Just back

Quoted from itsnotcoditshaddock

Agreed, bizarre why Woolford was on corners after so many good ones from Berrett on Tuesday!

Because if he didnt take the corners he would have done absolutely zilch in terms of attacking play.

Berret whips in lot meaner corner imho

Like the ones that Collins and Clarke have already scored from this season, yes I agree he looks a completely different player to what he was last season and I think that’s mainly to do with being given a run in the side in his favoured position. He has no pace but is a good footballer who moves the ball efficiently and quickly and seems to be more combative this season as well.

A couple of points based on the comments here.

Firstly, let's not write Matt off after a handful of performances. He was certainly poor yesterday but his record shows he has done a good job at this level in the past. Sometimes, strikers just get totally dominated by defenders as he was yesterday but it's only the other week when he have the Yeovil defence a difficult time. We've seen much better players than Matt do absolutely nothing in certain games and he's only been here for five minutes, so let's give him a proper chance.

Secondly, Dixon. He had a tough game yesterday but it was against the right-winger who I reckon was Lincoln's quickest and most threatening player. He's not been the best for us as yet but let's not forget he was playing Championship football just a couple of seasons ago and made not far off a hundred appearances for Huddersfield at that level. He's certainly lacking a bit of pace (as are the rest of our defenders) but his record would indicate he ought to be capable enough at this level so hopefully he'll settle down soon. I think it looked a bit worse for Dixon yesterday because Woolford was poor for much of the game and didn't do enough defending to help out. The wingers certainly aren't sitting back to help the defenders out in quite the same way that they generally did under Hurst. Either way, he's certainly far from the worst full-back I've seen at the club in recent years, but that doesn't mean that we don't need him to improve.

Obviously, rather than individual performances, the biggest worry at the moment is that we're not looking like we have an effective shape or style of play. Set pieces were pretty much rubbish and we've got the usual conveyor belt of experienced and capable players coming in who suddenly seem completely unable to put a decent ball into the box. Lincoln were a good bit stronger than us in the air so just chipping the ball in again and again seemed a ridiculous idea as that gave them time to get lined up and win the challenges. If we're playing a sort of percentage game (as seems to be the case), we've just got to improve out set piece delivery. Thinking back to Slades' previous time in charge, we did tend to loft balls into the box (mainly Woodhouse), but let's not forget that we had two 6'7" defenders to stick in there back then! Clarke and Collins are relatively diminutive in comparison to so many of todays massive defenders so we need much better delivery. Also, McKeown should stop taking attacking set pieces right now. His kicking and clearances have improved over the years, but his set piece delivery is still rubbish and you just know he's going to punt the ball straight to their keeper if he takes a free-kick near the half way line. Near his own box, then fair enough because it's generally just going to be a whack upfield in any case, but he doesn't have the accuracy to do anything else.

I'd also say that there is little point in playing two wingers if you hardly ever get the ball to their feet. On Tuesday night in particular, Woolford barely touched the ball in the first half and I wouldn't necessarily put any of the blame for this on him - the ball just didn't go to him! Dembele needs to stay wider as well because he often drifts infield and, truth be told, our passing just isn't accurate enough to find a man in the middle with players around him.

I hope they slog their guts out on the training field this week because there is a lot of improvement required.

To echo Mariner's comments on Matt. He played a blinder (in the second half at least) at Accy. A veritable 'beast' in the making.

Matt was excellent when he first got into the side, but was all over the place yesterday. Let's hope it was a one off bad game.

Quoted from Mariner_09

Are you better of having a squad of 22 quality players rather than 29 where you’ve got 3 quality players, 12 average ones and 14 rubbish ones.

You are never going to get 100% quality players. A lot of the best players are quality partly because they have been overlooked by other clubs or we have taken a gamble on someone from a lower division. You are never going to get that lucky every time. But I agree and I'd rather bye fewer. I put a thread on a couple of weeks ago saying slade had got nearly as big a squad as MB. I don't see the point of having senior pros who hardly play.

Except it's a long season and suspensions and injuries can quickly mount up especially in the new year. So to that extent a big squad of 'meh' players should at least allow you to be consistent and have cover on a like for like basis. In theory that should be mid 20s though not high 20s or 30. Smaller squads would mean more chance of replacements being played out of position.

I genuinely don't know the answer, but what's better a good square peg in a round hole or a mediocre round peg in a round hole?

Personally speaking I would still marginally favour fewer higher quality players (especially if they were intelligent) than higher numbers of less good players. But I can see the other side. There's probably some risk modelling you could do around this (Rob that's probably your field isn't it?).

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Except it's a long season and suspensions and injuries can quickly mount up especially in the new year. So to that extent a big squad of 'meh' players should at least allow you to be consistent and have cover on a like for like basis. In theory that should be mid 20s though not high 20s or 30. Smaller squads would mean more chance of replacements being played out of position.

I genuinely don't know the answer, but what's better a good square peg in a round hole or a mediocre round peg in a round hole?

Personally speaking I would still marginally favour fewer higher quality players (especially if they were intelligent) than higher numbers of less good players. But I can see the other side. There's probably some risk modelling you could do around this (Rob that's probably your field isn't it?).

It is a direct result of the abolition of the emergency loan system that the squad size is bigger. Couple of bad injuries, a suspension or two and you are easily cut to the bone. Personally I would rather be relying on the occasional appearance of a Clifton, Sawyer or Wright ( had he not been loaned out) but understand managers reluctance to do so.

Agree with a couple of others that although Matt was poor and ineffective on Saturday he has been the opposite in other games. It was only a fortnight ago that most were saying how good he looked. Those at Accrington will know what he is capable of bringing to the side.

Dixon seemed to find the stand rather than the pitch in the first half on Saturday but his record indicates he is capable of much better. I was impressed with him at Chesterfield  ( very solid defensively) so maybe he needs a bit longer to settle down. Only time will tell

Similar to Vernon and Hooper if you give Matt the ball to his feet he's probably going to do better, when will we learn route 1 does us no favors?