Brief synopsis

Graiser wrote:

So have you got an opinion on Monday's performance or not, or do you just wish carry on nit picking ?

I'll say what I want about what I want, whether you approve or not. If you can't take analysis and criticism of what you say, then I would suggest not posting in a public forum any more.

Dick Trickle wrote:

Playing one up front who was clearly being dominated 
Players being warned about how Wimbledon will play and not responding on the day
Too many loan players - they will simply not commit in the same way
Not enough depth in the squad, one might call it threadbare leading to players not under threat for their places and a lack of options.

1 = Adams
2= Players + Brent
3 and 4 = Brent

Just to pick up on the loaners... I'm not so sure. Well I am but... Let me explain.

At Wembley we had only Jamille Matt and Hiram Boateng as loaned players in the starting XI. Did they put in less effort than the rest? I don't think so.

Which is the point, really. With there being only 2 players in the other 9 with a contract signed for next season (Sawyer and Carey) the other 7 were effectively loaned players too whether they had a contract or not

So we went into the most important game we've had in years with only 2 players in the team for whom there was any sort of reciprocal commitment.

In fact it could be argued that with so many players almost out of contract maybe they were actually disincentivised because success on the day would make their imminent replacement at a higher level rather more likely.

For all of that I don't think it was lack of effort or commitment on the day that did for us. I thought we matched up OK man-for-man, particularly in the first half which we definitely shaded. In fact I thought the game was very like the Darlo one 20 years ago: it was basically a stinker and the first goal was always going to be crucial and this time we didn't score it.

Sorry SFD whilst I was in rant mode I looked at the reasons why we were there as much as the day itself. You make fair points.

charleymouse wrote:

Graiser wrote:

So have you got an opinion on Monday's performance or not, or do you just wish carry on nit picking ?

I'll say what I want about what I want, whether you approve or not. If you can't take analysis and criticism of what you say, then I would suggest not posting in a public forum any more.

I'll take that as a no then

Dick Trickle wrote:

Sorry SFD whilst I was in rant mode I looked at the reasons why we were there as much as the day itself. You make fair points.

I was very much "yes but no but". It isn't that I disagree at all - quite the reverse.

It was just that our recruitment and retention policy took properly contracted players and basically converted them to what was effectively loanees.

I can't fathom out why we would to follow such a policy; nobody else does. There must be a reason for it and I'd be amazed if it came from Adams.

Just about to watch the highlights on iPlayer...

We did have a shot at goal!

Carey popped one over the bar from distance.

Ref letting Taylor off for a dodgy two-footed studs up on McCormick and then penalising McHugh (handball) when he was pushed.

I'm getting the impression the ref couldn't give Wimbledon free kicks quickly enough.

Decent interception, run and cross from Wylde quickly followed by a soft free kick to Wimbledon.

Shot on target! Wimbledon. Saved easily enough my McCormick.

Half time. Judging by what they showed on TV Wimbledon had the better and more numerous chances.

Calm down Frank. It's only a nightmare. Everything's fine. Cup of tea ?

A Sawyer cross Jervis really should have scored from.

Carey FK saved.

Goal. Taylor not carded for taking his shirt off celebrating.

Decent save by McCormick.

McCormick saves Akinfenwa's header.

Wimbledon squabbling about who was going to take the penalty... 2-0.

Akinfenwa booked for taking his shirt off celebrating.

Still can't really mank about anything other than how much we didn't deserve anything else from the day.

"We're going to be bottom 4 in terms of budget next year in L1 - but we were bottom half in this league." - Neil Ardley

I saw somewhere that Wimbledon had a bigger budget than we did... was that right or was it just speculation?

If it was right then our budget was bottom half too... Surely not?

Of course it was, that was never in doubt. How many times did Adams mention his small budget, five or six times?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"We're going to be bottom 4 in terms of budget next year in L1 - but we were bottom half in this league." - Neil Ardley

I saw somewhere that Wimbledon had a bigger budget than we did... was that right or was it just speculation?

If it was right then our budget was bottom half too... Surely not?

Astonishing should it be true........