The Official Mansfield are Worse then Notts Co Match Thread

Is it next Sunday that Hartley needs to reach without any more yellow's

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

we play with 3 at the back and 2 wing backs

Nope, they should be wingbacks but they're natural fullbacks and play as such. They're too often caught flat in line with the back three. Mellor is the best "wingback" we have, in terms of knowing how to position himself and balancing attack with defense, but he's turned into a right clumsy shite. The system depends on having wingbacks that know their roles well enough to compensate for the lack of wide personnel - that's why we flourished with an inform Mellor and Andy Kellett throughout November and early December.

yes we do

Are the L2 Play-Off Semi-Finals on Sky Sports and if so, how much do Sky pay the clubs for showing the games. I know the final is.

Assuming that Argyle do finish in 7th [or 6th], would any Sky revenue go to whoever the manager is next season for team building, depending on which league they are in ?.

A conspiracy theory moment now, if Sky do show the L2 Play-Off Semi-Finals year on year, that is a nice little earner to the four clubs that make the POs. If three teams fail to go up, surely the money they have received from Sky would be beneficial for new season team rebuilding. If so, they could go down the Play-off route as often as they wished, knowing that there is money to be made in reaching the Play-Offs and so on and so on.

Doesn't any extra money earned go towards paying off the debt ?

zyph wrote:

Doesn't any extra money earned go towards paying off the debt ?

Was it not revealed sometime ago that a majority of the debt was accounted for, in whatever form that has taken.

Reaching the Play-offs is a money spinner to the four clubs that make them [based on Sky paying the four sides for showing the L2 Play-offs]. Do that for two or three seasons and the monies will add up over time. If that is the case, debt and team budget will slowly become only team budget and other normal day-to-day financial outgoings.

I am not suggesting for one minute that Argyle as a club go a down a route of making the Play-Offs for two or three seasons in order to re-build the finances and re-build the side.

If you look at the final placings of the three leagues at the end of each season, you find that the teams in the Play-offs are, more often than not, the same as a previous season,

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

we play with 3 at the back and 2 wing backs

Nope, they should be wingbacks but they're natural fullbacks and play as such. They're too often caught flat in line with the back three. Mellor is the best "wingback" we have, in terms of knowing how to position himself and balancing attack with defense, but he's turned into a right clumsy shite. The system depends on having wingbacks that know their roles well enough to compensate for the lack of wide personnel - that's why we flourished with an inform Mellor and Andy Kellett throughout November and early December.

yes we do

Difference between intent and execution. We play with a flat 5 more than we play with pushed up wingbacks. They're not wingbacks, they're full backs.

Coxside_Green wrote:

Exactly twin.  

Roobs has had a decent season and Allesandra has managed 1 in 4.  Nobody else has come close.

They were the two I had in mind.

And you're damned right that I am critical that we haven't done better. I don't know enough about what goes on regarding budgets, getting the players Sheridan wants or who actually does scouting and recruitment to pass much judgement on any of that.

But putting it all together we're about to finish 7th, at best - if we are lucky, in a very poor division - and I don't think that's good enough and, to be honest, I'm surprised that anybody does.

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

we play with 3 at the back and 2 wing backs

Nope, they should be wingbacks but they're natural fullbacks and play as such. They're too often caught flat in line with the back three. Mellor is the best "wingback" we have, in terms of knowing how to position himself and balancing attack with defense, but he's turned into a right clumsy shite. The system depends on having wingbacks that know their roles well enough to compensate for the lack of wide personnel - that's why we flourished with an inform Mellor and Andy Kellett throughout November and early December.

yes we do

Difference between intent and execution. We play with a flat 5 more than we play with pushed up wingbacks. They're not wingbacks, they're full backs.

352 they are wingbacks

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

we play with 3 at the back and 2 wing backs

Nope, they should be wingbacks but they're natural fullbacks and play as such. They're too often caught flat in line with the back three. Mellor is the best "wingback" we have, in terms of knowing how to position himself and balancing attack with defense, but he's turned into a right clumsy shite. The system depends on having wingbacks that know their roles well enough to compensate for the lack of wide personnel - that's why we flourished with an inform Mellor and Andy Kellett throughout November and early December.

yes we do

Difference between intent and execution. We play with a flat 5 more than we play with pushed up wingbacks. They're not wingbacks, they're full backs.

352 they are wingbacks

Played their entire career as full backs, play deep in a flat line with our back three - they're full backs. I reckon you should start arguing with Greenskin that Blizzard, Cox and Bobby Reid ARE goalscoring midfielders

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Exactly twin.  

Roobs has had a decent season and Allesandra has managed 1 in 4.  Nobody else has come close.

They were the two I had in mind.

And you're damned right that I am critical that we haven't done better. I don't know enough about what goes on regarding budgets, getting the players Sheridan wants or who actually does scouting and recruitment to pass much judgement on any of that.

But putting it all together we're about to finish 7th, at best - if we are lucky, in a very poor division - and I don't think that's good enough and, to be honest, I'm surprised that anybody does.

