BLUEBIRDS FANS FORUM

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



24/9/2022 8:08 PM  #11


Re: Dulwich

I spoke toTyrone for a little until the kids trawling past realised who was at  the game ! What a lovely fella he, and. credit to Adi. Just about deserved to win with an under par performance today in my opinion, but the team is still crying out for a big centre forward. I feel I must mention today’s officials who I thought were shocking at best. It seems they are incapable of working as team. I thought the reason for having linesmen where for them to flag for offsides, and fouls the ref may have missed - clearly this is not the case these day’s watching those jockeys today !

 

24/9/2022 9:12 PM  #12


Re: Dulwich

First half was ok but luck they missed a sitter.  Second half much better.

Jordan Young didn’t look himself - maybe carrying an injury - especially as he was taken off early?

A difficult game with a new manager at the helm for DH so a good win.  They will not be down at the bottom come the end of the season.

I disagree that we need a big number 9 - I think it means we revert to Mike Cooke’s style of play and hoofing the ball up the pitch.  However more competition is always welcome.

Our front line is very young but has huge potential - 5 goals in 2 games.  Stick with them and let Gary work with them.  A win on Tuesday would get us close to our best ever start in the NLS?

 

24/9/2022 9:14 PM  #13


Re: Dulwich

Wellard wrote:

Playing poorly but still winning. It’s a very hard watch at the moment but a wins a win.
Thought we looked better with Greenslade playing down the middle.
Parker was also my MOM.

Hard watch at the moment?

Were you in a cave from 2019 - early 2022?

 

24/9/2022 10:34 PM  #14


Re: Dulwich

Rode our luck at times but just about deserved the 3 points. Two good goals for the Bluebirds and a gifted one for Dulwich

 

25/9/2022 11:44 AM  #15


Re: Dulwich

If Luck were a horse, then it was a bucking bronco for us yesterday.  To our credit we rode it  as we've done on a number of occasions early on in games recently and then damaged the opposition with wonderfully taken half chances, exemplified by Caine's terrific strike for our first goal yesterday.  Whether or not you make your own luck ( Howework:" Discuss")   we have developed a habit at Home at least of riding ours then striking back lethally near the end of games.  This can't just be coincidence; it's happening too often.  Respect then to Gary H for forging both the style and attitude of our squad into this  winning system. It's not always pretty, and nobody yet has really punished our slowness out of the blocks.  As spectators we are getting used to longish passages of play where we seem hurried and guilty of over-hitting long speculative balls upfield.  When we settle, usually by the second half and space begins to open up, as it did again yesterday,.. we begin to look potent as the intensity goes up a notch. Despite their dire run of form,  I thought Dulwich were one of the better sides we've seen this season.  They look much too good to go down,  although their frailities were most apparent in the last 15 minutes when they lost  discipine and patience.  This spectator couldn't quite work out why Jordan was removed at the 60 minute mark.  Interesting that Joe Parker, who carried on where he'd finished against Sholing, played out wide on the right in the first half and then moved to the left in the second, even when he had the obvious beating of his marker early on. His was a really well taken goal, though. The jury's out on Harvey Greenslade's move into the middle. Very good to see Joe Hanks back and setting up the winning goal  and a late run-out for Spencer H, too. Some nice dilemmas for Gary H when it comes to their re-integration, especially if he now has   3 centre backs available ... one of whom is undroppable. My main beef with the referee was once again, inconsistency.  He played the advantage rule sensibly on a number of occasions but then, for example, appeared to punish one piece of shoulder-barging when he'd just let another pass without sanction. It was a very physical game with a rash of minor injuries but pretty good-tempered on the whole.  The Hamlet fans around us seemed a nice lot.. and pretty philosophical about their chronic underchievement when considering their average Home gate.
 

 

25/9/2022 1:01 PM  #16


Re: Dulwich

Funny old game wrote:

Wellard wrote:

Playing poorly but still winning. It’s a very hard watch at the moment but a wins a win.
Thought we looked better with Greenslade playing down the middle.
Parker was also my MOM.

Hard watch at the moment?

Were you in a cave from 2019 - early 2022?

No, of course not what a silly comment.
So you think we are playing attractive football?

It’s hard to watch as we give the ball away so much and ride our like.
Most disagree with you, we need a proper number 9, young drops so deep he’s often on the half way line. With know one to pass to.
Signed a tall striker but play him wide.
We are winning which is great but it’s hardly going to get the casual to keep coming back.

 

25/9/2022 2:10 PM  #17


Re: Dulwich

Wellard wrote:

Funny old game wrote:

Wellard wrote:

Playing poorly but still winning. It’s a very hard watch at the moment but a wins a win.
Thought we looked better with Greenslade playing down the middle.
Parker was also my MOM.

Hard watch at the moment?

Were you in a cave from 2019 - early 2022?

No, of course not what a silly comment.
So you think we are playing attractive football?

It’s hard to watch as we give the ball away so much and ride our like.
Most disagree with you, we need a proper number 9, young drops so deep he’s often on the half way line. With know one to pass to.
Signed a tall striker but play him wide.
We are winning which is great but it’s hardly going to get the casual to keep coming back.

You don’t need a tall striker. Do Ebbsfleet have tall strikers?  Do Oxford?  Did Dorking?  Were Pratt and Sandel giants back in the day?  Taunton have a load of physicality up front and they can’t score.  There are plenty of examples of teams with tall and short forwards - point being you don’t need a big number 9.

I think we’re playing as well as we have done for years and we are fairly consistent - we one back to back games once last season under MC, under GH that has happened 4 times at the end of last season and start of this season.

As for casuals coming back, haven’t the crowds been consistently at the 500+ mark?  Fa cup aside that was obviously deflated to save giving some away to Sholing.

What were the crowds this time last season?

 

25/9/2022 4:31 PM  #18


Re: Dulwich

We need someone, a true number 9 to get in the box. Did Sandell and, Pratt drop so deep., I lost count of the number of times Richards just punts it up field to know one and we lose possession, hence its very painful to watch.

Last edited by Wellard (25/9/2022 8:00 PM)

 

25/9/2022 4:46 PM  #19


Re: Dulwich

I think Jordan Young is our best player but we seem him drop deep so many times that when a chance is created he's further back than he should be.

 

25/9/2022 5:32 PM  #20


Re: Dulwich

Winning football or entertaining football? Yes it is dour and certainly not entertaining but it’s winning football, on the no 9 debate i don't think we need a giant upfront just someone who can hold it up, Sandell, Jarvis type. As for Richards just punting it forward, surely his defensive work outweighs his poor passing and distribution.

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum


This forum is NOT associated in anyway to any football club or people that run any clubs in Chippenham.