Leyton Orient (A) League One Sat 28 Sept, 3pm

[bangsection]

Why are people suggesting James Chambers at CB?

He replaced Butler at Centre Half today and was the E&S's MOTM. The good news is that Purkiss was also excellent at RB. Chambers was up against the hottest strike partnership in the division today so I guess the question is if Butler's out why wouldn't he continue there?

[Sadders]

Just seems strange, I'd presumed he had gone to right back and Purkiss played centre back, especially as Purkiss is bigger built and taller for the aerial threat and also signed with the 'right back who plays in the middle' name.

[Registered Saddler]

It was a solid tackle, but IMHO fair, so I'm not convinced that it was even a foul, never mind a red card. That appeal has to succeed if there's any justice.

Not seen it yet, but the thing with appeals is they have to show the referee was not justified in making his decision e.g. handball on the line when the TV replays show the ball hit the player in the face. If the referee has sent Andy Butler off for a strong, studs-first challenge that he interpreted as being reckless then an appeal won't get anywhere if the TV pictures show him making a strong, studs-first challenge. Whether he got the ball or not is not a material concern. We need to have clear grounds for complaint and I'd be very surprised if it's overturned - unless the referee says that he made a mistake.

[PT]

Just saw it on Sky, 50:50 ball and Butler definitely got to the ball first, and with only his left foot. Inevitably he went under the Orient player, as you always will if you're in first for the ball in a head-on challenge, but his right foot was not in a dangerous position, and he had every right to make that challenge.

It was a solid tackle, but IMHO fair, so I'm not convinced that it was even a foul, never mind a red card. That appeal has to succeed if there's any justice.

I agree Geoff. Having seen it on the telly myself now it looks really really harsh. As often happens with these, the referee looked as though he couldn't wait to brandish red. He could have brought himself a few seconds thinking time given that he'd stopped the game. He made a mistake, as we all do. He just needs to admit it and the appeal should be a formality.

O'Donnell will get some stick for the goal but Lisbie ran right across his line of sight at a crucial moment and it sounds like he pulled off at least a couple of blinders later on.

And what a climb at the back post by Hewitt for the equaliser with Westcarr being Johnny-on-the-spot

[bangsection]

We need to have clear grounds for complaint and I'd be very surprised if it's overturned - unless the referee says that he made a mistake.

I think much of it depends on who you get on the appeals panel - the rescinding of Kompany's red card for his tackle on Wilshere last season baffled many refs, for instance. Let's hope our panel consists of Derek Mountfield, Colin Methven and Tony Barras, eh?

[Salop Saddler]

Bigger result than the Dingle episode for me. Quality stuff.

[Leatherman]

Fantastic result.

This team is tight and sexy mmm.

At least now Butler is suspended we get to see more of Ben "Cafu" Purkiss.

Leaves us a bit thin on the ground for central defenders.

Titus Bramble until January anyone?

Think I'd rather have Titus Salt. :-)

Or Titus Adrum.

[Welsh_Saddler]

All right, if ever there was a match where you could say "this will be our toughest League game of the season so far" then this is it.

If we can sneak a 1-1 I will be very happy.

If only I'd had the courage of my convictions and used this as one of my predictions.......... :roll:

Cracking performance though :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[JonnyOwen]

Everyone was class, especially Downing, Both Chambers and O'Donnell who Russell Slade was "the best player on the pitch."

[geoffwhiting]

It was a solid tackle, but IMHO fair, so I'm not convinced that it was even a foul, never mind a red card. That appeal has to succeed if there's any justice.

Not seen it yet, but the thing with appeals is they have to show the referee was not justified in making his decision e.g. handball on the line when the TV replays show the ball hit the player in the face. If the referee has sent Andy Butler off for a strong, studs-first challenge that he interpreted as being reckless then an appeal won't get anywhere if the TV pictures show him making a strong, studs-first challenge. Whether he got the ball or not is not a material concern. We need to have clear grounds for complaint and I'd be very surprised if it's overturned - unless the referee says that he made a mistake.

It was described as a two-footed challenge, which it very clearly was not. I'd be surprised if it's upheld, but you never know with these panels that sit in judgment, probably depends on who is sitting on the panel on the day.

[Coventry_Saddler]

Butler can go donald himself stupid Scunthorpe, should know better, will never forgive him for this.

Donald off. Everyone is entitled to the odd mistake - and it gave the team a chance to show what they can do without Captain Marvel: not bad, either! :D :D :D :D

Sorry was pretty pissed off at the time, happy with a point but Butler needs to be fined to show the youngsters that this can never happen again.

[Exile]

Fantastic result.

This team is tight and sexy mmm.