Being critical of the club as a whole is fair comment, the supporters do deserve better. It's those who solely blame Sheridan I have an issue with. If they end up driving Sheridan out and we end up with yet another inexperienced ex player, well...

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

we play with 3 at the back and 2 wing backs

Nope, they should be wingbacks but they're natural fullbacks and play as such. They're too often caught flat in line with the back three. Mellor is the best "wingback" we have, in terms of knowing how to position himself and balancing attack with defense, but he's turned into a right clumsy shite. The system depends on having wingbacks that know their roles well enough to compensate for the lack of wide personnel - that's why we flourished with an inform Mellor and Andy Kellett throughout November and early December.

yes we do

Difference between intent and execution. We play with a flat 5 more than we play with pushed up wingbacks. They're not wingbacks, they're full backs.

352 they are wingbacks

Played their entire career as full backs, play deep in a flat line with our back three - they're full backs. I reckon you should start arguing with Greenskin that Blizzard, Cox and Bobby Reid ARE goalscoring midfielders

if they were full backs it would be 532 but its not and they clearly play wing back roles. Try watching in future.

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

we play with 3 at the back and 2 wing backs

Nope, they should be wingbacks but they're natural fullbacks and play as such. They're too often caught flat in line with the back three. Mellor is the best "wingback" we have, in terms of knowing how to position himself and balancing attack with defense, but he's turned into a right clumsy shite. The system depends on having wingbacks that know their roles well enough to compensate for the lack of wide personnel - that's why we flourished with an inform Mellor and Andy Kellett throughout November and early December.

yes we do

Difference between intent and execution. We play with a flat 5 more than we play with pushed up wingbacks. They're not wingbacks, they're full backs.

352 they are wingbacks

Played their entire career as full backs, play deep in a flat line with our back three - they're full backs. I reckon you should start arguing with Greenskin that Blizzard, Cox and Bobby Reid ARE goalscoring midfielders

if they were full backs it would be 532 but its not and they clearly play wing back roles. Try watching in future.

It always looks like a back 5 to me.

Probably not worth resorting to personal abuse about though.

Cornish Chris wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

we play with 3 at the back and 2 wing backs

Nope, they should be wingbacks but they're natural fullbacks and play as such. They're too often caught flat in line with the back three. Mellor is the best "wingback" we have, in terms of knowing how to position himself and balancing attack with defense, but he's turned into a right clumsy shite. The system depends on having wingbacks that know their roles well enough to compensate for the lack of wide personnel - that's why we flourished with an inform Mellor and Andy Kellett throughout November and early December.

yes we do

Difference between intent and execution. We play with a flat 5 more than we play with pushed up wingbacks. They're not wingbacks, they're full backs.

352 they are wingbacks

Played their entire career as full backs, play deep in a flat line with our back three - they're full backs. I reckon you should start arguing with Greenskin that Blizzard, Cox and Bobby Reid ARE goalscoring midfielders

if they were full backs it would be 532 but its not and they clearly play wing back roles. Try watching in future.

It always looks like a back 5 to me.

Probably not worth resorting to personal abuse about though.

You're right Chris, its definitely 5-3-2. We haven't played 3-5-2 since Kellett left, there's a subtle difference but the performances are noticeable.

Cornish Chris wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

we play with 3 at the back and 2 wing backs

Nope, they should be wingbacks but they're natural fullbacks and play as such. They're too often caught flat in line with the back three. Mellor is the best "wingback" we have, in terms of knowing how to position himself and balancing attack with defense, but he's turned into a right clumsy shite. The system depends on having wingbacks that know their roles well enough to compensate for the lack of wide personnel - that's why we flourished with an inform Mellor and Andy Kellett throughout November and early December.

yes we do

Difference between intent and execution. We play with a flat 5 more than we play with pushed up wingbacks. They're not wingbacks, they're full backs.

352 they are wingbacks

Played their entire career as full backs, play deep in a flat line with our back three - they're full backs. I reckon you should start arguing with Greenskin that Blizzard, Cox and Bobby Reid ARE goalscoring midfielders

if they were full backs it would be 532 but its not and they clearly play wing back roles. Try watching in future.

It always looks like a back 5 to me.

Probably not worth resorting to personal abuse about though.

You too then need to actually watch the shape then. Also if thats personal abuse to you then you need a pair of bigger balls! perhaps you could borrow your mums.


thats personal abuse see the difference

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Cornish Chris wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

we play with 3 at the back and 2 wing backs

Nope, they should be wingbacks but they're natural fullbacks and play as such. They're too often caught flat in line with the back three. Mellor is the best "wingback" we have, in terms of knowing how to position himself and balancing attack with defense, but he's turned into a right clumsy shite. The system depends on having wingbacks that know their roles well enough to compensate for the lack of wide personnel - that's why we flourished with an inform Mellor and Andy Kellett throughout November and early December.

yes we do

Difference between intent and execution. We play with a flat 5 more than we play with pushed up wingbacks. They're not wingbacks, they're full backs.

