good post, but may have been a typo, given the brain/fingers connection *could* have been a tiny bit dislocated.
Pity we can't give 2 ratings and then I would have given you a tick and the bad spelling.It's a very common thing on the "interwebz" to use "loose" instead of lose. There are plenty of other examples, such as there, they're and their, where people can't make their own minds up and they're usually wrong, but spellcheck doesn't tell them so. Another very obvious one it the 'apostrophisation" (to invent a new word) of trailing esses. Just because a word has a trailing "s" or is plural doesn't mean it should be apostrophised. I often feel like screaming at the computer and tell the writer to substitute "is" for the " 's " and see if it makes sense.
Ahhh, anyway, the joys of self publishing on the internet, Americanisation of our English, and spellcheck, which is actually a pain in the arse, because if you accept a wrong spelling after it is highlighted it usually goes into your dictionary and you may forever use the wrong spelling again and again.
Me? Pedantic? Much! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
dibo
Well-Known Member
Be still my beating heart...
Onto the game; it's a curious thing when personnel or formation used is assumed to be the problem, rather than the application and execution.
For the two goals we conceded, on the first I've literally no idea how Poscoliero was not sent off; absolutely none at all. It was a rash challenge and he was *very* lucky not to see red on debut for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
On the second, the entire back 4 failed to do their jobs - right back not pressing hard enough to prevent the cross, left back not picking up the runners, centre backs not owning the goal area and preventing the finish being bundled home.
We did the right thing in forcing them wide and forcing them deep - it makes play predictable. Having done that we failed to do the really basic stuff of making it hard to score off the only option there was - a cross - and there were too many people who didn't get their jobs done there. It's a keeper killer too - when you've got 4 defenders nearby dropping their men, where's the keeper supposed to be? Hoping the shot hits him I suppose...
On the goal we scored, while it was an own goal we earned it through good pressure. As has been correctly identified, the pressure dropped away for effectively the 'middle hour' of the game, and that's where we lost it. We were awfully unlucky late not to take at least a point; there was a five minute period in the 80s or so where we might have had three or four...
Maybe the rotating front 4 takes a lot out of the guys and they're too tired to keep it up for the full 90? They come out of the blocks hard and they run hard for the line but they're consolidating in the middle of the race because they don't have the lungs and legs for it?
We weren't great, but outside of a couple of crucial moments we weren't awful either, and Wellington aren't bad.
For what it's worth, I was surprised Hutch started but not surprised he stayed on (why take the captain off if he's playing fine?). He seems to find Mane better than anyone else, and he's looking to use his space in the deeper areas to press more vertical passes. Monty had a good game, Sim was off the pace a little bit, Caceres looked fired up when he came on, I can't see why we'd play Kim ahead of Trifiro.
We're definitely now playing a staggered triangle in midfield
------------------6---
---8------------------
----------10----------
Monty's noticeably higher than Hutch in the structure and it's working OK. I don't think you can play Caceres or Trifiro at 6, you can't play Hutch or Monty at 10, you probably wouldn't play Hutch at 8.
Aside from that, we have options. For players you'd play in midfield -
Hutch: 6 (first choice)
Monty: 6 or 8 (first choice)
Caceres: 8 or 10
Trifiro: 8 or 10
Kim: 10 or 11 (left wing)
I think the best setup is Hutch and Monty and perhaps Caceres just because he's the most experienced at playing with us. As Hutch transitions out, I think Monty moves to 6, Caceres to 8 and Trifiro to 10. But I can see reasons for playing Hutch at 6 above Monty (better, safer user of the ball) so sometimes you'll get Hutch, Caceres, Trifiro or similar.
Ahead of them, it's difficult. Sim, Mane, Kim, Duke, Fitz... My preferred setup is Duke, Fitz and Mane because there are maximum options to stretch opponents and all three can rotate through 7, 9 and 11 at different times.