At least now Butler is suspended we get to see more of Ben "Cafu" Purkiss.

Leaves us a bit thin on the ground for central defenders.

Titus Bramble until January anyone?

Think I'd rather have Titus Salt. :-)

Or Titus Adrum.

Surprised not to see Titus Uranus in the mix...thought I'd rectify that.

Well happy with that point, especially considering the ref tried to gift them the game early on.

Well done Walsall!

[geoffwhiting]

Just saw it on Sky, 50:50 ball and Butler definitely got to the ball first, and with only his left foot. Inevitably he went under the Orient player, as you always will if you're in first for the ball in a head-on challenge, but his right foot was not in a dangerous position, and he had every right to make that challenge.

It was a solid tackle, but IMHO fair, so I'm not convinced that it was even a foul, never mind a red card. That appeal has to succeed if there's any justice.

I agree Geoff. Having seen it on the telly myself now it looks really really harsh. As often happens with these, the referee looked as though he couldn't wait to brandish red. He could have brought himself a few seconds thinking time given that he'd stopped the game. He made a mistake, as we all do. He just needs to admit it and the appeal should be a formality.

O'Donnell will get some stick for the goal but Lisbie ran right across his line of sight at a crucial moment and it sounds like he pulled off at least a couple of blinders later on.

And what a climb at the back post by Hewitt for the equaliser with Westcarr being Johnny-on-the-spot

Totally agree about O'Donnell. When I saw the high ball heading towards Lisbie, I thought he was going to get his head under it and lift it over O'Donnell into the empty net. But Lisbie missed it completely and I think that took O'Donnell by surprise and with the two players being so close together, it left him with virtually no time to react, hence he didn't get a solid hand on the ball. Don't blame him much at all for that, I think it would have fooled most 'keepers.

Agree too about Hewitt's header back into the goalmouth for Westcarr. Hewitt climbed really high without any sign of using a hand on the two Orient defenders to assist him, for me it was a really good far post cross, a really good header back into the middle, and Westcarr was right on the spot and couldn't miss from a yard out. Basically a well-worked goal, and of course we also did this the other week when Butler got the winner at Molineux, so it looks like a training ground move to me.

[DYSaddler]

Saw the highlights on SSN earlier, a few things:
1. Butler's red card seems extremely harsh and would be very surprised if the appeal isn't successful.
2. O'Donnell was at fault for their goal but sounds like he had a worldy second half so fair play.
3. Our goal was very nice indeed - lovely cross from Taylor, superb header back from Hewitt to Westcarr who couldn't miss but got himself in the right place at the right time.
4. A bloody good point!

[sallian]

Just got back, and I am more injured than any player on the pitch I think due to the Walsall equalizer....With an explosion of emotion, I beat the metal on the stand behind me and almost broke my hand (quite some swelling), to get to that metal I had to hurdle a sharp wooden, chair and failed and now my shin has a nice little gash, anyway I'm glad I went as for a change there was a goal and not a loss in London!

Sending off seemed a ridiculous decision, looked like Butler got the ball, yes studs were showing, should have been yellow possibly not red, if the ref regarded it as dangerous. But even with ten men Orient were still struggling to break the saddlers down...its a shame Walsall don't have one more attacking midfield player or one more lively forward.

Lalkovic couldn't beat the fullbacks for speed and when he didn't dived, he also seemed to keep going to outside, he might have have had more success cutting inside...he kept making the wrong decisions, when Baxendale came on he made a difference...and if had been given longer more may have been created. Sawyers could have probably made a difference too if he had been introduced.

When there was space created and chances for breaking away to attack swiftly, Walsall did not attack swiftly....player would mess with the ball too much or delay the pass too much, when a quick delivery and quick support (from midfield) was needed.

Leyton orient were quite neat and lively, spread the ball around quite well, switched play and forwards seemed alive and they did create some half chances and full chances with some good movement and passing up front. Walsall though defended well in midfield, and much of the game they seemed to be playing quite deep (obviously effected by the sending off) and so Hewitt was often stranded.

Walsall did lack ideas in attacking, and there were a lot of stray passes, passes out of play, possession was often given away too easily...but it seemed Orient were doing plenty of that too.

O'Donnell did make a few excellent saves to keep Walsall in it.

There was good support there. And the right up at the back of the stand was quite a good view.

There was some good fight in the saddlers but a few things really do need to improve 1) Early passing 2) Running of the ball to create options 3) More shots on goal 4) Quicker support from midfield

I strongly oppose lone striker formation also...when the player isn't reached or his control is slightly off..possession is lost. With two in there, you have much more chance of not only maintaining possession in the danger area...but there can be quick incisive passes immediately that creates goal scoring opportunities.

