City v Chelmsford

D 2-2 after twice behind. So 4 pts in 8 days from 3 tricky games. Resilience to come back again as v Concord or did we make hard work of it ?

Gerry - overall I was happy with a point in the end. Chelmsford were a lot better all round side than Concord but Concord still had the best individual player in Jordan Chiedozie and I think he scored 3 for them today against Gosport.
I thought we were improved on our recent home performances but again had the problems of defensive errors, although for a change we were also gifted one. We really do need an organiser at the back, and once again I go back to the Matt Coupe type player who may not have been everyones cup of tea but when he played he never stopped talking and giving instructions. I think Matt has just come out of retirement to help Mangotsfield out.
Good to see Andy Watkins getting a few goals recently as a reward for his efforts.

Agree with that Steve. They looked stronger- we still need that on pitch leader - but fortunately their one dimensional defender at 6 decided to try some quality and failed. - Watto pounced. He had a great game Thought Harvs and Marvs linked well.

Strange to see the young Chelmsford fans being provocative. All a bit 70s especially with the big police presence at the end.

Need some home wins to help get the crowds up

Not a bad game today although the usual frailties were on display again – failure to deal with balls in the box; lacking physicality in general (we were out-muscled too often); lop-sided in attack - fine on the left but, in the absence of Broom, mostly a bit thin on the right thus minimising our ability to deliver crosses into the box - and failure to take full advantage of shooting opportunities.

On a more positive note, our first goal was well-worked and easily the best in the match while we actually looked like we might even score going forward and we didn’t strive to give the ball away quite so easily today.

Watkins was clearly my MoTM – nippy, always a threat and not afraid to mix it when trying to get the ball: the only player who gave the Chelmo defence any worries. Batten also had a good game while Hemmings, when he came on, was the busiest player on the pitch doing what he does best, distributing the ball into the attack. Monthe has had better games and pushing him forward towards the end didn’t really come off today although there is potential there. Marshall seemed largely anonymous and Diallo was disappointing again and sometimes appears reluctant to tackle. I’m not sure whether he was supposed to give us a presence on the right but it didn’t work out that way and it was largely left to Rigg to front up when he could. In addition, I agree that we could certainly do with a commanding presence at the back to organise the defence and to give the opposition a more robust time.

Finally I thought that Chelmsford were a workmanlike side with no particularly stand-out players. They passed the ball around well at times and looked lively going forward; however, I couldn’t help feeling a touch of schadenfreude when they managed to give away a vital goal with some comedy defending. It was also interesting to see Walshy in the kick-about with the Chelmsford crew wearing (borrowed?) Bath shorts.

Nearly half way through the season: does mid-table obscurity beckon or can GO conjure up some better performances? Hmmm…

Were those youngsters from Chelmsford? Not a club you associate with any problems.
Someone commented at the ground that a group of young Rovers/City youngsters had taken advantage of the offer to come along.

Major Icewater wrote:Were those youngsters from Chelmsford?  Not a club you associate with any problems.
Someone commented at the ground that a group of young Rovers/City youngsters had taken advantage of the offer to come along.

That's right, they were not Chelmsford youngsters but Bristol Rov/ City kids. Insisted on standing near us singers in the first half trying to drown us out with "f-off City" chants etc which made it all the more laughable.

I was fooled because they were chanting Chelmsford

How did the student incentive go?

Not sure Gerry. 540 was disappointing

If it encouraged along the drunken youths who tried to stir up trouble on the Pop Side to turn up then I'm afraid it was a disaster darling.

Lol knew you were a fan...Cmon Ed.

Balls to em all. Strictly speaking it's Mrs Kermit who's the fan!

If you take away the Chelmsford supporters and the 'unwanted' visitors, the crowd in reality was someway less than 500.

The student attendance was 93 which is up on the last two games of 47 for Dartford and 57 for Concord.