|
Post by steveh21 on Nov 6, 2018 12:39:24 GMT
Weight of crowd expectation? Cobblers..we get 2000 not 20000 and all of our players have played in front of bigger crowds. For whatever reason we struggle to play the ball on the floor at home.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 6, 2018 12:55:01 GMT
You could be right about the positive effect of the general atmosphere on away sides. But a really vocal home support must make a big difference at this level - most visiting teams won't be used to it. If the Elvis End singers could duplicate the wall of noise we had at Barnet it would be fantastic. I'm sure that gave us a huge advantage - maybe even won it for us. When you're used to playing in a nearly empty stadium, it must be intimidating to have that noise all game. And it must have given our players a huge boost too - they certainly seemed to have a level of confidence I haven't seen this season. Why just the Elvis end of the ground? there,s four sides to the stadium so might be better to ask ALL fans to cheer the team on, even you an the other old codgers in the main stand could help. Agreed. But it's down to the acoustics - they are great in the EE, the stand really amplifies and projects the sound. But you can hardly hear the TE because the roof reflects the sound down. And anywhere in the open, any noise is just lost. That does, of course, leave the MS, where the acoustics should be nearly as good as the EE (the EE is better because it's bigger and all metal). And we do get a bit of noise going sometimes (usually in response to the EE, so if you're in there, you probably can't hear us!), but, frankly, you're never going to get the (mostly) oldsters to sing like the EE does!
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 6, 2018 12:59:21 GMT
As for January, etc, what happens re the loan players is going to be the key to this season. If we lose key players (Smith and Turgott being the obvious ones, but two or three others would hurt us too) and don't manage to replace them, then we could be in trouble. Everyone remembers how the loss of Pigott (and, to a lesser extent, Hines) affected us, but what people don't seem to remember is how well we were doing before then. From the time Jay rebuilt the side after the 'mid-season collapse' in our first season, until we lost Pigott the following season, we were actually one of the better sides in the division, easily on play-off form, if not better. If we could have taken the end of our first season and the start of the following one and joined them together as one season, O&T would have been having kittens about 3G and capacity. And that included the rebuilding of the team when Flish and Mills went, and the transition to 'full-time'. And yet that all fell apart and we ended up with another 'mid-season collapse' and another rebuild - all because we lost one (or two) key players. O&T have got to do their utmost to prevent that from happening again this season. I thought the same, until ....
I looked at the facts which, unfortunately, I didn't keep but my recollection was that the 'best' 46 consecutive league results spread across the two seasons still only got us total points in the mid 60's.
My recollection could be wrong but I'm not going to check it again.
You could be right - my memory goes a bit black and amber at times. But I did look at the figures once and I'm pretty sure it was better than 60 points over a season. But then it would vary a lot depending where you chose your start and end dates - for instance, I think we began to lose the plot before Pigott left (the Hines effect?), and quite where the first season recovery really began is also debateable. Still a cracking performance while it lasted though - better than any other period at JWW...
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Nov 6, 2018 13:00:17 GMT
Seems to me that the lack of width of the pitch is a major contributing factor to the lack of points at the Gallagher. Could be the reason why, more often then not, HW seems to be using a narrowish formation at home. Not sure what the dimensions actually are at the Gallagher, but at Barnet, which I understand is a middling 66m wide (45m-90m permitted width), there did seem to be quite a bit of space on the flanks, which I thought McLennan used to good effect when supporting Turgott. I would posit that, providing you have the right type of players in a squad, a wider pitch gives that extra dimension that potentially allows a team to dominate the opposition in attack formation, getting to the byeline, crossing/passing, and creating that extra space to attack into. On the whole, it seems that narrow pitches make it relatively easy for visitors to defend, attack on the counter, nick a goal, and shut up shop. Job done. This makes it difficult for the home team, who should be dominating the opposition, from getting anything from the game, especially if they go behind from, as the Stones have done quite a few times over past couple of years, a poor defensive error. I couldn't find a site with pitch dimensions for NL grounds, but it would be interesting to look back to see how the Stones performed on different pitch widths over the last two seasons, on both subjective (comments posted on this site after a match) and objective levels. Based on the pitch markings I'd estimate the width of our pitch to be at least 66 yards wide, possibly as much as 68. The penalty area is 44 yards wide, and there is a dash on the goal line 10 yards in from each corner and at least a yard, possibly two, outside the penalty area, so 44 + 22 or 24, or between 60 and 62 metres.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 6, 2018 13:01:38 GMT
It would be interesting for someone to tot up home v away since we started at the Gallagher.[ quote] You're a very naughty person, because sure as anything I had better things to do this morning than this So here we are: Season 2012 / 13 - Ryman South: H: 12 - 6 - 3 A: 14 - 4 - 3 Season 2013 / 14 - Ryman Premier: H: 12 - 10 - 1 A: 11 - 2 - 10 Season 2014 / 15 - Ryman Premier: H: 18 - 4 - 1 A: 11 - 7 - 5 Season 2015 / 16 - Vanarama South: H: 12 - 2 - 7 A: 12 - 3 - 6 Season 2016 / 17 - Vanarama National: H: 8 - 5 - 10 A: 8 - 5 - 10 Season 2017 / 18 - Vanarama National: H: 6 - 9 - 8 A: 7 - 6 - 10 Conclusions ? Only in 2014 / 15 was the G really a fortress, it has indeed been a struggle from Ryman South upwards. Why is that - ………………. "You're a very naughty person, because sure as anything I had better things to do this morning than this" I know that feeling so well!
