I was thinking this yesterday. Our attacks seem to be quite random, more improvised than rehearsed. I don’t really see an identity to our play, other than possession for possession’s sake. Andy Woodman even criticised us about this in his post-match interview.ETBee wrote:Last night Bromley showed what a good team they are. Physically strong, very well organised, excellent passers, well drilled routines and quick attackers. They also played without Olomola who is a real handful. They started with long balls to their front line but were able to adapt in the second half to a full team pressing style which inevitably led to their goal. It was our hard work and determination kept them down to one goal.
Our approach is to put together lots of passes which looks good but often makes us look slow and indecisive. And why do we take so long to cross the ball? There were many occasions when we kept passing within the corner area rather than getting an early cross when our attack have forward momentum and their defence is not yet organised. Quick crosses are more likely to end up with goals.
I sometimes think that we pass the ball around and run about a lot vaguely in the direction of the opposition's goal in the hope that an opportunity will occur to get the ball in the net. We play in a very inefficient way which allows the opposition to get and stay organised. The best teams appear to have planned and practised strategies which are focused on scoring. Difficult to explain what I mean but if I watch a game as shapes or patterns rather than individuals it seems this way. Sorry to sound pretentious but.....
Our inability to carve open Top 7 sides may well stem from poor coaching.
And yes the crossing, or lack thereof, was incredibly frustrating. Overplayed it in the corner every single time and invariably lost the ball.