Its frustrating that with Paterson and Grigg gone, a forward has not been brought in. Get the forwards shooting more....too much trying to walk the ball in.

[JonnyOwen]

I'm all about the lone striker method, having two strikers it outdated and you won't find many club playing it nowadays.

[geoffwhiting]

Just been on the Orient message board, and most posters seem pretty sensible and complimentary about the job the Saddlers did on their team. In particular they mention that we did not resort to physical stuff when we went down to ten men, played football and had done our homework on them very well beforehand. Even those who gave us no credit at all were basically shouted down by the majority, so I guess we must have played pretty well under very difficult circumstances.

Statistics appear to say that we had 59% of possession against Orient's 41%, and if that's right, it's quite remarkable when down to ten men.

[BathSaddler]

Great, great point. Well done the lads.

355 Saddlers at Brisbane Road.

[asimpson]

Fantastic away support today throughout. Leyton Orient fans were so quiet considering they are top of the league.

Leyton Orient play very direct football by getting it out wide and getting balls into the box. We defended brilliantly to combat this and limited them to very few good chances.

Brief Player opinions.

O'Donnell - Was at fault for the goal but made some superb saves in the second half that kept us in the game.

Taylor - Solid display which included a short time as centre back in the last 5 mins.

Butler - Not seen the reply on TV as yet but a player of his experience should know better than to give the referee an excuse to show a red. Certainly worth an appeal though given his importance to the team.

Downing - Dealt with Lisbie brilliantly when Butler got sent off.

James Chambers- Great work as makeshift centre back and gave everything for the cause.

Featherstone - Sacrificed as we changed system after sending off.

Adam Chambers: Worked hard in midfield, especially off the ball.

Sam Mantom: See above. One of his best performances this season in my opinion.

Milan Lalkovic - Certainly better when he plays out wide and worked hard but his endless step overs were no match to the strength of their full back. So much so that he reverted to diving in the second half and slowly got more frustrated. Smith recognised this and subbed him before he did something stupid.

Craig Westcarr - Solid game and great work losing his marker for the goal.

Troy Hewitt - Led the line very well indeed and I was particularly impressed with his hold up play. However his distribution once he gets the ball needs to be quicker and sharper.

Malvin Benning - Won some important headers when he came on near the end.

Ben Purkiss - One of his best games in a Walsall shirt coming on in very difficult circumstances. Enabled us to carry a threat going forward on the right even with 10 men.

James Baxendale - Did his job but nothing more.

[sallian]

JonnyOwen...I don't think a formation can be outdated, you can have a formation that is less efficient though in particular situations and some that by their nature are deficient in some respects continuously. If you have two strikers...you have more zonal coverage in the most dangerous area and there are enough varied options for the remaining positions. Don't forget, if you play two strikers, the defenders and defensive midfield has to adjust. How many times today was the lone striker stranded today? And how many times does this happen? How many chances are Walsall creating? The answer is very few.

Another point here is lone striker makes more sense if two conditions hold true:-

1) Your midfield supports like lightning at every break
2) Your lone striker is very fast and/or is excellent at mainatining possession

These two conditions are not really being met sufficiently

The other important element is of course that the lone striker needs to be a clinical finisher, or someone who can create his own chances by skill. If this is lacking...there will be a big shortage of goals. If you have two strikers on the other hand, one often makes up for the other's shortcomings.

one striker versus 3 defenders often fails as they have a big advantage on him...even if he does well and beats two he can still end up failing.

Another problem with lone striker is that most players (due to bad training philosophy) tend to be pretty one sided....this means a struggle when the half chances that need to be taken quickly fall on the 'wrong side' This happens less with two strikers.

Just because something becomes fashionable it doesn't mean it is the best thing to do. In fact the ability to change a formation a few times during a match can create chaos for the opposition.

Walsall often find themselves in a situation of three or four people on the wing trying to cross the ball to only one or two men...the problem with that is self evident. It doesn't take four men to deliver a ball into dangerous space...and you have more chance of scoring if more men are active in the danger area in the first place.

[kshammer]

Cracking point.
Showed real knackers.
Butlers red was harsh.
UTS... love em.

[saddler_nic]

JonnyOwen...I don't think a formation can be outdated, you can have a formation that is less efficient though in particular situations and some that by their nature are deficient in some respects continuously. If you have two strikers...you have more zonal coverage in the most dangerous area and there are enough varied options for the remaining positions. Don't forget, if you play two strikers, the defenders and defensive midfield has to adjust. How many times today was the lone striker stranded today? And how many times does this happen? How many chances are Walsall creating? The answer is very few.

