Harriers

[Isaac]

A disappointing result in the end and it seemed to me to be a bit subdued in the away end again, lots of people left early which was odd given the number of late goals we've scored this year. We were at the wrong end for the penalty shouts but the Yemi one looked like it could easily have been given, the defender dived in and missed the ball so the referee must have assumed Yemi dived, but didn't book him.

I thought in the first half we played some excellent football, we passed it well, Burgess was outstanding (as was Duffy) and we got plenty of crosses in. Unfortunately there were only 2 or 3 shots on target and the Kiddy central defence did well. It's a cliche and an obvious point to make but you do have to score when you're on top - I think in the lower leagues teams rarely play well for much more than half an hour at a time so it wasn't surprising that we lost our way 2nd half. I felt Kiddy came out and decided to kick us more often and we lost all rhythm, particulary when Burgess went off (and to a lesser extent, Brevett, he may be slow and defensively a bit dodgy but he is good positionally and rarely gives the ball away, Matt Day is no wingback).

With 10 men Kiddy were probably the better side (we seemed to panic and they dominated central midfield) but never much looked like scoring, Anaclet was completely isolated on the right and having one of those games where he neither beat his man or got a cross in.

Altrincham could be a big test for us - I don't know if Duffy will miss this one (actually, I think it'll be the game after) but if Burgess is injured there's no obvious replacement for him and I think we'll struggle to create chances.

[Matt D]

i thought it was disappointing we'd dominated the game enough to consider that we should have taken the points. if we'd done so we'd be talking about this as a consumate away performance.

once again we had some poor finishing to thank in part for our clean sheet, and there were some hairy moments (the ball played all the way across our goal line begging to have an attacker come sliding in on it for one).

but there were points in the first half where we were playing the ball around their box looking for the gap, and kiddie just weren't able to deal with it.

second half, without burgess, we look a little lacking in ideas, despite the best efforts of pettefer, although, yes, kiddie were quite dirty on the quiet, proved adept at time-wasting, and the ref bottled a few decisions.

good point about the alty game. if we dont' have burgess, it could well be interesting. if they stick men behind the ball, do we have the nous to break them down without burgess? equally, the teams who have taken something from us at home have tried to come at us. if alty have had us scouted at home, i wonder which game they watched?

[DLT]

A frustrating game.

Without wanting to be critical of a team four points clear and unbeaten in 15 games, it was annoying toplay so well in the first 30 minutes and not get a win.

Losing Brevett took the balance away from the team as an attacking force. Day is definately a good defender but he doesn't give the team attacking options as a left wing back should.

Anaclet was very frustrating in the second half, mainly because he was our most likely attacking force and he fluffed it time and again.

Hargreaves got me in scream mode all night. Please give young Kennett (even Dempster) a chance to show us he can offer more than Hargreaves.

Duffy and the team seemed to deflate after he failed to pass to Basham. Him and Burgess are clearly playing with 'knocks' and that is worrying.

So are the silly bookings. Willmott is forever being penalised when Gilly and Quinn are not.

We certainly looked like a team that would run away with the league for30 minutes and a teamthat will struggle to make then play offs for the last 60.

I wonder if we can find some funds for a newplayer or two in January?

[GodalmingYellow]

A frustrating game.

Without wanting to be critical of a team four points clear and unbeaten in 15 games, it was annoying toplay so well in the first 30 minutes and not get a win.

Losing Brevett took the balance away from the team as an attacking force. Day is definately a good defender but he doesn't give the team attacking options as a left wing back should.

Anaclet was very frustrating in the second half, mainly because he was our most likely attacking force and he fluffed it time and again.

Hargreaves got me in scream mode all night. Please give young Kennett (even Dempster) a chance to show us he can offer more than Hargreaves.

Duffy and the team seemed to deflate after he failed to pass to Basham. Him and Burgess are clearly playing with 'knocks' and that is worrying.

So are the silly bookings. Willmott is forever being penalised when Gilly and Quinn are not.

We certainly looked like a team that would run away with the league for30 minutes and a teamthat will struggle to make then play offs for the last 60.

I wonder if we can find some funds for a newplayer or two in January?

Given that we seem to be able to fund an ex-Premiership defender on a month to month basis, I imagine funds are available at least if brevett's contract is not renewed in January.

[Baboo]

I thought we were the better team in the first half but not as good as some others are saying on here. The 4 or 5 chances we created were half chances, but decent ones at that.
In the second half I thought we were very poor. Didn’t play well as a team and too many individuals way off the top of their game.

Duffy disappointed me last night and Basham was back to his lightweight anonymous persona. Pettifer just didn’t do it either and that is a huge lose. Burgess going off was blow too &amp Anaclet looked lost most of the time. I think he could do with a rest. Hargreaves showed some willingness to burst forward with the ball only to demonstrate that he was totally incapable of passing anywhere near a yellow shirt.

There was something not quite right about this game from start to finish. I can’t quite put my finger on it but the supporters never really seemed up for it – perhaps it was to do with the disappointing numbers that turned up. Or perhaps it was a hangover from the FGR five goal triumph. You just knew that when they went down to 10 men it would not make one iota of difference.

On a positive note – the defence did their job again, even if Wilmott does give away too many free kicks, and the unbeaten run continues.

