The Robins Nest Forum

https://www.ctfc.com/news/2018/april/hi ... sa-record/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The great thing about Mo is his technique. The way in which he hits the ball makes him so deadly. He's the best finisher I've ever seen at the club!

JasonFailor wrote:The great thing about Mo is his technique. The way in which he hits the ball makes him so deadly. He's the best finisher I've ever seen at the club!

certainly one of the best. Holman runs him close (at a lower level), going way back in time Dave Lewis.

Mo eflects the rest of the team then, we need to start performing at WE

It is odd how he hasn't really done it at home - 6 goals and 3 of those were against Vale.

Played up front on his own and fed utter nonsense what do you expect

Doesn’t get the space to gallop on our narrow pitch. The distance from side line to eighteen yard box “in the channel” is so small at WR there just isn’t the space ideal for his game.

Same effected most players with a pace game...K Mo, McG, Devaney, Odejayi. At home most of their goals came on the counter when there was space. Whereas away from home there is enough space to work an opening.

RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Doesn’t get the space to gallop on our narrow pitch. The distance from side line to eighteen yard box “in the channel” is so small at WR there just isn’t the space ideal for his game.

Same effected most players with a pace game...K Mo, McG, Devaney, Odejayi. At home most of their goals came on the counter when there was space. Whereas away from home there is enough space to work an opening.

Just for context, in 2016, 24 of the 72 football league clubs had pitches as narrow or narrower than Whaddon Road. it is barely believable that the WR pitch, at 72 yards, is 12 yards wider than Wigan - the narrowest pitch in league football.

We don't use the width we have. If you sit in the Colin Farmer towards the away fans you never see anyone. At least when Ilias turned up we see a full back but as far as left side forwards they seem extinct.We do see some good demonstrations of running across the pitch from Sellars and Morrell in a dead straight line but that does not help Eisa.

It's not hard to realise that our formation and players, in the second half of this season, are better suited to playing away from home where the opposition come out and attack us more, leaving Mo and others more room to attack into. At WR what we see more often than not is teams turning up and sticking 7 or 8 behind the ball for the majority of the match, especially if they get a lead. The few times teams haven't come and defended with that many behind the ball (Morecambe, Vale) we've battered them. This isn't just with one up front, but we've played 3 up front and still can't break these highly defensive, time-wasting teams down. What we need is a player like Sellars, who has the ability to beat a couple of men and draw them out, but that player then needs to be able to find a killer pass or shot...which Sellars currently isn't good enough for.

Nesty wrote:

JasonFailor wrote:The great thing about Mo is his technique. The way in which he hits the ball makes him so deadly. He's the best finisher I've ever seen at the club!

certainly one of the best. Holman runs him close (at a lower level), going way back in time Dave Lewis.

Thay all remained calm in front of goal-confidence !

Shade wrote:It's not hard to realise that our formation and players, in the second half of this season, are better suited to playing away from home where the opposition come out and attack us more, leaving Mo and others more room to attack into. At WR what we see more often than not is teams turning up and sticking 7 or 8 behind the ball for the majority of the match, especially if they get a lead. The few times teams haven't come and defended with that many behind the ball (Morecambe, Vale) we've battered them. This isn't just with one up front, but we've played 3 up front and still can't break these highly defensive, time-wasting teams down. What we need is a player like Sellars, who has the ability to beat a couple of men and draw them out, but that player then needs to be able to find a killer pass or shot...which Sellars currently isn't good enough for.

Like Dayton did to the Conference sides.

vickeryc wrote:

RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Doesn’t get the space to gallop on our narrow pitch. The distance from side line to eighteen yard box “in the channel” is so small at WR there just isn’t the space ideal for his game.

Same effected most players with a pace game...K Mo, McG, Devaney, Odejayi. At home most of their goals came on the counter when there was space. Whereas away from home there is enough space to work an opening.

Just for context, in 2016, 24 of the 72 football league clubs had pitches as narrow or narrower than Whaddon Road. it is barely believable that the WR pitch, at 72 yards, is 12 yards wider than Wigan - the narrowest pitch in league football.

CTFC Pitch ; 111 x 72 yds. 101 x 65 m.
Wigan " ; 120 x 66 yds. 110 x 60 m.
You seem to be mixing your yds.with metres.
Some conflicting figures perhaps Paul Godfrey can supply the official EFL.stats.?

Interesting Wigan is longer. Gives more room for players to run in behind and / or creates more space between the lines.

RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:

Shade wrote:It's not hard to realise that our formation and players, in the second half of this season, are better suited to playing away from home where the opposition come out and attack us more, leaving Mo and others more room to attack into. At WR what we see more often than not is teams turning up and sticking 7 or 8 behind the ball for the majority of the match, especially if they get a lead. The few times teams haven't come and defended with that many behind the ball (Morecambe, Vale) we've battered them. This isn't just with one up front, but we've played 3 up front and still can't break these highly defensive, time-wasting teams down. What we need is a player like Sellars, who has the ability to beat a couple of men and draw them out, but that player then needs to be able to find a killer pass or shot...which Sellars currently isn't good enough for.

Like Dayton did to the Conference sides.

Exactly. We definitely do need a couple of proper wingers at home who can actually get to the byline and pull a cross back as well. Obviously, when teams defend the area like their lives depend on it you need to try and stretch them with quick passing across the pitch and we don't do that enough. But even if we do get down the wings, everyone these days who gets anywhere down the side of the box seems to stop, pass it backwards, and whomever is there tries to cross it in from 25-30 yards from the byline, which is a lot less dangerous.

Kotwica was the last time I recall a proper cross stuck up from the byline.

