Brief Synopsis

[EyeOpener]

Subbing Jephcott when on a hat-trick and two minutes after going 2-0 up against Portsmouth for a centre-back in Woods looks to be a turning point for Jephcott and the team.

It wouldn't surprise me if he tore into them after the game blaming them for throwing away 2 points when it was actually is woeful decision to change things that cost us.

That could not have been part of his gameplan. So they get blasted for not following the gameplan and they also get blasted when he changes the gameplan. Poor buggers just can't win.

 

[Keepitgreen]

Did Jephers lose his mojo when RL started tinkering with striker rotation to accommodate Niall Ennis

I'm convinced he did. His goal scoring dried up 2 or 3 games after Ennis arrived.

 

[Nobby]

Subbing Jephcott when on a hat-trick and two minutes after going 2-0 up against Portsmouth for a centre-back in Woods looks to be a turning point for Jephcott and the team.

It wouldn't surprise me if he tore into them after the game blaming them for throwing away 2 points when it was actually is woeful decision to change things that cost us.

That could not have been part of his gameplan. So they get blasted for not following the gameplan and they also get blasted when he changes the gameplan. Poor buggers just can't win.

I can't get on board with this logic. We were 2-0 up away from home against a playoff-calibre team, despite our horrific away form, and brought on an extra body in midfield to tighten things up with SIX MINUTES left to play. Six minutes. We conceded the two goals within four minutes of that substitute. One was a direct result of an amateur mistake by Kell Watts. The other was the full back failing to stop the cross and Opoku getting beaten in the air. Neither involved Woods or would have been prevented by Jephcott.

Those goals were conceded as a result of our frail mentality, failure to stop the cross out wide and sloppy mistakes. Ryan Lowe deserves some of the blame for that, but the defensive minded sub made complete sense at the time and had nothing to do with the outcome.

 

[Tugboat]

Subbing Jephcott when on a hat-trick and two minutes after going 2-0 up against Portsmouth for a centre-back in Woods looks to be a turning point for Jephcott and the team.

It wouldn't surprise me if he tore into them after the game blaming them for throwing away 2 points when it was actually is woeful decision to change things that cost us.

That could not have been part of his gameplan. So they get blasted for not following the gameplan and they also get blasted when he changes the gameplan. Poor buggers just can't win.

I can't get on board with this logic. We were 2-0 up away from home against a playoff-calibre team, despite our horrific away form, and brought on an extra body in midfield to tighten things up with SIX MINUTES left to play. Six minutes. We conceded the two goals within four minutes of that substitute. One was a direct result of an amateur mistake by Kell Watts. The other was the full back failing to stop the cross and Opoku getting beaten in the air. Neither involved Woods or would have been prevented by Jephcott.

Those goals were conceded as a result of our frail mentality, failure to stop the cross out wide and sloppy mistakes. Ryan Lowe deserves some of the blame for that, but the defensive minded sub made complete sense at the time and had nothing to do with the outcome.

Spot on Nobby.

Imagine the bloodshed if he hadn’t made any changes and we still conceded the 2 late goals.

He was well within his right to try and tighten things up for the last few minutes. Individual errors were to blame, not the subs.

Good riddance to too much inexperience and weak mentality’s.

 

[EyeOpener]

Subbing Jephcott when on a hat-trick and two minutes after going 2-0 up against Portsmouth for a centre-back in Woods looks to be a turning point for Jephcott and the team.

It wouldn't surprise me if he tore into them after the game blaming them for throwing away 2 points when it was actually is woeful decision to change things that cost us.

That could not have been part of his gameplan. So they get blasted for not following the gameplan and they also get blasted when he changes the gameplan. Poor buggers just can't win.

I can't get on board with this logic. We were 2-0 up away from home against a playoff-calibre team, despite our horrific away form, and brought on an extra body in midfield to tighten things up with SIX MINUTES left to play. Six minutes. We conceded the two goals within four minutes of that substitute. One was a direct result of an amateur mistake by Kell Watts. The other was the full back failing to stop the cross and Opoku getting beaten in the air. Neither involved Woods or would have been prevented by Jephcott.

Those goals were conceded as a result of our frail mentality, failure to stop the cross out wide and sloppy mistakes. Ryan Lowe deserves some of the blame for that, but the defensive minded sub made complete sense at the time and had nothing to do with the outcome.

I disagree. So it was our frail mentality that had us 2-0 up with 10 mins to go?