Some of the issue here is chemistry and match practice - the players are still learning each others' names and games it seems, so the passing and supporting runs etc. aren't yet automatic.
I think CB is still a worry - Bosnar doesn't use the ball well enough, Poscoleiro doesn't quite dominate his space the way you'd want, Anderson seems out of sorts, Griffiths is injured but when he's not he seems great for 85 minutes and then you're really grasping lottery tickets for the other 5.
Onto the game; it's a curious thing when personnel or formation used is assumed to be the problem, rather than the application and execution.
For the two goals we conceded, on the first I've literally no idea how Poscoliero was not sent off; absolutely none at all. It was a rash challenge and he was *very* lucky not to see red on debut for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
On the second, the entire back 4 failed to do their jobs - right back not pressing hard enough to prevent the cross, left back not picking up the runners, centre backs not owning the goal area and preventing the finish being bundled home.
We did the right thing in forcing them wide and forcing them deep - it makes play predictable. Having done that we failed to do the really basic stuff of making it hard to score off the only option there was - a cross - and there were too many people who didn't get their jobs done there. It's a keeper killer too - when you've got 4 defenders nearby dropping their men, where's the keeper supposed to be? Hoping the shot hits him I suppose...
On the goal we scored, while it was an own goal we earned it through good pressure. As has been correctly identified, the pressure dropped away for effectively the 'middle hour' of the game, and that's where we lost it. We were awfully unlucky late not to take at least a point; there was a five minute period in the 80s or so where we might have had three or four...
Maybe the rotating front 4 takes a lot out of the guys and they're too tired to keep it up for the full 90? They come out of the blocks hard and they run hard for the line but they're consolidating in the middle of the race because they don't have the lungs and legs for it?
We weren't great, but outside of a couple of crucial moments we weren't awful either, and Wellington aren't bad.
For what it's worth, I was surprised Hutch started but not surprised he stayed on (why take the captain off if he's playing fine?). He seems to find Mane better than anyone else, and he's looking to use his space in the deeper areas to press more vertical passes. Monty had a good game, Sim was off the pace a little bit, Caceres looked fired up when he came on, I can't see why we'd play Kim ahead of Trifiro.
We're definitely now playing a staggered triangle in midfield
------------------6---
---8------------------
----------10----------
Monty's noticeably higher than Hutch in the structure and it's working OK. I don't think you can play Caceres or Trifiro at 6, you can't play Hutch or Monty at 10, you probably wouldn't play Hutch at 8.
Aside from that, we have options. For players you'd play in midfield -
Hutch: 6 (first choice)
Monty: 6 or 8 (first choice)
Caceres: 8 or 10
Trifiro: 8 or 10
Kim: 10 or 11 (left wing)
I think the best setup is Hutch and Monty and perhaps Caceres just because he's the most experienced at playing with us. As Hutch transitions out, I think Monty moves to 6, Caceres to 8 and Trifiro to 10. But I can see reasons for playing Hutch at 6 above Monty (better, safer user of the ball) so sometimes you'll get Hutch, Caceres, Trifiro or similar.
Ahead of them, it's difficult. Sim, Mane, Kim, Duke, Fitz... My preferred setup is Duke, Fitz and Mane because there are maximum options to stretch opponents and all three can rotate through 7, 9 and 11 at different times.
Some of the issue here is chemistry and match practice - the players are still learning each others' names and games it seems, so the passing and supporting runs etc. aren't yet automatic.
I think CB is still a worry - Bosnar doesn't use the ball well enough, Poscoleiro doesn't quite dominate his space the way you'd want, Anderson seems out of sorts, Griffiths is injured but when he's not he seems great for 85 minutes and then you're really grasping lottery tickets for the other 5.
sydmariner
Well-Known Member
He played in our FFA cup game last week but wasn't very good
I know.
He needs game time to get match fitness.
nearlyyellow
Well-Known Member
Yeah, very strange of him to challenge like that, there, on his debut. Perhaps over enthusiastic, and too eager to impress?
