Please No More Talk Of Needing More Windows

On the back of a miserable run of six games without a win, we simply, very badly, needed all three points. Didn’t get them and all round it wasn’t good enough. Post-match Garner said he was angry at half-time, which was not surprising after a limp performance had seen us fall behind to a soft goal and record no efforts on goal. I was angry at after 10 minutes, at half-time, and at full-time as the match represented another step backwards. And for that I think all concerned – owner, manager, training staff, players, arguably even the fans (for contributing to a flat atmosphere) – take a chunk of responsibility.

The team showed four changes from Barnsley and indicated a change in formation. Wollacott returned between the sticks and Inniss was back after suspension. With Lavelle and O’Connell keeping their places, it pointed to three at the back, with Egbo and returning Sessignon to operate as wing-backs, with no sign of Clare. Payne was also named to start, with Dobson and Fraser, but with no Blackett-Taylor and no Morgan (like Clare neither were on the bench). That left it unclear whether we would operate with a midfield three (Dobson, Fraser and Payne) or five with the wing-backs and two up front (Stockley and Rak-Sakyi) or whether Payne would operate with the other two in a front three. It proved to be the latter.

People are just going to have to take my word for it when I say before the kick-off I thought the formation was confused. Wasn’t clear at the time if Clare, Morgan and CBT were injured or rested, given that we had been led to believe that we had only one missing (Aneke); it seems Clare was ill but I still don’t know about CBT and Morgan. If CBT was dropped, it was a poor decision (although I haven’t seen them in training) as it forced the change in formation. OK. But if you lose him and switch to three at the back with wing-backs, it is surely nonsense to have a front three, with two of them squeezed between Stockley and the wing-backs. Garner may have complained about players not being brave enough, playing the channels etc. Fact is there were no channels to run as Oxford set up to outnumber us in central midfield and shut down the space. If you go with three at the back and wing-backs, surely you go with two central forwards from the start and choose three in central midfield. Not only did we not do that, setting up as a 3-4-3, for the two central midfield spots for that to work surely you need grafters to try to compensate for the opposition’s extra man. Instead we had Fraser trying to do what he is not best suited for, behind Payne in a role which didn’t look ideal for him, while also ensuring that Rak-Sakyi was neutered, unable to find any space.

We all saw the outcome. In the first half we were slow and uncoordinated. Our best moment came when their keeper palmed out a low cross into an area where one of our players might have been. Dobson was perhaps fortunate to get away with a challenge down the touchline which might have been described as ‘crunching’ but which saw his feet leave the ground as he took man and ball, not quite sure which one first; laughably he was yellow-carded for an alleged handball which no-one but the ref saw as he went to ground.

And we gave away another goal to leave Steve Brown fuming. O’Connell and their guy contested a high ball from their keeper, resulting in a sideways diversion of the ball. It landed in acres of space between Dobson and Lavelle, each assuming the other would go for it. Neither did. Instead their guy was able to half-control it and run on. Dobson (not yet yellow-carded) decided against a professional trip, Inniss inexplicably backed away rapidly, despite being surrounded by other defenders and their guy being on his own. That invited the shot, which was decent and well-placed, but you expected Wollacott to get a hand on it, even if he was unsighted. He didn’t. Oxford, while being content to get behind the ball, came close to doubling their lead on a breakaway as their guy held it up well and played in an onrushing colleague, only for him to put it wide from a good position.

The change at the break to a basic 4-4-2 saw Leaburn and Kirk replace Payne and Lavelle, which made sense. With two big central forwards we needed good crosses and Kirk fits that bill. I’d have said there was also a case for replacing Frasier to introduce more bite in central midfield – although with no JFK the choice would have necessarily been McGrandles. With two big central forwards we needed good crosses and Kirk fits that bill. The game became immediately more lively, albeit more open, and we started to make things happen. Rak-Sakyi cut inside and his shot was deflected, by a defender’s two raised arms, only to bounce back off the post, with Stockley then adjudged to be offside following up. With the benefit of replays the officials got it all badly wrong. It should have been a penalty for the block, even if the ref wanted to wait to see if the ball went into the net. Even then it should have been a corner. The ball had clearly gone over the goalline before Stockley touched it. No matter. Add in an audacious effort from Egbo to try to catch their keeper off his line and at least we were threatening.

And after around 10 minutes we were back on level terms. Rak-Sakyi caused problems down the right and his cross found Kirk at the far post. It wouldn’t come down in time for him, then Fraser saw his effort blocked. But from the byline Kirk was able to scoop it up and send it back into the danger area, for Stockley to head in unopposed from a yard or two out.

At that point I doubt many would have bet on no more goals. But that is the way it turned out. In fact the best chances for a winner came in five minutes of stoppage time. First Oxford came within a whisker. A move down the left was followed by a pass down the line to an onrunning guy. As Inniss spread himself that guy checked and the goal opened up. But give Dobson credit as he put in a challenge which might have been enough to put him off as a hurried effort was sent over the bar. Then Rak-Sakyi got the ball out of defence and found Jaiyesimi (who had come on for Stockley late on). He held it up well and then, in a similar fashion to Oxford’s first-half breakaway, played it back across for an onrushing Dobson. His touch took him a little wide and their keeper came out to narrow the target, then blocking Dobson’s effort.

A draw was probably a fair result. We can’t ignore an awful first half, or the fact that Oxford might well have scored a late winner. But while a late one for us would for sure have been very welcome, it wouldn’t have papered over the cracks. I don’t mind admitting I was personally disappointed by Garner against post-match talking of needing more transfer windows to bring in the type of players he wants, which is tantamount to saying he doesn’t think the players he has are good enough. How’s that for motivation? Surely management is about getting the best out of what is available. And if he felt that the players were not brave enough in the first half, he might take a moment to reflect on to what extent was that caused by a set-up which never looked like working. If he is saying the players didn’t buy into what he wanted that is, however, seriously worrying.

We have shown this season that we can play pretty well: the first half against Sheffield Wednesday, the second half against Derby, the Plymouth game. Perhaps once the Pappa thingy thing is out of the way we can focus on what we did right in those games and look to recreate that style. With Egbo and Sessegnon now available (albeit the latter looked short of full fitness and couldn’t last the game) we should be stronger than before. I’m not among those now calling for 4-4-2, at least not to start. If Blackett-Taylor is available the 4-3-3 still to me looks our most effective way of playing; if he isn’t I would say go with either 3-5-2 – which is not optimum for Rak-Sakyi – or 4-4-2. But two up front from the start (Stockley and Leaburn) leaves nothing from the bench (yes, Payne, Rak-Sakyi and DJ can stand in the slot but it isn’t playing to their strengths). I even don’t care if Stockley is isolated, we have to adjust to that. Paul Mortimer pointed out on Charlton TV that surely it would be far more effective playing balls to him at chest-height, giving him the opportunity to control and distribute, rather than asking him to jump against two centre-backs and at best to flick on to nobody.

Still angry? Guess so. But it's not surprising as we seem to be moving backwards, with a captain talking after the game of the players being disappointed because they know they can do better and a manager saying he wants more transfer windows to bring in different players. Doesn't sound to me like a recipe for success.