We defend from the front and look to hit the channels when the ball is in our third. Taking a man out of our front line means we can no longer defend from the front and it reduces our option to play the ball down the channel.

Taking the Watts 'goal' as an example; the ball may never have been played down that channel if we had a striker closing down the ball player. Also, when it was played down the channel I suggest Watts would have pumped it back but maybe he couldn't because he didn't have a target to aim for. Having one up top also means their CBs can press fwd as they did. Even Lowe said he was surprised to see both CBs in our box which shows a shocking level of tactical nous. To me it was obvious that was going to happen especially as they were desperate to get something.

Lowe set out the gameplan. The lads stuck to it and were winning the game. Lowe then completely changes things so much so he has to send Woods on with a bit of paper to explain things. I reckon that if he had left things as they were then we would have probably won 3-0 as they would have committed so many people fwd in the hope of getting something.

Imo, Lowe and his complete lack of tactical knowledge and appreciation for how the game was being played out is what cost us that game.

 

[Tugboat]

Subbing Jephcott when on a hat-trick and two minutes after going 2-0 up against Portsmouth for a centre-back in Woods looks to be a turning point for Jephcott and the team.

It wouldn't surprise me if he tore into them after the game blaming them for throwing away 2 points when it was actually is woeful decision to change things that cost us.

That could not have been part of his gameplan. So they get blasted for not following the gameplan and they also get blasted when he changes the gameplan. Poor buggers just can't win.

I can't get on board with this logic. We were 2-0 up away from home against a playoff-calibre team, despite our horrific away form, and brought on an extra body in midfield to tighten things up with SIX MINUTES left to play. Six minutes. We conceded the two goals within four minutes of that substitute. One was a direct result of an amateur mistake by Kell Watts. The other was the full back failing to stop the cross and Opoku getting beaten in the air. Neither involved Woods or would have been prevented by Jephcott.

Those goals were conceded as a result of our frail mentality, failure to stop the cross out wide and sloppy mistakes. Ryan Lowe deserves some of the blame for that, but the defensive minded sub made complete sense at the time and had nothing to do with the outcome.

I disagree. So it was our frail mentality that had us 2-0 up with 10 mins to go?

We defend from the front and look to hit the channels when the ball is in our third. Taking a man out of our front line means we can no longer defend from the front and it reduces our option to play the ball down the channel.

Taking the Watts 'goal' as an example; the ball may never have been played down that channel if we had a striker closing down the ball player. Also, when it was played down the channel I suggest Watts would have pumped it back but maybe he couldn't because he didn't have a target to aim for. Having one up top also means their CBs can press fwd as they did. Even Lowe said he was surprised to see both CBs in our box which shows a shocking level of tactical nous. To me it was obvious that was going to happen especially as they were desperate to get something.

Lowe set out the gameplan. The lads stuck to it and were winning the game. Lowe then completely changes things so much so he has to send Woods on with a bit of paper to explain things. I reckon that if he had left things as they were then we would have probably won 3-0 as they would have committed so many people fwd in the hope of getting something.

Imo, Lowe and his complete lack of tactical knowledge and appreciation for how the game was being played out is what cost us that game.

#Hindsight

 

[WoodsyGreen]

Subbing Jephcott when on a hat-trick and two minutes after going 2-0 up against Portsmouth for a centre-back in Woods looks to be a turning point for Jephcott and the team.

It wouldn't surprise me if he tore into them after the game blaming them for throwing away 2 points when it was actually is woeful decision to change things that cost us.

That could not have been part of his gameplan. So they get blasted for not following the gameplan and they also get blasted when he changes the gameplan. Poor buggers just can't win.

I can't get on board with this logic. We were 2-0 up away from home against a playoff-calibre team, despite our horrific away form, and brought on an extra body in midfield to tighten things up with SIX MINUTES left to play. Six minutes. We conceded the two goals within four minutes of that substitute. One was a direct result of an amateur mistake by Kell Watts. The other was the full back failing to stop the cross and Opoku getting beaten in the air. Neither involved Woods or would have been prevented by Jephcott.

Those goals were conceded as a result of our frail mentality, failure to stop the cross out wide and sloppy mistakes. Ryan Lowe deserves some of the blame for that, but the defensive minded sub made complete sense at the time and had nothing to do with the outcome.

I disagree. So it was our frail mentality that had us 2-0 up with 10 mins to go?