Looks like Ernie Merrick coached them well to play us. They were pressing us high and hard.
It seems to me that they hung off Hutch, just waiting for his pass, leaving plenty of space around him, but marking all his opportunities. He wasn't challenged often, or quickly. Is that a mark of respect for him? Forces him to pass backwards, doesn't it?
Yoda
Well-Known Member
When watching the Mariners vs Sydney Olympic pre-season match I noticed that Anderson has tried taking a very vocal leadership role (you could hear him screaming instructions very clearly), but he seemed to forget that he was also out there on the pitch and struggled to recognise his own positioning. Reddy, was quite the opposite, very quiet the whole game, when he should be organising. And of course, whether he actually is or isn't, he always seems to be panicking and short of time whenever the ball comes to his feet. But he is a solid defender and very strong in the air, I think he just needs to let someone else ie Reddy, marshall the troops in front of him and concentrate on his own role.
Stoxxo
Well-Known Member
Totally understand. Good post, but may have been a typo, given the brain/fingers connection *could* have been a tiny bit dislocated.
It's a very common thing on the "interwebz" to use "loose" instead of lose. There are plenty of other examples, such as there, they're and their, where people can't make their own minds up and they're usually wrong, but spellcheck doesn't tell them so. Another very obvious one it the 'apostrophisation" (to invent a new word) of trailing esses. Just because a word has a trailing "s" or is plural doesn't mean it should be apostrophised. I often feel like screaming at the computer and tell the writer to substitute "is" for the " 's " and see if it makes sense.
Ahhh, anyway, the joys of self publishing on the internet, Americanisation of our English, and spellcheck, which is actually a pain in the arse, because if you accept a wrong spelling after it is highlighted it usually goes into your dictionary and you may forever use the wrong spelling again and again.
Me? Pedantic? Much! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ahh yes very loose effort on proof reading my comment
dibo
Well-Known Member
Might be something else again.
He's the club's PFA delegate, the club's just been in a protracted battle with the PFA, Zac's job in representing his fellow member of the PFA (WeeMac) would necessarily have brought him into pretty serious conflict with management. Might have been difficult to then play against WeeMac so soon after the uncomfortable (for all parties) resolution of the matter.
It *shouldn't* be taken personally - everyone's doing their job, but there are always going to be some bruises after that.
He's the club's PFA delegate, the club's just been in a protracted battle with the PFA, Zac's job in representing his fellow member of the PFA (WeeMac) would necessarily have brought him into pretty serious conflict with management. Might have been difficult to then play against WeeMac so soon after the uncomfortable (for all parties) resolution of the matter.
It *shouldn't* be taken personally - everyone's doing their job, but there are always going to be some bruises after that.
McGrime
Well-Known Member
This is the side that I think we Should/Will see on the park in the near future.
The formation may not be correct but they are a team of workers sprinkled with that magic blend of youth & experience.
We need strength on the ball in the front 3rd as well as the ability to defend from the front.
We need the overlapping of our wing backs to give us width.
We need combinations in passing through the middle.
We sit in the final 4 of the FFA Cup, we are 2 points behind the A-League leaders, we have the depth we have the structures.
We need the right team on the park.
Reddy
Roux Anderson Bosnar Rose
Monty
Duke Fitzgerald
Casceras
Mane Simon
Trifiro
Sim
Hutch
Kim
Nash
The formation may not be correct but they are a team of workers sprinkled with that magic blend of youth & experience.
We need strength on the ball in the front 3rd as well as the ability to defend from the front.
We need the overlapping of our wing backs to give us width.
We need combinations in passing through the middle.
We sit in the final 4 of the FFA Cup, we are 2 points behind the A-League leaders, we have the depth we have the structures.
We need the right team on the park.