Another point here is lone striker makes more sense if two conditions hold true:-

1) Your midfield supports like lightning at every break
2) Your lone striker is very fast and/or is excellent at mainatining possession

These two conditions are not really being met sufficiently

The other important element is of course that the lone striker needs to be a clinical finisher, or someone who can create his own chances by skill. If this is lacking...there will be a big shortage of goals. If you have two strikers on the other hand, one often makes up for the other's shortcomings.

one striker versus 3 defenders often fails as they have a big advantage on him...even if he does well and beats two he can still end up failing.

Another problem with lone striker is that most players (due to bad training philosophy) tend to be pretty one sided....this means a struggle when the half chances that need to be taken quickly fall on the 'wrong side' This happens less with two strikers.

Just because something becomes fashionable it doesn't mean it is the best thing to do. In fact the ability to change a formation a few times during a match can create chaos for the opposition.

Walsall often find themselves in a situation of three or four people on the wing trying to cross the ball to only one or two men...the problem with that is self evident. It doesn't take four men to deliver a ball into dangerous space...and you have more chance of scoring if more men are active in the danger area in the first place.

We played with one striker all of last season and did pretty well. We don't really have the option of playing two up top for me. Milan looks far more suited to the wing and Westcarr isn't an out and out striker, same goes for Sawyers. No point putting players in positions where they just don't cut it.

I think the 4-1-4-1 formation is great away from home. We keep the ball better, look harder to break down, as well as being a threat on the counter. At home is a different story where the onus is on us to break down the opposition. I'd Luke to see us go to our early season formation of 4-2-3-1 with one of Westcarr, Sawyers or Baxendale supporting Hewitt.

Getting a loan in could give us the option of going two up front, I just think Smith favours the loan striker, and he's got a point. Why fix what's not broken

[Aldridge_saddler]

Here is a question, how can you perform a sliding tackle without showing your studs?

[We-ARE-Walsall]

JonnyOwen...I don't think a formation can be outdated, you can have a formation that is less efficient though in particular situations and some that by their nature are deficient in some respects continuously. If you have two strikers...you have more zonal coverage in the most dangerous area and there are enough varied options for the remaining positions. Don't forget, if you play two strikers, the defenders and defensive midfield has to adjust. How many times today was the lone striker stranded today? And how many times does this happen? How many chances are Walsall creating? The answer is very few.

Another point here is lone striker makes more sense if two conditions hold true:-

1) Your midfield supports like lightning at every break
2) Your lone striker is very fast and/or is excellent at mainatining possession

These two conditions are not really being met sufficiently

The other important element is of course that the lone striker needs to be a clinical finisher, or someone who can create his own chances by skill. If this is lacking...there will be a big shortage of goals. If you have two strikers on the other hand, one often makes up for the other's shortcomings.

one striker versus 3 defenders often fails as they have a big advantage on him...even if he does well and beats two he can still end up failing.

Another problem with lone striker is that most players (due to bad training philosophy) tend to be pretty one sided....this means a struggle when the half chances that need to be taken quickly fall on the 'wrong side' This happens less with two strikers.

Just because something becomes fashionable it doesn't mean it is the best thing to do. In fact the ability to change a formation a few times during a match can create chaos for the opposition.

Walsall often find themselves in a situation of three or four people on the wing trying to cross the ball to only one or two men...the problem with that is self evident. It doesn't take four men to deliver a ball into dangerous space...and you have more chance of scoring if more men are active in the danger area in the first place.

Not trying to disregard your points, I can see where you are coming from. However there are some problems with your arguments.

The rigid 4-4-2 is dead now, it is just far to easy to gain an edge over it. I'm sure some half decent managers can get it to work in one way or another, but in my opinion it has been worked out, and isn't flexible enough in today's game.

If you look at the players we have played in the wide positions over the past 2 seasons, it is anything but playing the lone striker, it is almost like playing 3 strikers, and then we would usually have one floating player in behind them too. Giving you 4 totally attacking players. You have two holding midfielders, so the need for the wide players to track back is still there, but not as much as a traditional wide player in a 4-4-2. I think this is where some of our problems came from when we had Flo in the side last season, we just couldn't afford that luxury with the other attacking players we had in the team.

4-5-1/4-3-3 In which ever variation you play it, is meant to give you more fluidity, the front 4 have license to roam, then you have two holding midfielders, one of which may work on more of a box to box basis (mantom) but will still keep the shape when we don't have the ball. The balance we found last season with this it worked perfectly. We are still trying to fit some round pegs in to square holes somewhat at the moment, but we are getting there.