We defend from the front and look to hit the channels when the ball is in our third. Taking a man out of our front line means we can no longer defend from the front and it reduces our option to play the ball down the channel.

Taking the Watts 'goal' as an example; the ball may never have been played down that channel if we had a striker closing down the ball player. Also, when it was played down the channel I suggest Watts would have pumped it back but maybe he couldn't because he didn't have a target to aim for. Having one up top also means their CBs can press fwd as they did. Even Lowe said he was surprised to see both CBs in our box which shows a shocking level of tactical nous. To me it was obvious that was going to happen especially as they were desperate to get something.

Lowe set out the gameplan. The lads stuck to it and were winning the game. Lowe then completely changes things so much so he has to send Woods on with a bit of paper to explain things. I reckon that if he had left things as they were then we would have probably won 3-0 as they would have committed so many people fwd in the hope of getting something.

Imo, Lowe and his complete lack of tactical knowledge and appreciation for how the game was being played out is what cost us that game.

#Hindsight

100%.

Nobody on here questioned the decision at the time, but everybody's an expert after the event.

It was a sensible substitution at the time and I still believe that even knowing what happened after it was made.

 

[greenpilled]

Disappointed, no way.

We’ve a management team who seem happy to be here, and for three quarters of the season when effort levels were high we had a mid table team entertaining to watch. Does the job for me.

This for me. Though with the added caveat of a rather large red flag due to the way our season imploded so spectacularly.

I'd like to know why RL thinks that happened. We were comfortably mid-table and looking up towards the playoffs but literally became powderpuff almost overnight.

Did the players run out of steam after a long, weird season? Did the management take their eye off this season in planning for next? Did certain players down tools knowing they aren't going to be at the club next season?

We were competing in this division, beating some good teams home and away.

What happened?

Very good question that I've not really seen answered anywhere. My guesses would be a combination of the following:

- young squad with several players playing their first full season of league football running out of steam (physically and mentally), with morale dropping as our form worsened.

- condensed season taking a particular toll on Argyle, who travel more than any other club

- subconsciously rather than consciously, but having nothing to play and experimenting with different players has probably made for worse performances in the last few games

- long-term decision to get Canavan and Wootton off the wage bill in January left us with a hugely inexperienced and error prone defence, with no real cover for injuries or poor form.

- a potentially more enduring issue - I think our attacking play is quite predictable, and there's an element of other teams having worked us out.

 

[moles40]

Why they turned off comments on the you tube,so fans can't slate the players and manager, which they deserve, stupid decision, considering the fans will be back next season, so they won't be able to hide from the criticism if we have a poor start to the season.

First goal, keeper had a nightmare, easily saveable of he had his positioning correct,2nd goal not a penalty,easily outside the box and why did ref consult linesman, when his view of tackle was partially blocked by player, no way he could see enough to be confident the tackle had been in the box, which it wasn't anyway.

Absolutely shambles officiating, should all be removed from their jobs.

 

[Brechin Hedge]

'We actually finished 10th in Luggys first season at this level, consolidating before getting promoted the following season. Although he bailed before we crossed the line as we all know. Was sort of hoping for a mid table / top 10 finish. It was evident from the outset our defence and goalkeeper would let goals in for fun this season. The fact that Lowe failed to address this, or even openly acknowledge it until now worries me somewhat'


The difference between this team and the one luggy took twice to promotion was that it was built over three seasons with a clear strategy to continually improve. Not one player left the club during this four year spell unless it was a decision form Stuirrock that he was no longer required. Additions such as Friio, Larrieu, mickey evans, coughlin, marino, norris, lowndes, capaldi, and gilbert.

yes there were loans, mostly short term and to cover an injury with the most notable, david norris signing on and becoming one of the best players the club has had in the last 20 years.

The problem with the current system is that loans come and go requiring an almost total rebuild each summer which does not give the impression of a long term strategy to build a successful team.

i am not sure many fans like the loan system. Is Watts better than Law? Is Lewis better than Randell? i for one would like to see our own academy players introduced over a period of time as a team is built and continually improved rather than allowing other club's players to improve with very little apparent benefit to Argyle.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Pedant mode on: We actually finished in 8th place under Sturrock. Pedant mode off.