Reddy
Roux Anderson Bosnar Rose
Monty
Duke Fitzgerald
Casceras
Mane Simon
Trifiro
Sim
Hutch
Kim
Nash
dibo
Well-Known Member
I can't imagine what Wombat's reaction will be when he sees you haven't just not put Duke at striker but you've dumped him down into the bowel of midfield with Fitz.
I can't imagine why you'd play two forwards at LM/RM if you're planning on having overlapping wingbacks - they're going to have to sit narrow in a clogged midfield where they'll have to rely on technical ability to play through packs and neither will get the chance to use pace to open up the lines.
I can't imagine why you'd plan to defend from the front with four players out of the front five who are not normally deployed in the deep block of our our normal defensive 4-4-2 but rather in the 'soft pressing' front 2.
Looks like a "we need goals, just add forwards and take out 'negative' players" kind of setup. Looks like a recipe for being pinned back hard as opposing teams press us hard while our attacking players go without the ball for long periods because we can't get it to get it to them.
I can't imagine why you'd play two forwards at LM/RM if you're planning on having overlapping wingbacks - they're going to have to sit narrow in a clogged midfield where they'll have to rely on technical ability to play through packs and neither will get the chance to use pace to open up the lines.
I can't imagine why you'd plan to defend from the front with four players out of the front five who are not normally deployed in the deep block of our our normal defensive 4-4-2 but rather in the 'soft pressing' front 2.
Looks like a "we need goals, just add forwards and take out 'negative' players" kind of setup. Looks like a recipe for being pinned back hard as opposing teams press us hard while our attacking players go without the ball for long periods because we can't get it to get it to them.
Wombat
Well-Known Member
Swap Duke and Mane's positions and you have a very decent side. Duke and Simon work hard for the full 90 min and will actually put pressure on opposing defenders. At the moment we are a defenders dream.
Fitz and Mane to stream down the flanks feeding our two strikers.....also drawing space for Caceras to exploit.
For me either Caceras (quicker feet and more HAL experience) or Trif ( better Brain and composure) to start at AM. Either will be move effective than Kim. Monty to boss the middle.
At the moment we play with a passenger in midfield almost all the time due to our lack of movement and two players doing one mans job.
We have become obsessed with rigid structure and our players are afraid to attack.....we are like a boxer that only has a jab in the armoury......not enough power to inflict a knockout blow and desperately hoping to keep our opponent from hurting us and hoping we might get a result if we can survive to get a points decision.
Fitz and Mane to stream down the flanks feeding our two strikers.....also drawing space for Caceras to exploit.
For me either Caceras (quicker feet and more HAL experience) or Trif ( better Brain and composure) to start at AM. Either will be move effective than Kim. Monty to boss the middle.
At the moment we play with a passenger in midfield almost all the time due to our lack of movement and two players doing one mans job.
We have become obsessed with rigid structure and our players are afraid to attack.....we are like a boxer that only has a jab in the armoury......not enough power to inflict a knockout blow and desperately hoping to keep our opponent from hurting us and hoping we might get a result if we can survive to get a points decision.
style_cafe
Well-Known Member
I`m going to go out on a limb & back Poscoliero.
In his debut game & after missing a big slice of the preseason training he did well against the NIX.
He looked very comfortable on the ball ,was positive in his play & didn`t back down after receiving a Yellow card.
Any rookie that shows the determination that he did in stopping his man (albeit giving away a penalty) has something special.
I was impressed & hope he goes on to be a regular first team player & more.
In his debut game & after missing a big slice of the preseason training he did well against the NIX.
He looked very comfortable on the ball ,was positive in his play & didn`t back down after receiving a Yellow card.
Any rookie that shows the determination that he did in stopping his man (albeit giving away a penalty) has something special.
I was impressed & hope he goes on to be a regular first team player & more.
justafan
Well-Known Member
Both Cass and Triffiro should start. I would like to see Triffiro as a holding instead of Hutch and give Caceres freedom as an AM to display his creativity.
Online statistics
- Members online
- 31
- Guests online
- 771
- Total visitors
- 802
