Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Anything and everything related to Barnet FC
User avatar
MCB
Posts: 4948
Joined: 11 May 2016, 17:41

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327005Post MCB »

adher36 wrote:
MCB wrote:More upset about losing 3 points, absolutely no shites given that it's Wealdstone, hope it's cathartic for them and we can move on from the tedious bullshit their fans propagate.

Literally 30 clubs I care more about losing to than them, happy this is out the way, annoyed we lost to a shite team as there was a feeling we were becoming slightly less shite.

Next.
Name the 30 please
No? That would be dull.

Remember that for most of us we came to Barnet post any clashes with them in the 80's. I've as much animosity to them as I would Weymouth. Southend & Daggers have far more relevance to me. Even Fulham, Cardiff and especially Walsall.

PEPF was their fuck up, it's just continued deflection from all the screw ups they made. Some of the stuff from their fans on social media is brain washing craziness of the biggest degree.

Anyone that followed Barnet in 80's and before of course would be far more likely to get it than I do
JWTBee
Posts: 1604
Joined: 25 Jan 2011, 17:31
Location: Whitstable,Kent

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327006Post JWTBee »

Mem Beespod wrote:
hoofer2 wrote:
I cannot understand why Brennan took so long to bring someone on. I think Marriott is an intelligent player who could potentially be dropped a little deeper in a Gash type role if paired with a strike partner who scores.
I genuinely don’t know why Marriott wasn’t played in the hole with Bloomfield ahead of him. Flanagan always seems to be the one to come off and somehow Brundle plays every game yet is miles off the pace.
Right on the money as usual! Perhaps you should try to speak to Brennan & get his thoughts/reasonings!
I love Luisma & really miss his skils!
Mem Beespod
Posts: 3192
Joined: 24 Jan 2011, 18:20

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327007Post Mem Beespod »

beew wrote:
edgeog wrote:The capacity at Wealdstone is supposed to be 4,000. With 2600+ inside you wouldn't get another 400 let alone 1400 in. Ground is not NL compliant. Another fiddle by Wealdstone.
It took an age to exit the ground. The route out was barely 2m wide and less when the ladies portaloo door opened, i cant see how that has passed a safety inspection. Downright dangerous and needs amending.
I dread to think what would have happened in the event of a fire. I was standing by the exit during the game and at the end of the game was waiting for a friend for what seemed like ages.
BeesPod - Best in Non League podcast 2023
https://linktr.ee/beespod

Member of Bring Barnet Back campaign.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557502963938
WhetstoneBee
Posts: 709
Joined: 04 Feb 2011, 14:37

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327008Post WhetstoneBee »

Yes the officials were the worst I’ve seen in several years but we still should have won that. I like Brennan a lot but I really don’t know what he was thinking yesterday. Marriott was anonymous for most of the game and we were crying out for some sort of presence up front, yet he refused to change it until 80 mins despite us offering very little up top. Secondly, EMC (offensively at least - he still doesn’t track back enough) and Flanagan did well but the other midfielders - Woods, Brundle, Hall - offered absolutely nothing and were slow to every second ball. So of course it’s Flanagan rather than Brundle who gets hauled off when we go 1-0 down. Lastly, who could possibly have predicted that a back four of Beard, Greenidge, Turley and Taylor, while mostly solid, would ultimately get undone by pace? All in all a lesson that hard work and organisation will get you so far but without quality, particularly up front, it’s not enough. Second half we created very little. Lots to learn from yesterday and hopefully we’ll see an improvement next week.
Roy57
Posts: 3339
Joined: 22 Sep 2018, 10:43

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327010Post Roy57 »

After reading posts like Loringbee many agree. From pre season I just couldn't and still don't understand why we only have two recognised strikers in Marriott and Bloomfield. Why Brennan has not brought in a striker who could score 20 goals plus. So far this season 20 between them seems more a realistic aim. Not sure you if with Hall it's down to fitness or another reason but he hardly ever (if at all) lasts longer than 63-70 mins. Mason Clark is having best season for a long time but his finishing is way short of his build up play. And just don't see him or Hall scoring the goals we need. And this now is becoming a problem. Build up play is getting better. Players attitude is good. But it is getting common now for Brennan saying we are not putting away the chances we are creating. Just believe if we had a striker who could finish these chances we would of picked up another 6-9 points than we have already. Don't understand why Brennan has not given or played both Marriott and Bloomfield together.
Mem Beespod
Posts: 3192
Joined: 24 Jan 2011, 18:20

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327013Post Mem Beespod »

Marriott is clearly not a striker suited to a 433. He reminds me of Adam Birchall. A buzzy little player that looks for pockets but needs a reference point to play off much like Birchall did with Akurang. Why we’re expecting him to lead the line when he’s clearly unsuited to it is baffling. Brennan seems to have an issue with Bloomfield because in most games I’ve seen him, he’s played well yet will get dropped the game after.
BeesPod - Best in Non League podcast 2023
https://linktr.ee/beespod

Member of Bring Barnet Back campaign.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557502963938
Roy57
Posts: 3339
Joined: 22 Sep 2018, 10:43

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327014Post Roy57 »

Nothing to do with Wealdstone game but just seen that the attendance at Notts county yesterday at home to Solihull was national league record attendance. 12,843. Wow
Highest attendance in 2nd division except Tranmere which I could not verify. Was Carlisle which was 7,470. And in first division only Bolton (played friday) Ipswich and Sheffield weds had higher attendances than Notts county.
User avatar
barnetboy1
Posts: 1731
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 18:18

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327015Post barnetboy1 »

You can only hope after a deflating (unexpected ?) result like that there is a realisation of lessons to be learned.
A prophetic thread title ,sounds like we were 80% Complet.
COYBeees!
becbee
Posts: 11807
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 11:43

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327016Post becbee »

Roy57 wrote:Nothing to do with Wealdstone game but just seen that the attendance at Notts county yesterday at home to Solihull was national league record attendance. 12,843. Wow
Highest attendance in 2nd division except Tranmere which I could not verify. Was Carlisle which was 7,470. And in first division only Bolton (played friday) Ipswich and Sheffield weds had higher attendances than Notts county.
Notts Co only charged £5 in a concerted effort to beat the National League attendance record. Their previous home attendance v Bromley on 26th October was 5,331.
Wealdstone announced yesterday that the attendance of 2,662 was a ground record.
HertsBee
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Apr 2013, 17:46

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327017Post HertsBee »

Also announced as 672 Bees there.
let_it_bee
Posts: 1196
Joined: 29 Jan 2011, 20:59

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327019Post let_it_bee »

Mem Beespod wrote:Marriott is clearly not a striker suited to a 433. He reminds me of Adam Birchall. A buzzy little player that looks for pockets but needs a reference point to play off much like Birchall did with Akurang. Why we’re expecting him to lead the line when he’s clearly unsuited to it is baffling. Brennan seems to have an issue with Bloomfield because in most games I’ve seen him, he’s played well yet will get dropped the game after.
To be fair I think Marriott does as well as could be expected in that lone striker role bearing in mind his physique. Puts his body in the right place, wins his fair share of the ball and controls it well, but obviously he's not got the height to really compete in the air with the average NL centre back. And some people have been going on about missed chances, but I don't recall that many yesterday to be honest. I think it was more a case of the final ball not quite being good enough to create a clearcut opening. But the Bloomfield situation is mystifying. Have to wonder whether maybe he's not fully fit, because whenever I've seen him in the starting line-up I've always been fairly impressed. Certainly a big improvement on most of the so-called strikers we employed last season.
letchbee94
Posts: 8026
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 20:59

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327020Post letchbee94 »

Just watched the national league highlight show and they show the 'penalty' incident in the first half and for me it was a penalty.
The Wes 1 in second half clearly looked a foul but at the time I could not tell if it was inside or outside the box.

No lack of effort yesterday but just lack of quality in final 3rd.
letchbee94
Posts: 8026
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 20:59

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327021Post letchbee94 »

edgeog wrote:Also announced as 672 Bees there.
Southend took 900, that could not have been comfortable viewing.
Roy57
Posts: 3339
Joined: 22 Sep 2018, 10:43

Re: Wealdstone (Away) The 80% Complet Matc Threa

Post: # 327024Post Roy57 »

erichitchmo wrote:A write up from DSH, if you fancy having a read…
Read this and was shocked that three of our players. Brundle. Bloomfield and Thomas made there way to Wealdstone ground via train. I could not believe this. Just assumed that players would of met at the hive and then into game via coach. This is so poor. Makes you wonder who is the part time club.
Post Reply