 

[davie nine]

'We actually finished 10th in Luggys first season at this level, consolidating before getting promoted the following season. Although he bailed before we crossed the line as we all know. Was sort of hoping for a mid table / top 10 finish. It was evident from the outset our defence and goalkeeper would let goals in for fun this season. The fact that Lowe failed to address this, or even openly acknowledge it until now worries me somewhat'


The difference between this team and the one luggy took twice to promotion was that it was built over three seasons with a clear strategy to continually improve. Not one player left the club during this four year spell unless it was a decision form Stuirrock that he was no longer required. Additions such as Friio, Larrieu, mickey evans, coughlin, marino, norris, lowndes, capaldi, and gilbert.

yes there were loans, mostly short term and to cover an injury with the most notable, david norris signing on and becoming one of the best players the club has had in the last 20 years.

The problem with the current system is that loans come and go requiring an almost total rebuild each summer which does not give the impression of a long term strategy to build a successful team.

i am not sure many fans like the loan system. Is Watts better than Law? Is Lewis better than Randell? i for one would like to see our own academy players introduced over a period of time as a team is built and continually improved rather than allowing other club's players to improve with very little apparent benefit to Argyle.

Interesting what you are saying about ‘our own academy players’.
First, you say “it was evident that our defence and (our own academy) goalkeeper would let goals in for fun this season”.
Then, you imply that Law and Randell should have been selected before Watts and Lewis.
It is very perceptive and clever of you to make these suggestions in hindsight.
I think you need to make your mind up what you want.

 

[Brechin Hedge]

i was responding to the opening para written by someone else which i merely copied into my response as i am not clever enough to do anything else.

i am clear. would rather use Argyle players to represent PAFC that some one else's players. guess it is short term success v long term strategy. Need to realign expectations of fans before they accept long term strategy over yo yo club we have become.

 

[EyeOpener]

I disagree. So it was our frail mentality that had us 2-0 up with 10 mins to go?

We defend from the front and look to hit the channels when the ball is in our third. Taking a man out of our front line means we can no longer defend from the front and it reduces our option to play the ball down the channel.

Taking the Watts 'goal' as an example; the ball may never have been played down that channel if we had a striker closing down the ball player. Also, when it was played down the channel I suggest Watts would have pumped it back but maybe he couldn't because he didn't have a target to aim for. Having one up top also means their CBs can press fwd as they did. Even Lowe said he was surprised to see both CBs in our box which shows a shocking level of tactical nous. To me it was obvious that was going to happen especially as they were desperate to get something.

Lowe set out the gameplan. The lads stuck to it and were winning the game. Lowe then completely changes things so much so he has to send Woods on with a bit of paper to explain things. I reckon that if he had left things as they were then we would have probably won 3-0 as they would have committed so many people fwd in the hope of getting something.

Imo, Lowe and his complete lack of tactical knowledge and appreciation for how the game was being played out is what cost us that game.

#Hindsight

100%.

Nobody on here questioned the decision at the time, but everybody's an expert after the event.

It was a sensible substitution at the time and I still believe that even knowing what happened after it was made.

Not hindsight at all. You obviously weren't in my living room when the game was on so you wouldn't have heard me say to my son that it was a bleddy stupid thing to do and that Pompey are surely going to push up on us now. Lowe lost us that game. He keeps banging on to us about not changing the way we play and wanting the team to stick to the game plan yet he makes a call like that at that time.

The team is drilled week in and week out to play as they were and then he throws them a googly. All of a sudden the team is asking who is picking up whom now, who is picking up the extra CB that's now here, what shape are we meant to be holding do I pump it down the line like I've always done, etc. Lowe created that confusion. I accept I'm not a 'professional' but you don't need to be a pro to see that he was the reason we didn't win that game. Lowe has made a lot of terrible decisions over the course of this season and this is most definitely one of them imo.

 

[davie nine]

i was responding to the opening para written by someone else which i merely copied into my response as i am not clever enough to do anything else.

i am clear. would rather use Argyle players to represent PAFC that some one else's players. guess it is short term success v long term strategy. Need to realign expectations of fans before they accept long term strategy over yo yo club we have become.

I can see now that you responded to a post by 'football-bet-data'.It's up to you if you do this but, if you want to respond to another poster, you can click on the small 'bubble' in the bottom right hand corner of the post that you are responding to. I have just done that to respond to your post. I, genuinely, hope that this is helpful.
I do agree with your opinion about giving priority to our own academy players ahead of signing other clubs' youngsters on loan. RL has made some progress with this policy by playing Cooper, Jephcott and, more recently, Law. These young players need support from more experienced players and I believe that the club realises this and that this will be reflected in our summer recruitment.