352 they are wingbacks

Played their entire career as full backs, play deep in a flat line with our back three - they're full backs. I reckon you should start arguing with Greenskin that Blizzard, Cox and Bobby Reid ARE goalscoring midfielders

if they were full backs it would be 532 but its not and they clearly play wing back roles. Try watching in future.

It always looks like a back 5 to me.

Probably not worth resorting to personal abuse about though.

You're right Chris, its definitely 5-3-2. We haven't played 3-5-2 since Kellett left, there's a subtle difference but the performances are noticeable.

Totally agree, post January there has definitely been a change in our whole set up. Fans can see it too, that's why there is a fair amount of grumbling. No runs from the likes of Kellett and Mellor, and three static defensive midfielders.

It is nice in theory to think we have two box to box wing players but we don't. They are primarily defenders.

ejh wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Cornish Chris wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Angry wrote:

we play with 3 at the back and 2 wing backs

Nope, they should be wingbacks but they're natural fullbacks and play as such. They're too often caught flat in line with the back three. Mellor is the best "wingback" we have, in terms of knowing how to position himself and balancing attack with defense, but he's turned into a right clumsy shite. The system depends on having wingbacks that know their roles well enough to compensate for the lack of wide personnel - that's why we flourished with an inform Mellor and Andy Kellett throughout November and early December.

yes we do

Difference between intent and execution. We play with a flat 5 more than we play with pushed up wingbacks. They're not wingbacks, they're full backs.

352 they are wingbacks

Played their entire career as full backs, play deep in a flat line with our back three - they're full backs. I reckon you should start arguing with Greenskin that Blizzard, Cox and Bobby Reid ARE goalscoring midfielders

if they were full backs it would be 532 but its not and they clearly play wing back roles. Try watching in future.

It always looks like a back 5 to me.

Probably not worth resorting to personal abuse about though.

You're right Chris, its definitely 5-3-2. We haven't played 3-5-2 since Kellett left, there's a subtle difference but the performances are noticeable.

Totally agree, post January there has definitely been a change in our whole set up. FansEveryone but Angry can see it too, that's why there is a fair amount of grumbling. No runs from the likes of Kellett and Mellor, and three static defensive midfielders.

It is nice in theory to think we have two box to box wing players but we don't. They are primarily defenders.

In a nutshell really, I feel this is where we've faltered as a side - not necessarily solely on the heels of a low scoring midfield. Despite his questionable overall quality at the minute, I feel Mellor is the best at understanding the position, he's the only "wingback" we have that will consistently get forward and even get into the box. THD did get forward more in the second half, but look at where he's positioned when they get the cross in for their goal. There's such a lack of confidence to push higher up the pitch, which I find bemusing as surely it'd be even easier for them to defend, as they'd be able to get to the opposition wide man quicker, rather than allowing him 15 yards of a space to run at you... They've got to be braver to play the wingback position and they're not...

Shaddap and enjoy the ride, the lot of ya !................ and don't ferget, 'Playersapplaudthefans........fansapplaudtheplayers' 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Was going to do a 'Just Back' after an Easter in the Westcountry and watching the 3 games Burton Portsmouth and Mansfield. All I can really say is that although it's pleasant that we are in the playoffs it also seems almost unbelievable given the way we played over those 3 matches.

Definitely no promotion feel good factor amongst the fans that I could determine. Which is extraordinary really given that we are in with a chance of getting out of this football forsaken league.

Awful game between 2 poor sides. THD is not a footballer- why can't we play Purrington instead. Midfield was dominated- we miss O'Connor playing there- Blizzard and Olly Lee are too weak, we improved once Lee Cox was brought on.

#25 Oliver? Was a handful and I thought their rotund #9 did a job of roughing up our CB's when he came on.

I thought O'Connor got the 2nd as he looked like he got a touch on the line?

O'Conner tweeted yesterday that he had both the goals.

Chemical Ali wrote:

Awful game between 2 poor sides. THD is not a footballer- why can't we play Purrington instead. Midfield was dominated- we miss O'Connor playing there- Blizzard and Olly Lee are too weak, we improved once Lee Cox was brought on.

#25 Oliver? Was a handful and I thought their rotund #9 did a job of roughing up our CB's when he came on.

I thought O'Connor got the 2nd as he looked like he got a touch on the line?

If the goal was going in regardless to o'connor's goalline touch then McHugh should still be credited with the goal.

Last touch counts though.

Iggy wrote:

Last touch counts though.

Not always though it depends on how much impact they played in the goal. If McHugh's shot was going in regardless its his goal despite the o'connor steal on the goal line.

However it matters not who actually scored it, in the end its the team result that matters.

Angry wrote:

Not always though it depends on how much impact they played in the goal. If McHugh's shot was going in regardless its his goal despite the o'connor steal on the goal line.

However it matters not who actually scored it, in the end its the team result that matters.

So true, though according to some, the result doesn't matter at all - only that we aren't playing champagne football with a manager that kisses badges and salutes the fans.