Welcome. This site is an archived version of the previous UpTheSaddlers forum (December 2004 to May 2018). To visit the new UTS website, please click here.

AFC Bournemouth - Monday 29th August (A)

Reports and reaction from the 2005-06 season as Walsall finished 24th (R) in League 1
User avatar
Neil Ravenscroft
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5605
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Replacement Baby Is Here!

Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:20 am

Stu wrote:Going back to yesterday, there has to be grave concerns that Merson chose himself again yesterday. We got a point through the oppositions complete inability to score in a brothel, let alone on a football pitch.


And, of course, kept himself on at half time when the obvious sub was to leave Standing (over 10 years younger) on. Now Ossie will need a rest after playing one vs two for the whole of the second half! (I hear Kinsella wasn't a lot of help).

BROWNHILLS
 

Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:51 am

I went to the B'Mouth game and I think Merson did well as both a player and manager.
The flair and creativity was not always there, but he worked really hard in between the midfield and Fryatt, who I thought was to** and not interested, up-front.

He took Standing off I feel Neil because he was 'weak' and he was not producing much to be honest. Kinsella was brought on as more 'protection'
by Merson, which was the right idea, but Kinsella looked and played nervously. Which is surprising considering his history. (This can't be Mersons fault)

We said that if Stuanton had played in this game, we would of lost it. (We actually seen 'Stan' on the services on the way home. He was walking with a limp,
but I'm glad Gerrard played instead)

Jorge worked very hard too.

A nil - nil was a good result considering the 10 men. (NOT a sending off. Got some of the ball. It looked reckless, but not dangerous. Yellow would of
sufficed)

User avatar
Neil Ravenscroft
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5605
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Replacement Baby Is Here!

Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:58 am

I'm only going by WM, but it seemed that Merson hardly saw the ball second half - although, to be fair, Standing is "weak" in the tackle at the best of times. What we really needed was someone to bring on who could "dig in", but the only ones we've got were on the pitch. They did say on WM that Fryatt (like Saturday) looked like he had a lot on his mind.

User avatar
Geordiesaddler
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1568
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Whitley Bay.

Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:59 am

To me the selection and formation should be reasonably straight-forward.
4-5-1, Gerrard plus either Roper or Westwood at CH.
Midfield Osborn - our best midfielder in 4-5-1.
Standing, like with Osborn 4-5-1 highlights his attributes but protects his weakness, and Taylor who although a bit inconsitent, is naturally left-sided and has been involved in several of our goals this season - also very useful at set-pieces.
That leaves the two flanks and the centre-forward bearth as the problems, basically because we have failed to replace JJ and Surman!From what we have now I would pick Wright on the left wing, Leitao on the right and Fryatt up-front BUT I would have Demontagnac chomping at the bit on the bench, and I would recall Atieno from his loan spell once the transfer window closes should we fail to get another striker, these are useful and in-form players to bring on in the last 20 minutes of a game.
4-5-1 might occasionally result in frustration, might require a change to plan B late in the game to kick on and win it, but as when Graydon was manager the philosophy should be not to lose. Could you ever see a result like Saturday's with this fomation?

User avatar
Jorge14
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:43 am
Location: Ampleforth, North Yorkshire

Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:07 am

Neil Ravenscroft wrote:I'm only going by WM, but it seemed that Merson hardly saw the ball second half - although, to be fair, Standing is "weak" in the tackle at the best of times. What we really needed was someone to bring on who could "dig in", but the only ones we've got were on the pitch. They did say on WM that Fryatt (like Saturday) looked like he had a lot on his mind.


I disagree with you about Merson, Neil. I thought that it was wiser to keep himself on, bearing in mind how poor Standing had looked in the first half (setting Bournemouth up for a 1-on-1 which needed a fantastic double save from Oakes - who incidently probably had his best all round game for the club - and generally being weak in the tackle, and being surplus to requirements in a 10-man side following Bennett's stupidity). Kinsella didn't do much when he came on, but he was the 'protection' that couldn't be provided by Standing, and I think that Merson could be more influential on the field, rather than off it in that situation.

Bennett is an absolute fool. He should be fined 2 weeks wages, and now surely he has relegated himself to a season on the perifery of the squad through his own stupidity, just like Roper did last season at Torquay. It isn't like it is a secret that there is a directive for lunging, 2 footed challenges to lead to a red card.

A strong performance really - a battled performance, and we reduced Bournemouth to long range efforts. Hearing the Bournemouth fans on the way out, I don't think that they were too surprised.

Osborn MUST start, as must either Gerrard or Roper. We must play 4-5-1, or the 3-5-2 as we started yesterday, and Merson must consider himself more often, though I think he only shone in a greater light yesterday because of a poor Standing.
The only concern about the 3-5-2 is the lack of height of the wing backs. Though both Pead and Taylor did have a good first half hour before Bennett's stupidity, they were beaten for EVERY header by both Bournemouth's wingers and full backs (who did a great job on the overlap I thought).

Bournemouth are nothing more than a mid-table side - but it remains a great point (and an even better clean sheet) considering the circumstances.

Thank God we got them in August though, apparently away fans will soon only be accomodated in a small section of the side stand, and the exposed open end behind the goal. Two away games on the bounce that I've come home with a tan...can't argue with that! :)

User avatar
Neil Ravenscroft
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5605
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Replacement Baby Is Here!

Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:21 am

I said I was only going by WM Jorge, though it has to be said, it was a situation made for neither Merson, nor Standing.

User avatar
WSOne
UTS Regular
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:25 pm

Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:10 pm


User avatar
Andy W Taylor
UTS Veteran
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:26 pm
Location: Telford

Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:25 pm

One strange incident in the game worthy of note.

In the 2nd half their right back punted the ball up the wing to their forward being marked by Kris Taylor. The ball bounced off the forward's legs and headed for the line - where it hit the linesman and bounced back into play. And the linesman totally ignored it and played on!!!

Talk about getting it wrong - how could it not have been a throw to us? Good job nothing came of it.

User avatar
Pedagogue
Board Pedant
 
Posts: 7293
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:21 pm
Location: Can I fix it? Can I ****!

Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:54 pm

If the assistant referee was standing close to the touchline when the ball struck him then all of the ball would not have crossed all of the touchline and would, therefore, be still in play. Thus, it follows that it was the CORRECT decision to play on as the assistant referee is classed as an "appurtenance of the game" just like the crossbars, goalposts, corner-flag posts and, indeed, the referee himself - cue Geoff with comments about referees about as mobile and intelligent as a goalpost! :D

User avatar
Neil Ravenscroft
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5605
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Replacement Baby Is Here!

Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:04 am

I'll back Leamore up - that was the correct decision. Don't forget, if a shot going wide deflects into the net off the ref, it is a goal.

Ace
 

Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:44 am

It's just a matter of time before some smart-arse striker is going to master the art of referee deflecting :roll:

User avatar
tinned
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10023
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:49 pm
Location: Same poo, different day!

Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:32 pm

Hence the expression "I don't care if it comes off the ref's arse as long as we score".

User avatar
Andy W Taylor
UTS Veteran
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:26 pm
Location: Telford

Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:47 pm

In the case of the ref, he's supposed to be on the field of play - but the lino is meant to be normally outside the playing area surely?

If a linesman (assistant referee just glorifies them above their station) can legally prevent the ball going out then shouldn't they always try to be more than a ball's diameter behind the line? In this case, if he applied the rule as you all say, he must have known he was too close to the line to start with - which begs the question why was he there and not further back, especially if he knew!!

First time I've ever seen that happen, even on TV. But wasn't there a game last season (may haved been a friendly) where a ball boy stopped the ball before it went out but the ref ruled as though it had crossed the line?

Considering the furore about the Leicester Citry goal at Sheffield United on the opening day when the ball bounced off the ref, can you imagine what would have happened if Bournemouth had gone on to score because of this?

User avatar
Purple Toucan Saddler
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:23 am
Location: To infinity (and beyond)

Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:00 pm

WM reported that at halftime, Bournmouth's ground staff watered the goal box which we were due to defend, but not the other one.

Can anyone shed any light on why this happened, and if it is against any rules?

User avatar
Stu
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:07 pm
Location: Bexleyheath, Kent.

Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:05 pm

I expect it was to make the surface that bit slicker to help them knock the ball about a bit more, nothing wrong with it at all. Its up to them how they water, or don't water, the pitch and what areas they do, and don't, water.

User avatar
Purple Toucan Saddler
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:23 am
Location: To infinity (and beyond)

Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:12 pm

Stu wrote:I expect it was to make the surface that bit slicker to help them knock the ball about a bit more, nothing wrong with it at all. Its up to them how they water, or don't water, the pitch and what areas they do, and don't, water.


I find it hard to believe that a club can give themselves a home advantage by only watering one area of the pitch, and that this would be within the rules of football.

If it is OK I think it is a disgrace (unless we utilise such tactics, at which stage it will become perfectly fair).

User avatar
Andy W Taylor
UTS Veteran
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:26 pm
Location: Telford

Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:24 pm

At half time it was the end we were going to be attacking that was watered.

Sprinklers were on before start of game too - know these same ones were on but can't recall if other end done too.

So can't see where they gained an advantage.

User avatar
Purple Toucan Saddler
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:23 am
Location: To infinity (and beyond)

Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:32 pm

Andy W Taylor wrote:At half time it was the end we were going to be attacking that was watered.

Sprinklers were on before start of game too - know these same ones were on but can't recall if other end done too.

So can't see where they gained an advantage.


If that was the case then there I have no issues. Radio WM did not say that the same end was watered before the game.

User avatar
Magic Man Fan
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10977
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:30 pm
Location: Warning. Some posts may cause offence...to the over sensitive or slow.

Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:13 pm

Up the Walsall wrote:WM reported that at halftime, Bournmouth's ground staff watered the goal box which we were due to defend, but not the other one.

Can anyone shed any light on why this happened, and if it is against any rules?


Why would it be against rules? Its just using home advantage in your favour. Little things like this I don't think we do enough of at Bescot. I remember in the past the groundsman used to come on to tend the pitch (when it was awful). They always used to flatten the divots in the box we were defending but not the other end, presumably in the hope that we'd benefit from a bobble in front of the oppo's keeper. Didn't quite work out that way for Wacka against the Wolves though.

As for Bournemouth, a much needed clean sheet, especially after Saturday. Great defending, great goalkeeping, great that Gerrard played and Staunton got injured, great weather, and a great weekend.

Ace
 

Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:29 pm

There's nothing to suggest that the sprinkling was defineltly Bournemouth's doing.

Previous
Return to 2005-06 Season

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests