Well, what on earth is there to be said about that one except that it was the very epitome of a game of two halves? Sometimes something comes along that is just the textbook example of any given cliche. In the same way that Peter Crouch personified 'good feet for a big man', that match was 'game of two halves' made flesh.
I predicted after the Pompey game that we didn't really need to change a lot. That in fact, all we needed to do was play weaker opposition and we would reliably begin to see off the poor teams and we'd win more games than we'd lose. This match both proved me very right and at the same time very wrong! Right in the sense that we did in the end reliably see off one of the poorer teams in the league. Yet also wrong in the sense that it did not at first come easily and we had to make some serious changes at half-time in order for us to do so. With that in mind, I'll split this report into 'The Good' and 'The Bad'.
The bad.
The first 45 was almost exclusively bad. Carlisle played a very attacking 3-4-3 formation and controlled our midfield throughout due to a very poor performance from Boateng and arguably a lack of high pressing from the attacking midfield trio (Jervis excepted) behind Reid. I would also argue that perhaps the defensive back four themselves could have done a little bit better to push up and them themselves force the midfield to follow their lead because even though the defence were limited in what they could do with a static midfield, there were sometimes occasions where they didn't do anything to counter-attack exploit the space that was opening up from a Carlisle side that was talented and energetic yet unorganised and eminently beatable.
For some reason, our entire team was incredibly slow and unresponsive in the way they set up. Whereas in the first two competitive games of the season (and all through pre-season) we made pressuring the opposition a key priority. We also made sure that we would always at least attempt a quick transition from defending to attacking whenever we managed to regain the ball. In the Pompey game as I said in my previous match report, they did a complete number on us and stopped us from being able to play this way. I don't think by the way that our poor first half performance against Carlisle negates the argument that Portsmouth stopped us from playing football. Watching both games as I did, I saw key differences in the way we were poor against Pompey to the way we were poor against Carlisle. Pompey it was literally because they were so incredibly sharp both on and off the ball that they made it nearly impossible for us to get going. Carlisle, whilst they did show some exciting and creative play going forward, did not flood us with their excellent positioning, physicality and pressing anything like as well as Pompey did. In this one, we failed to take control of the game simply because we were poor. Whether that was a psychological barrier or not, who knows but we WERE very poor. Jervis and Hartley had good halves, McHugh and Carey had decent halves but the other outfield players were simply not at the races all half and as a unit we were actually weaker than the sum of our parts. And that was some going seeing as the sum of our parts were hardly great in themselves. Carlisle had a lot of good chances and not just half-chances. I mean the type that genuinely came very close to going into the net. On the whole, the poor display in the half can be blamed on a mixture of Carlisle's 3-4-3 system flooding the midfield and Argyle lacking the drive or psychological nous to really get going.
We somehow or other got ourselves into the lead courtesy of a great strike from Jake Jervis. Due to our left side being slightly less bad than our right side, Adams made the clever move of switching Jervis (who was looking lively) over to the left side and Wylde (who was playing very poorly) over to the right. This was clearly to create one side that we could use as an outlet for attacking play rather than be tampered by having underperforming players on each side. It was a risky strategy but one that paid off. Jervis picked up a decent outball on the left-hand side, took it around the defender marking him before hammering it into the net. We went in at half-time feeling both relieved that we'd got our goal and worried that we'd surely never be able to keep it up at the same time. Changes of both formation and attitude were needed.
The good
The good is pretty much the entire second half. I wouldn't be at all surprised if I was told that Adams lost the plot at half-time because the remaining ten players came out as if they had had rockets up their backsides. Wylde was also substituted for Simpson and Argyle reverted to the controversial 3-4-1-2 formation. Well, I say reverted, because under Sheridan it more often played out as a 3-5-2. This was actually the right way to play the formation that we did occasionally see under the previous manager but not really often enough. Not only did we counteract Carlisle's midfield domination so that we allowed ourselves more time on the ball in the middle third, we also altered our mindset so that the entire gameplan and mental attitude was different. We harried, we bullied, we chased every ball. We ran off the ball, we moved, we stretched their defence. Within 3 minutes of the restart, I turned and said to my mate that there was more intentful attacking play in this half then we had seen in the entire first half.
It is quite clear to me that Argyle are a better team when we press. At higher levels, I accept the argument that pressing leaves you overcommitted and can do more harm than good. This is League Two. Our players, in most cases, will be better than opposition players. They'll be fitter and far more technically adept. When we stand off teams, we are pegged back into our own half. Whenever we start pressing teams and harrying them and forcing them into errors, we do well and play like we did in the second half. Everyone in the ground can see that pressing works. Adams can clearly see that pressing works which is why he changed the shape and drilled the message into them so much at half-time. Sheridan either could not see that it worked (unlikely) or did not communicate the message as effectively as Adams did (more likely).
When we got on the ball, we had a 25 or so minute period where we literally just looked like we were playing like Brazil and Klopp era Dortmund all rolled into one. I may be exaggerating slightly, but the high octane and yet also passing-based style of football was genuinely beautiful to watch. We showed some passing interchange, movement of players and switching of the play that was reminiscent of that which we saw from Portsmouth on Saturday. The technical ability of our players was also on display with some genuinely superb passing and crossing in the build-up to our goals and chances. It was a relief to get the second goal for a few other reasons than merely extending our lead: a goal for Reuben who gets that monkey off his back and a goal from a Graham Carey corner whose excellent delivery has really warranted one of them going in some day soon.
Carey himself then went on to score one of my favourite goals that I have ever seen from an Argyle player in recent times. It entirely summed up the spirit of the half which was both tenacious in effort and audacious in style. He chased down the defender who was wavering on the ball so sharply and precisely it was as if it was done by magic and then calmly closed the keeper down in a one on one situation and dispatched the ball with a precise finish. 3-0. I genuinely think Graham Carey is the best player in terms of technical ability that we've ever had in the League Two era. He may lack slightly in other areas (though is still underrated physically) but in terms of just what he can do when he has the ball, I don't think anyone rivals him. His movement also makes me purr. The only way I can describe it is that he's like a ballet dancer. The way he controls his body when he moves is so precise and yet also slick that it makes it impossible to bodycheck him. A slight weakness is that he's too easily knocked off the ball by brute force perhaps but even that wasn't a weakness on show in this match. He was also to thank for the fourth goal. Yet another pickpocketting of a Carlisle player and this time a defence splitting pass that saw Jervis on hand to safely dispatch his second with another composed finish. 4-0: and an apt contribution from Graham Carey again who had one of the best halves of football I've arguably ever seen from an Argyle player EVER.
We then reverted to 4-4-2 bringing Brunt on for Boateng. I didn't quite appreciate why at the time but it seems Boateng picked up a knock. I'd have put Cox on and stayed at 3-5-2 myself. Whilst I appreciate we will need to slow the game down at 4-0 up with a match to prepare for on Saturday , we did slightly cede some tactical ground by removing a player from the midfield battle. I can understand reducing the tempo but not really going 4-4-2. We were slightly less expansive after this point and conceded a goal right at the end- to McCormick's commendable frustration! But anyway, I'm nitpicking a bit here. On the whole a sublime half of football in which so many players shone.
Conclusions.
So, should we be hailing the brave new world based on the second half. Or should we still be warning of a false dawn based on the first? Well, neither yet. The second half (especially the first half of the second half) was genuinely amongst the best stuff I've seen us play in years and years. Yes Carlisle gave up but it takes skill to show some of that play whoever you're facing. It gives me faith that when things come good with Adams, they will come really good. Arguably we only need to play well in patches when our patches are as good as that. However, if Carlisle had been just a little bit more clinical, we could easily have had a three goal deficit to overturn at half-time. We weren't even close to being at the races in that first-half. Adams changed it up well both in style and shape but it could have been too late. On the whole I'd say we're not quite there as a properly good team yet- but we ain't a million miles off. We just need to be a little less fragile mentally and a little bit more consistent in our approach. And with Derek Adams as manager, I just have a funny feeling that everything will come good in the end.
McCormick-8. Made some good saves when needed all throughout the game. Commanded his area well in spite of defenders letting him down in the first half. Distribution still inconsistent.
Mellor-6. What can you say except a classic display of Mellor inconsistency again? A 4 in the first half where he looked a bag of nerves defensively and never got forward to an 8 in the second half where he looked completely assured and supported the forward players very well. There's clearly a talented player in there but he needs proper competition for this spot.
Nelson-6. Again a player whose average rating is averaged out across two halves. I thought he was seriously off the boil in the first-half and not at all his usual composed self. He didn't do great dealing with balls into the area or with tracking his man. Both of which he's usually fine with in this day and age. Second half was the classic composed and quietly effective Nelson performance that we've all grown to love these past few years.
Hartley-7. Sorry, am I seriously seeing comments be made about his distribution after that game? There was very little wrong with it. I'm half convinced that some people just go into it with a pre conceived idea based on cliches about players and just see what they expect to see. I thought it was fine all the way through really and he was the least bad in the first half by some way. A couple of little shaky moments but nothing drastic.
Sawyer-7. A funny old first half. He had a bit of the Blanchard/Doumbe thing about him of making a lot of impressive tackles but only because he made a cock-up that got us into a worrying position in the first place. Second half he looked surprisingly decent as a wing-back. He's not bad when he does get forward but needs to get forward more. Good on balance but I'm not as wowed by him as most are so far.
McHugh-9. Another excellent performance from the man who's adapting so well to his new central midfield role. A rare bright spot in the first half. It's incredibly rare to see that guy go for the ball and not win it. His passing was also as good as ever. Very slowly but surely he's learning how to play the O'Connor role of that hustling and bustling defensive midfielder who seems to be in loads of places at any one time. Sadly he is occasionally hampered in this by his midfield partner. McHugh once again looked his usual imperious self when moved to centre-back and played the ball out of defence and into the midfield perfectly.
Boateng-5. A 3 and then an 8 averages out at a 5 overall for me. In the first half he was all over the place and displayed some of the same worrying symptoms that I mentioned post-Pompey that there are large spells where he just seems to be doing nothing. Not pressing, not track and not getting involved in any tangible way. Ball-watches a lot and make it sometimes look like McHugh's doing a worse job than he actually is because he needs to do the job of two players. The second half though he was excellent going forward and showed great playmaking from CM like he did against Gillingham. Young, inconsistent, mixed bag of a player. Could be one to watch as he matures.
Jervis-9. Sublime performance. The only player willing to truly make himself an outlet in the first half and in the second he was just fantastic and summed up our improvement with fine work both on and off the ball. Two top finishes too. Such a better player than Alessandra overall.
Carey-9 MOTM. See previous analysis in the main body of the article. Ludicrous player.
Wylde-4. Very poor performance. Did next to nothing and had large spells where it looked like he wasn't playing. he was competent when he got the ball which is why it's as high as a 4 but that wasn't nearly often enough due to his lack of movement. Will be lucky to keep his place for Saturday.
Reid-8. First half wasn't great but partly not his own fault due to his isolation again. Still adapting to the new system. Second half he looked right at home again with a strike partner, another advantage of the 3-5-2 system. Great build-up play in the second half as well as being in the right position to get on the end of a tap in. As someone else mentioned, his ability to pick up a ball coming to him, take control of it, shake of his defender and then accurately pass the ball is unparalleled for this league and should rightly go down as a key facet of him game. For some reason it seems a little undervalued.
Simpson-7. I do think it was the system and style changes that effected the match more than Simpson being subbed on personally but it's at the same time, it's impossible to deny he had an impact. Seems to me to be a very clever player who knows what the right pass is to make and keep the play around him ticking over. I can see him being underrated and 'doing the hidden stuff' a lot this season. He finally looks fitter too which is a bonus.
Brunt-6. Not as bad as I've seen him. Looked well up for it and he's quite clever in his vision but his touch is still iffy and going to 4-4-2 didn't improve us.
Tanner-7. Gave us a momentary boost coming on for Jervis who was tiring and looked quite lively and smart with the ball. Impact sub. Did as much as he could have considering we were defending a lead.
Home 
Register 
Log in 
Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:23 pm
Well, lets hope Argyle get that far and also hope that Derek can engendered a better "feel" if it comes to pass.