But, we failed to score for the first time, Duffy now misses a game (who on earth will replace him?), we’ve only taken 5 from the last 9 points on offer and D&ampR get ever closer. (They’ll have a poor run at some stage – how about starting at Stevenage on Saturday)

[Baboo]

From Harriers online - blimey they must have had a depressing few years.

&quotThis was a game that we had waited three years for. I can't honestly remember a game that was so exciting and absorbing since we were in the Football League. It had all the skills and passion that we used to see regularly then when we came up against other sides similar to Oxford Utd.

For three years we have been fed insipid third rate football that has left the average Harriers fan leaving the ground despondent and thoroughly depressed. Tonight we saw a Harriers side that wanted to win and to do so with skill, passing ability and the ambition to please their long suffering fans - all we needed was some goals&quot.

[Kernow Yellow]

There was something not quite right about this game from start to finish. I can’t quite put my finger on it but the supporters never really seemed up for it – perhaps it was to do with the disappointing numbers that turned up.

Funny you should say that. On the radio all you could hear was the Oxford fans - it sounded like a home game for us.

Funny also that we now think of 653 away fans as disappointing on a Tuesday night. A couple of years ago we were taking about 500 to every match (a few more to close ones, a few fewer to those further afield), and that was as a league club. Indeed, towards the end of last season we took fewer than 500 to Boston and barely 800 to Wrexham, when our league survival depended on those games.

So maybe 653 at Kidderminster, midweek, at a time when we are playing twice every week, is not so bad after all.

[Mally]

The chatter from Kiddy fans after the game on their forum was that they believed there were a lot more in the ground than officially reported so perhaps there were more than the quoted figure. It seemed to me that there were about 800 Oxford fans.

I think the main problem is the amount of weekday evening games we've had recently. To get there on time just about everybody would have had to leave work early and this is bound to have an impact. 5 out of the 6 games in October are evening kick offs. I'm beginning to understand how Premiership fans feel when their fixtures are constantly messed about with.

[Resurrection Ox]

A frustrating game.

Without wanting to be critical of a team four points clear and unbeaten in 15 games, it was annoying toplay so well in the first 30 minutes and not get a win.

Losing Brevett took the balance away from the team as an attacking force. Day is definately a good defender but he doesn't give the team attacking options as a left wing back should.

Anaclet was very frustrating in the second half, mainly because he was our most likely attacking force and he fluffed it time and again.

Hargreaves got me in scream mode all night. Please give young Kennett (even Dempster) a chance to show us he can offer more than Hargreaves.

Duffy and the team seemed to deflate after he failed to pass to Basham. Him and Burgess are clearly playing with 'knocks' and that is worrying.

So are the silly bookings. Willmott is forever being penalised when Gilly and Quinn are not.

We certainly looked like a team that would run away with the league for30 minutes and a teamthat will struggle to make then play offs for the last 60.

I wonder if we can find some funds for a newplayer or two in January?

Agree with all of this save your view on Hargreaves. He was clearly man of the match. Was mobile , quite creative and generally very effective. Kennett would be monstered by the physicality of the game. Basham can't cope with 2 games a week. Wasn't carrying a knock as far as i could see.

[DLT]

Hargreaves and the term 'quite creative' on the same webpage, let alone the same paragraph is a shocker.

Yes he is robust, but robust ain't enough for me. He has the ability to stop the other team playing, but not to create anything. Once Burgess had gone off we needed the other players to step upto the creativity line.

What are the odds we get a last minute penalty to win game at Cambridge next week.

[Mally]

Kennett would be monstered by the physicality of the game. Basham can't cope with 2 games a week. Wasn't carrying a knock as far as i could see.

Monstered? Since when has monster been a verb? A noun definitely, even an adjective, but a verb? What on earth does it mean? Logically it should mean turned into a monster but I presume here its supposed to mean become victim to a monster.

I agree with DLT that with Burgess out of the game we need another creative influence in midfield but I feel a switch to 4-4-2 is the only way we can achieve it under those circumstances. Hutchinson and Hargreaves can provide our monster element, Pettiffer the steady safe reliability and then somebody else is required to provide the flair and attacking quality. Kennett is the only player who looks like he could fulfill that role in the squad at the moment so I would like to see him given a chance within a 4 man midfield.
[/b]

[GodalmingYellow]

Kennett would be monstered by the physicality of the game. Basham can't cope with 2 games a week. Wasn't carrying a knock as far as i could see.

Monstered? Since when has monster been a verb? A noun definitely, even an adjective, but a verb? What on earth does it mean? Logically it should mean turned into a monster but I presume here its supposed to mean become victim to a monster.

He's from Hampton!

Not convinced by your 4-4-2 Mally, sounds very narrow to me. Not that I've got the answer either. These are the limitations of a small squad of quality players - lack of replacements.

[DLT]

442 would need Anaclet on right side of midfield with Quinn at right back.

Burgess is ineffective on the left of 442 for me. And neither Brevitt or Johnson could play left midfield for me. Weedon could, but isn't he injured?

I can't say that Kennett will be an answer, but will need to find out sooner than later. Pettefer, Kennett and Hutchinson sounds a better midfield central 3 to me if Burgess is missing.