Messages

1

The B-Ark / Re: Banbury

« on: August 18, 2022, 04:28:54 PM »

I was certainly surprised to see him thrown in for Southport, but then that was somewhat overshadowed by what Cox had done with Leesley!

2

The B-Ark / Re: Prediction League - Boston United vs Chorley

« on: August 17, 2022, 04:50:02 PM »

0-0, 1366

3

The B-Ark / Re: Banbury

« on: August 17, 2022, 12:58:49 PM »

Some positives & negatives from last night. Positives are the resilience shown & defensive solidity especially after going down to 10 men with half an hour to go. Belehouan was impressive on his full debut. However, the negatives are simply the football is dire & creativity is minimal. We were warned of Paul Cox's hoofball style & I have to say that I didn't really see it last season, but so far this season it is evident that this is the way the players are being instructed to play. Banbury played the ball out of defence all the time, building from the back, looking for the incisive pass, using the midfielders & width. We just bypassed the midfield with goal kicks that went straight down the throat of their centre backs. Fair enough if Burrows was up there, but to Crawford? I was impressed by the quality of the players Cox has brought in, but the style of play doesn't suit them. For instance, Atkinson was good in pre-season, but the ball seems to have passed him by since. If we're playing 3412, surely you need to work through the channels. We're not creating chances because the front three aren't getting the ball. We have quality wing-backs by the look of it, so why not utilise them in a 352 & play with some width in order to be less predictable in our forward play? Oh & find a midfielder who is hungry for the ball, can put their foot on it, look around & make that incisive pass... someone like Shane Byrne!  UTP!

Good summing up. The thing is, the football being "dire" is acceptable on the road against a tough team, and off the back of two bad defeats. The concern I feel a lot of us have at the moment is that it'll still be dire at home against teams we're expected to roll over. Saturday is another huge game for that reason alone. One of my main emotions walking away last night was one of relief as had it gone wrong I could see the crowd turning on Cox quite quickly. Relief is not something you should be feeling third game in when you're looking to go one better than last season and get promoted.

Also well done to the referee last night. He could have called the game off at 7.30 - indeed I and others were absolutely certain the game was going to be called off. But he gave it another 20 odd minutes, delayed K.O, let the ground staff do their thing in the flooded corner, and got the game on. Excellent call.

4

The B-Ark / Re: Banbury

« on: August 17, 2022, 12:18:54 PM »

Pete  B,  Jordan Archer?  Take it you mean  Jordan  Crawford.  Pleased to hear it was a better performance and hopefully sets it up for 3  points on Saturday

Yes, Jordan Crawford! I'd just been writing something up for Saturday about Archer's goals in the opening game so got mixed up...!

5

The B-Ark / Re: Can anyone help, please?

« on: August 17, 2022, 07:59:17 AM »

See if Christian James can help over on Twitter - @bostonutdstats

6

The B-Ark / Re: Banbury

« on: August 17, 2022, 07:57:54 AM »

Much, much improved performance! We looked a more coherent unit from front to back, Long commanded his area well, Jordan Archer was a constant menace. Shiels sending off was just one of those things that happens - the manner in which we dug in to grind out a point was impressive. Not great to see Myles and Abbott have a screaming argument mid-match, the kind that suggests there's been no love lost between them in training and it all boiled over.

7

The B-Ark / Re: Funny ok game

« on: August 16, 2022, 11:47:06 AM »

As Scott says over on Twitter, tonight really is a massive game.

8

The B-Ark / Re: Funny ok game

« on: August 16, 2022, 08:28:43 AM »

I don't see Lincoln loaning us their 2nd/3rd choice keeper without some guarantee of plenty of gametime, so I think Long will be our number 1. He was injured last week.

Gloucester didn't upload highlights but judging from Christian's video he didn't cover himself in glory for their second goal.

Frankly I couldn't give a monkeys what we've told Lincoln - we should be picking players on merit alone and in our own best interests, not guarantees made to aid development of players who do not belong to us. It's fine if you've got a Marcus Dewhurst, but players of his ability are exceptions rather than the norm.

9

The B-Ark / Re: Funny ok game

« on: August 15, 2022, 04:15:52 PM »

I understand the reference given to DN on Culverhouse from the Kings Lynn Chairman was less than glowing.

That may be so, but then Cleeve is a bit of a basket case himself!

Culverhouse didn't exactly do brilliantly with Lynn in the Conference, his spell with Kettering was pretty average, and I still think King's Lynn would have been caught by either us or York had the season been played out in full.

10

The B-Ark / Re: Funny ok game

« on: August 15, 2022, 12:25:02 PM »

Well, I wanted Elliott to be given all of last season, so it would be wrong of me to treat Cox any differently!

What's worrying me is the recruitment strikes me as being a bit slapdash - we've got a surplus of right-sided defenders, we haven't adequately replaced Byrne, the goalkeeping situation seems as fluid as it always has, and I still don't know why we signed a left-winger to play in a system that uses wing-backs!

Plenty never wanted him though, and this poor start is the perfect chance for them to express their dissatisfaction with the appointment.

I think his biggest crime is not being Ian Culverhouse............

You're not wrong there - it was obvious after Elliott was sacked that the fans wanted Cully (a few wanted Curtis Woodhouse but I get the impression David Newton doesn't like managers too active on social media). I believe he did interview for the job, but I don't know that for certain.

11

The B-Ark / Re: Funny ok game

« on: August 15, 2022, 11:32:20 AM »

Well, I wanted Elliott to be given all of last season, so it would be wrong of me to treat Cox any differently!

What's worrying me is the recruitment strikes me as being a bit slapdash - we've got a surplus of right-sided defenders, we haven't adequately replaced Byrne, the goalkeeping situation seems as fluid as it always has, and I still don't know why we signed a left-winger to play in a system that uses wing-backs!

12

The B-Ark / Re: Prediction League - Banbury United vs Boston United

« on: August 15, 2022, 09:21:00 AM »

Banbury 3, Boston 0

Att: 886

13

The B-Ark / Re: Nightmare

« on: August 12, 2022, 08:29:42 AM »

At least we've got 45 games to put it right and individually some great players

I don't know about you Dave, but I feel like I've been following the sentence "We've got some great players" with the word "but" for about a decade now.....

14

The B-Ark / Re: Nightmare

« on: August 12, 2022, 08:28:03 AM »

Playing Leesley at left centre-back was attributed to "injuries". Sorry - that simply doesn't wash for me, we had enough options on the bench (or not even named in the squad and not reported as injured) for a back three to be assembled that made far more sense. And if the back three didn't make that much sense to the gaffer, then he should have ditched the wing-backs and played a more conventional back four - something we did second-half so it's obviously been worked on in training. Leesley himself didn't make any obvious individual errors - at least none I saw - but the defensive shape was all wrong and Southport took complete advantage.

It was a tactical howler and one I don't want to see repeated merely to accommodate a player in the side whose re-signing, I have to admit, didn't make much sense to me, even if he is good at set-pieces. I did think Cox had found him a settled place in the side prior to his injury, but this was just weird.

15

The B-Ark / Re: Prediction League - Gloucester City vs Boston United

« on: August 08, 2022, 01:59:03 PM »

Hate to say it...

3-1

1029