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Nov 6, 2018 13:07:33 GMT
I thought the same, until ....
I looked at the facts which, unfortunately, I didn't keep but my recollection was that the 'best' 46 consecutive league results spread across the two seasons still only got us total points in the mid 60's.
My recollection could be wrong but I'm not going to check it again.
You could be right - my memory goes a bit black and amber at times. But I did look at the figures once and I'm pretty sure it was better than 60 points over a season. But then it would vary a lot depending where you chose your start and end dates - for instance, I think we began to lose the plot before Pigott left (the Hines effect?), and quite where the first season recovery really began is also debateable. Still a cracking performance while it lasted though - better than any other period at JWW...What? Better than the three promotions seasons?
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 6, 2018 13:10:55 GMT
Seems to me that the lack of width of the pitch is a major contributing factor to the lack of points at the Gallagher. Could be the reason why, more often then not, HW seems to be using a narrowish formation at home. Not sure what the dimensions actually are at the Gallagher, but at Barnet, which I understand is a middling 66m wide (45m-90m permitted width), there did seem to be quite a bit of space on the flanks, which I thought McLennan used to good effect when supporting Turgott. I would posit that, providing you have the right type of players in a squad, a wider pitch gives that extra dimension that potentially allows a team to dominate the opposition in attack formation, getting to the byeline, crossing/passing, and creating that extra space to attack into. On the whole, it seems that narrow pitches make it relatively easy for visitors to defend, attack on the counter, nick a goal, and shut up shop. Job done. This makes it difficult for the home team, who should be dominating the opposition, from getting anything from the game, especially if they go behind from, as the Stones have done quite a few times over past couple of years, a poor defensive error. I couldn't find a site with pitch dimensions for NL grounds, but it would be interesting to look back to see how the Stones performed on different pitch widths over the last two seasons, on both subjective (comments posted on this site after a match) and objective levels. I'd 'like' this post twice if I could! The more I think about the width 'problem', the more I think it's significant. Your point about visitors defending, nicking a goal, and then shutting up shop is spot on. And, without any real room for wing play, how the hell do you get through 10 defenders and score?! In the two recent away games, it's very obvious that the home team uses the width better than we do, there's nearly always at least one man right out wide, almost on the touchline (and completely unmarked!) - which gives them options we don't (usually) have. We used the width better at Barnet, especially in the 2nd half, but still not as much as we could have. Perhaps it would be better if we could use that strip of land we are buying (have boght?) from the council to widen the pitch, rather than build a stand? No doubt this will be dismissed as a waste of money, but what's the point in increasing the capacity (if it does) if we always lose too many games at home?
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 6, 2018 13:11:34 GMT
You could be right - my memory goes a bit black and amber at times. But I did look at the figures once and I'm pretty sure it was better than 60 points over a season. But then it would vary a lot depending where you chose your start and end dates - for instance, I think we began to lose the plot before Pigott left (the Hines effect?), and quite where the first season recovery really began is also debateable. Still a cracking performance while it lasted though - better than any other period at JWW...What? Better than the three promotions seasons? Yeah, yeah. I meant in the grown-up league!
