After the first couple I thought "OK, this might be interesting".
By the fourth or fifth I thought: "No, perhaps not".
After that, I lost the will to live!
Was this Ogilvie? I thought they were pretty good. We will score off that at some point
Pack. Need to be flatter I think rather than loopy but it’s a useful addition to our currently limited attacking options.
Most of the long throws yesterday were Ogilvie. Just a hopeful lob into the box really. Not enough pace on them to be dangerous to a half way decent defence. Lincoln dealt with them easily.
(07-08-2022, 05:01 PM)BilltheCat Wrote: [ -> ]After the first couple I thought "OK, this might be interesting".
By the fourth or fifth I thought: "No, perhaps not".
After that, I lost the will to live!
The long throws were just an admission that the team had run out of ideas to create chances. Its what poor teams use when they lack the sufficient quality of players. No dig at the team but it was obvious the team didn't know each other. We are effectively doing our preseason at the start of the season. Again.
So we’re discounting the ample preseason we’ve had because we’ve gained a few players and we start taking long throw ins????
You couldn’t make this crap up.
(08-08-2022, 09:33 AM)bluetagagain Wrote: [ -> ]So we’re discounting the ample preseason we’ve had because we’ve gained a few players and we start taking long throw ins????
You couldn’t make this crap up.
Long throws have a place and are a useful tactic sometimes.
You need to practice them in training though and it didn’t look like we had.
We certainly seem to be well drilled in passing the ball along the back line and back to the keeper though.
We had almost zero penetration on Saturday, and the Lincoln defence must have been pleasantly surprised that they didn’t get the expected torrid afternoon.
All the long throws from under us were Pack. Not bad but too loopy to be effective. Having said that if Bishop had more instinct in the box on Saturday he would have been attacking the ball.
(08-08-2022, 09:48 AM)exgaffer Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2022, 09:33 AM)bluetagagain Wrote: [ -> ]So we’re discounting the ample preseason we’ve had because we’ve gained a few players and we start taking long throw ins????
You couldn’t make this crap up.
Long throws have a place and are a useful tactic sometimes.
You need to practice them in training though and it didn’t look like we had.
We certainly seem to be well drilled in passing the ball along the back line and back to the keeper though.
We had almost zero penetration on Saturday, and the Lincoln defence must have been pleasantly surprised that they didn’t get the expected torrid afternoon.
If we’d gone one down we would have probably scored 4.
(08-08-2022, 09:33 AM)bluetagagain Wrote: [ -> ]So we’re discounting the ample preseason we’ve had because we’ve gained a few players and we start taking long throw ins????
You couldn’t make this crap up.
That's ample preseason without most of our new signings so yes I do think we're a bit behind things. The understanding will come and at least we've got fairly weaker opposition (on paper) in which to get going.
Apologies for disagreeing with you...
Apology accepted but you didn’t need too. :-)
(08-08-2022, 04:45 PM)Pompeyg100 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2022, 09:48 AM)exgaffer Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2022, 09:33 AM)bluetagagain Wrote: [ -> ]So we’re discounting the ample preseason we’ve had because we’ve gained a few players and we start taking long throw ins????
You couldn’t make this crap up.
Long throws have a place and are a useful tactic sometimes.
You need to practice them in training though and it didn’t look like we had.
We certainly seem to be well drilled in passing the ball along the back line and back to the keeper though.
We had almost zero penetration on Saturday, and the Lincoln defence must have been pleasantly surprised that they didn’t get the expected torrid afternoon.
If we’d gone one down we would have probably scored 4.
Well we might have, but the evidence did not suggest it
.
"The long throws were just an admission that the team had run out of ideas to create chances".
But this was a tactic employed in the first-half too. I can't recall us using long throw-ins last season in the way they were repeatedly used against Lincoln.
It just seemed to me that they were not effective and I was surprised that they kept doing it.
I've no objection to a long throw being used, but mix it up to keep the opposition guessing.
Signal to the other players on your team before you take the throw in whether it is going to be long, medium, short - in a similar way that some corner takers signal where they are going to put the ball.
Not that difficult - or is it .......
OK who was the guy in fairly recent Portsmouth history with the famously long throw? Brain like a sieve.
(09-08-2022, 07:24 AM)scouse Wrote: [ -> ]OK who was the guy in fairly recent Portsmouth history with the famously long throw? Brain like a sieve.
Strangely enough the first name that springs to mind when I think of long throws is Roy Lunnis but he played for us back in the 60's
.
I'm getting flash backs ffs.
I seem to remember Greg Halford had a good long throw.
Greg Halford! That's the guy I was thinking of! Cheers, Paul AD!
(09-08-2022, 08:53 AM)scouse Wrote: [ -> ]Greg Halford! That's the guy I was thinking of! Cheers, Paul AD!
Greg Halford, yes good player all round.
I was only a nipper but if IIRC Roy Lunniss held the longest throw in title for a little while. He was a big full back but not very quick.
I seem to remember he got in to some kind of trouble with the law and was given the "order of the boot"
He used to enjoy kicking Terry Paine as I recall
Andy Legg once held the world record for throw in distance. He used to regularly throw it over 30 meters his world record was 44.6m (thanks Wikipedia)