Lee Williams. Even Neil Howarth was a dab hand.

asl wrote:Lee Williams. Even Neil Howarth was a dab hand.

Williams the best. His crosses seem to hang in the air in unison with Alsop hanging in the air. The whole world seemed to stop apart from the coiling back of Jules’ neck before time started again with the explosion header into the net.

Also, was it Ward or Cotts who used to set a target of 20 crosses from within the the final 18 yards each match?

RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:

asl wrote:Lee Williams. Even Neil Howarth was a dab hand.

Williams the best. His crosses seem to hang in the air in unison with Alsop hanging in the air. The whole world seemed to stop apart from the coiling back of Jules’ neck before time started again with the explosion header into the net.

Also, was it Ward or Cotts who used to set a target of 20 crosses from within the the final 18 yards each match?

It`s less than 20 a season the way we are set up these days ?

To get 22 in such a poor supporting team is indeed some feat.

everyman wrote:

vickeryc wrote:

RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Doesn’t get the space to gallop on our narrow pitch. The distance from side line to eighteen yard box “in the channel” is so small at WR there just isn’t the space ideal for his game.

Same effected most players with a pace game...K Mo, McG, Devaney, Odejayi. At home most of their goals came on the counter when there was space. Whereas away from home there is enough space to work an opening.

Just for context, in 2016, 24 of the 72 football league clubs had pitches as narrow or narrower than Whaddon Road. it is barely believable that the WR pitch, at 72 yards, is 12 yards wider than Wigan - the narrowest pitch in league football.

CTFC Pitch ; 111 x 72 yds. 101 x 65 m.
Wigan " ; 120 x 66 yds. 110 x 60 m.
You seem to be mixing your yds.with metres.
Some conflicting figures perhaps Paul Godfrey can supply the official EFL.stats.?

I was relying on a contribution taken from the following website, which purports to use imperial measurements: http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question49129.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Apologies if the information I had taken from that website were inaccurate, though I had no reason to suspect that that was the case. The full list I interrogated is as follows:

The largest pitch in the English Football League (72 clubs) is Leyton Orient at 9200 sq yds and the smallest is Crewe Alexandra and Wigan Athletic at 6600 sq yds.

115 x 80 9200 Leyton Orient
115 x 78 8970 Nottingham Forest
117 x 76 8892 Leeds United
115 x 77 8855 Shrewsbury Town
114 x 77 8778 Port Vale
115 x 76 8740 Blackburn Rovers, Huddersfield Town
112 x 78 8736 Oxford United
113 x 77 8701 Hartlepool United
114 x 76 8664 Rochdale, Notts County
115 x 75 8625 Birmingham City, Brighton & Hove Albion, Bristol City, Sheffield Wednesday, Wycombe Wanderers
116 x 74 8584 Wolverhampton Wanderers
114 x 75 8550 Gilligham
112 x 76 8512 Peterborough United
115 x 74 8510 Milton Keynes Dons, Coventry City
110 x 77 8470 Preston North End
114 x 74 8436 Norwich City , Newcastle United
115 x 73 8395 Portmouth
110 x 76 8360 Morecambe
116 x 72 8352 Northampton Town
111 x 75 8325 Grimsby Town
114 x 73 8322 Exeter City
112 x 74 8288 Fleetwood Town, Blackpool, Carlisle United
115 x 72 8280 Aston Villa, Yeovil Town
110 x 75 8250 Barnsley, Cardiff City, Wimbledon,
109 x 76 8284 Doncaster Rovers
112 x 73 8176 Bury, Charlton Athletic, Plymouth Argyle
110 x 74 8140 Southend United, Cambridge United
111 x 73 8103 Scunthorpe United
112 x 72 8064 Sheffield United, Newport County, Queens Park Rangers, Newport County
110 x 73 8030 Brentford, Bristol Rovers, Walsall
111 x 72 7992 Accrington Stanley, Cheltenham Town
111 x 72 7990 Barnet (102m x 65.5m)
114 x 70 7980 Mansfield Town
110 x 72 7920 Crawley Town, Burton Albion, Rotherham United, Luton Town
113 x 70 7910 Bradford City
111 x 71 7881 Chesterfield,
112 x 70 7840 Ipswich Town
109 x 71 7739 Fulham
110 x 70 7700 Swindon Town, Colchester United, Stevenage
106 x 72 7632 Oldham Athletic
105 x 68 7140 Millwall, Derby County, Bolton Wanderers
102 x 70 7140 Reading
110 x 60 6600 Wigan Athletic
100 x 66 6600 Crewe Alexandra

Try this
http://www.football-stadiums.co.uk/arti ... league-two" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks. This tells us that WR is one of the narrower pitches (though not the narrowest), which feels right. It also gives Wigan as being wider than ours, which contradicts my previous source, and Newport's pitch width as being greater than its length. All a bit inconclusive unfortunately!

vickeryc wrote:Thanks. This tells us that WR is one of the narrower pitches (though not the narrowest), which feels right. It also gives Wigan as being wider than ours, which contradicts my previous source, and Newport's pitch width as being greater than its length. All a bit inconclusive unfortunately!

The Newport dimensions are reversed,probably down to translation ?

everyman wrote:

vickeryc wrote:Thanks. This tells us that WR is one of the narrower pitches (though not the narrowest), which feels right. It also gives Wigan as being wider than ours, which contradicts my previous source, and Newport's pitch width as being greater than its length. All a bit inconclusive unfortunately!

The Newport dimensions are reversed,probably down to translation ?

Interesting that 105 x 68 m.Is the average for top clubs.