|
|
|
Post by jakeyboi on Nov 6, 2018 13:47:34 GMT
Why just the Elvis end of the ground? there,s four sides to the stadium so might be better to ask ALL fans to cheer the team on, even you an the other old codgers in the main stand could help. Agreed. But it's down to the acoustics - they are great in the EE, the stand really amplifies and projects the sound. But you can hardly hear the TE because the roof reflects the sound down. And anywhere in the open, any noise is just lost. That does, of course, leave the MS, where the acoustics should be nearly as good as the EE (the EE is better because it's bigger and all metal). And we do get a bit of noise going sometimes (usually in response to the EE, so if you're in there, you probably can't hear us!), but, frankly, you're never going to get the (mostly) oldsters to sing like the EE does! Whilst I agree with most of what your saying it really infuriates me when people from the main stand and other areas of the ground moan about the lack of singing in the EE as though we are there just to entertain them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 13:53:53 GMT
The narrow pitch also makes it easier for teams like Harrogate to use the long-throw tactic. Maybe that is why the Stones have a narrow pitch, to take advantage of the Flisher effect. Made me wonder if there are, or have ever been, any teams that have altered their pitch dimensions from game to game in order to gain a perceived advantage over their next opposition, that is if it is permitted under FA regulations. This could be used either to suit a particular tactical formation and/or or to thwart an oppositions playing style.
|
|
|
Post by shamstone on Nov 6, 2018 14:35:46 GMT
Seems to me that the lack of width of the pitch is a major contributing factor to the lack of points at the Gallagher. Could be the reason why, more often then not, HW seems to be using a narrowish formation at home. Not sure what the dimensions actually are at the Gallagher, but at Barnet, which I understand is a middling 66m wide (45m-90m permitted width), there did seem to be quite a bit of space on the flanks, which I thought McLennan used to good effect when supporting Turgott. I would posit that, providing you have the right type of players in a squad, a wider pitch gives that extra dimension that potentially allows a team to dominate the opposition in attack formation, getting to the byeline, crossing/passing, and creating that extra space to attack into. On the whole, it seems that narrow pitches make it relatively easy for visitors to defend, attack on the counter, nick a goal, and shut up shop. Job done. This makes it difficult for the home team, who should be dominating the opposition, from getting anything from the game, especially if they go behind from, as the Stones have done quite a few times over past couple of years, a poor defensive error. I couldn't find a site with pitch dimensions for NL grounds, but it would be interesting to look back to see how the Stones performed on different pitch widths over the last two seasons, on both subjective (comments posted on this site after a match) and objective levels. I'd 'like' this post twice if I could! The more I think about the width 'problem', the more I think it's significant. Your point about visitors defending, nicking a goal, and then shutting up shop is spot on. And, without any real room for wing play, how the hell do you get through 10 defenders and score?! In the two recent away games, it's very obvious that the home team uses the width better than we do, there's nearly always at least one man right out wide, almost on the touchline (and completely unmarked!) - which gives them options we don't (usually) have. We used the width better at Barnet, especially in the 2nd half, but still not as much as we could have. Perhaps it would be better if we could use that strip of land we are buying (have boght?) from the council to widen the pitch, rather than build a stand? No doubt this will be dismissed as a waste of money, but what's the point in increasing the capacity (if it does) if we always lose too many games at home? Turgott had a decent bit of wing play against the Orient
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Nov 6, 2018 14:57:24 GMT
Our pitch is 70 yards wide, by comparison here are some premier league ones:
Anfield –74 yards Emirates Stadium –74 yards Etihad Stadium – 74 yards Old Trafford – 76 yards Stamford Bridge – 73 yards
Slightly narrower but not a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Raymondo316 on Nov 6, 2018 14:57:57 GMT
The narrow pitch also makes it easier for teams like Harrogate to use the long-throw tactic. The Chesterfield game was terrible for it. Any throw in our half was like a bloody corner! It honestly felt like their whole game plan was just to win throw-ins so their player could launch his missile throw into the box.....heck I can't remember any other game where id seen so many throw-ins.
|
|
|
Post by davec on Nov 6, 2018 15:08:28 GMT
The narrow pitch also makes it easier for teams like Harrogate to use the long-throw tactic. The Chesterfield game was terrible for it. Any throw in our half was like a bloody corner! It honestly felt like their whole game plan was just to win throw-ins so their player could launch his missile throw into the box.....heck I can't remember any other game where id seen so many throw-ins. Do you not remember the Kent League days when we had Aaron Lacey We used to refer to his long throws as THE tactic
|
|
|
Post by Raymondo316 on Nov 6, 2018 15:19:37 GMT
The Chesterfield game was terrible for it. Any throw in our half was like a bloody corner! It honestly felt like their whole game plan was just to win throw-ins so their player could launch his missile throw into the box.....heck I can't remember any other game where id seen so many throw-ins. Do you not remember the Kent League days when we had Aaron Lacey We used to refer to his long throws as THE tactic Yeah I remember we used it quite a lot, same with Flisher.....maybe its because we haven't used said tactic for ages now, but that throw from Muggleton was something else! the longest throw I think I've ever seen. Didn't help they had a close to 7 foot lump in the box winning every header.
|
|