Having said that, you are right, that the central striker is key. Grigg was so good the second half of last season, he virtually occupied the two center backs all by himself. Leaving the other 3 attacking players free to do some real damage. He may not have scored that many goals from open play, but he did a damn fine job. Jury is still out if Hewitt can be this man, there is hope. One thing is for sure, Westcarr isn't the right man for that particular job.

As for the sending off, it says more about how pathetic football has become than anything else. They want to take hard tackles out of the modern game, when it was always a fantastic part of the game. If you get the ball first, then that should be enough. It is fairly obvious when someone is trying to cause damage, bit of common sense should be used. Sadly refs aren't allowed to do this, and are forced down the red card route by strict laws that make no sense.

[Welsh_Saddler]

Seeing the highlights on BBC last night I reckon Troy Hewitt's boots must contain a scaled-down version of a jump jet. Either that or he had hidden stilts, because when he rose to head that cross back to Westcarr he was head and shoulders above the two Orient defenders keeping tabs on him. Great move, great result.

Let's get Bradford out of the way and then we look to have a few games against teams lower in the table.

[Chomper]

Just seen the Butler red card. Probably a sad indictment of football nowadays as that would have been a good tackle a few years ago. He goes in aggressively and hard but it's with one foot, the other on the ground and he wins the ball. I don't expect it to be overturned but it ought to be.

[Neil Ravenscroft]

It was a solid tackle, but IMHO fair, so I'm not convinced that it was even a foul, never mind a red card. That appeal has to succeed if there's any justice.

Not seen it yet, but the thing with appeals is they have to show the referee was not justified in making his decision e.g. handball on the line when the TV replays show the ball hit the player in the face. If the referee has sent Andy Butler off for a strong, studs-first challenge that he interpreted as being reckless then an appeal won't get anywhere if the TV pictures show him making a strong, studs-first challenge. Whether he got the ball or not is not a material concern. We need to have clear grounds for complaint and I'd be very surprised if it's overturned - unless the referee says that he made a mistake.

It was very harsh, but you're right.

[PT]

It was a solid tackle, but IMHO fair, so I'm not convinced that it was even a foul, never mind a red card. That appeal has to succeed if there's any justice.

Not seen it yet, but the thing with appeals is they have to show the referee was not justified in making his decision e.g. handball on the line when the TV replays show the ball hit the player in the face. If the referee has sent Andy Butler off for a strong, studs-first challenge that he interpreted as being reckless then an appeal won't get anywhere if the TV pictures show him making a strong, studs-first challenge. Whether he got the ball or not is not a material concern. We need to have clear grounds for complaint and I'd be very surprised if it's overturned - unless the referee says that he made a mistake.

It was very harsh, but you're right.

I think that's the thing Neil. It comes down to an interpretation of the laws of the game. When laws become subjective it introduces massive grey areas. Did you see Nolan's challenge away at Hull at a very similar stage of West ham's game yesterday? Far, far worse that Butler's (the ball had long gone) and yet Kevin Friend interpreted that as only a yellow and no-one really complained. Thing is, two refs can interpret the laws in such different ways and yet it is feasible that both are officially "right". Our hope is that our ref coughs to a mistake, but if he holds firm on his interpretation then Butler is probably knackered which is bonkers.

[clawtheolder]

It was a solid tackle, but IMHO fair, so I'm not convinced that it was even a foul, never mind a red card. That appeal has to succeed if there's any justice.

Not seen it yet, but the thing with appeals is they have to show the referee was not justified in making his decision e.g. handball on the line when the TV replays show the ball hit the player in the face. If the referee has sent Andy Butler off for a strong, studs-first challenge that he interpreted as being reckless then an appeal won't get anywhere if the TV pictures show him making a strong, studs-first challenge. Whether he got the ball or not is not a material concern. We need to have clear grounds for complaint and I'd be very surprised if it's overturned - unless the referee says that he made a mistake.

It was very harsh, but you're right.

I think that's the thing Neil. It comes down to an interpretation of the laws of the game. When laws become subjective it introduces massive grey areas. Did you see Nolan's challenge away at Hull at a very similar stage of West ham's game yesterday? Far, far worse that Butler's (the ball had long gone) and yet Kevin Friend interpreted that as only a yellow and no-one really complained. Thing is, two refs can interpret the laws in such different ways and yet it is feasible that both are officially "right". Our hope is that our ref coughs to a mistake, but if he holds firm on his interpretation then Butler is probably knackered which is bonkers.

We should have had Kevin Friend as ref, considering the Nolan foul he would have sent the Orient player off for diving.

[clawtheolder]

Chopper Gutteridge would have been proud of that tackle.