BOROCHAT
Newest article: Re: I Built a Model to predict the League One fina… by NateYesterday 23:42Yesterday at 23:42:46view thread
Oldest article: Scott Cuthbert
by Balders28/11/2025 15:22Fri Nov 28 15:22:00 2025
2 peopleview thread
Next thread: Stevenage make the county cup final, again by Balders25/2 08:29Wed Feb 25 08:29:12 2026view thread
Re: Pidge
Views: 1175
Sweeney has cost us the game.
So has Revs for not starting Pidge
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 529
For me, I'd let Pidge, Goode and Sweeney leave in the summer (Subject to getting replacements) We desperately need some pace at the back. No doubt there will be uproar on here for making such a suggestion.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Pidge
Views: 546
Can appreciate your viewpoint. Don’t think it’s as wild a suggestion as you think it is either. Pace is handy in a centre back but if they’re doing their job properly it isn’t the be all, end all.
For as long as Pidge wants to stay he should be here. He drives the culture I feel. Whether he is slowly transitioning from being a starter to a bit part player and how he feels about that is another matter. He’s the leader we’ve needed since Robbo left, he’ll leave a huge void when he leaves. I hope it’s not for some time yet.
Goode may leave for a bigger contract elsewhere, if not he’s the best centre back at the club now. We’d be foolish to let him go without an adequate replacement lined up.
I think it may be time for Sweeney to move on he’s not the donkey some will make out, his style of play and position magnify the errors he makes. He could go somewhere in League Two and play a massive part week in, week out for someone. Wouldn’t surprised to see not so big Steve come calling for Sweens and Pidge in the summer. Whether they go is another thing altogether.
If we have a centre back roster of Goode, Pidge, Freestone, Taylor and AN Other come the start of next season there are far worse scenarios we could be faced with.
reply to this article | return to the front page
6 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 959
I'm sure fans were saying two weeks ago Sweeney has been our best defender for a while and Pidge was terrible (not necessarily you, just in here). Changes weekly, I can't keep up.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 878
Not me , tbh even when he was man of the match at home to Peterborough he gave away a certain penalty last minute that was poor decision from him and lucky not to be penalised. I’m not against him , but unfortunately makes too many simple mistakes.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 886
Pidge makes fewer mistakes because he rarely tries to etain the ball or pick a pass, the ball is a hot potato.
It's either one touch and sideways under no pressure or a lump.
He rarely travels with the ball.
He rarely tries to turn under pressure to retain the ball.
He rarely plays a 15 yard forward pass,
Sweeney does all of those things, sometimes.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 882
It’s not necessarily when he takes the ball out that he makes mistakes, unfortunately he just has more mistakes in him than Pidge and I don’t see him bringing the ball out is worth that . Plus when he loses the ball I don’t think he runs back quickly enough and when he calls for offside he sometimes stops as he does it .
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 873
I don't necessarily disagree.
Pidge, Goode, Freestone & Sweeney all have their weaknesses.
And with Pidge and Goode's age there needs to be some rotation.
FWIW I'd stick with a back 3 and prefer Goode/Sweeney/Freestone in that setup.
But in a 4 I'd go Pidge and Goode which is harsh on Freestone who will probably be our No.1 defensive pick next season
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 850
I agree with all of that . Wish we’d have tried to carry on with the system today after the injury and put Phoenix at left wing back. I do understand our need to be defensive and on the whole agree with it . Just sometimes, a little more attacking with changes I’d prefer.
Edited by Steve 1970 at 16:59:05 on 21st February 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 849
I don't trust Pheonix defensively. You need more than pace to play that role.
Lapses in concentration and lightweight.
You look at the tackles Butler, Saxon and Freestone make down the left touchline, no way do I trust Pheonix to do that.
Happy to be proved wrong.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 856
I agree , but at one nil down , with 3 in the middle, definitely worth the risk to keep the same system and be more of a threat going forward although to be fair second half we created chances.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 585
Think Saxon was carrying a knock from Port Vale. Noticed during the warm up they was practicing as a back 4 rather than as a 3/5. Did wonder why Pidge couldn’t come on for Saxon and push Freestone as Wingback to keep the system they had played the last 2 games with.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 518
Interesting that nobody on here ever references how the oppo set up. Every formation is bulletproof. We must be 352 442 dull shit. I assume, even though it is sometimes hard to recognise, that Revs et al spend quite a bit of time analysing the opposition.
I maybe wrong though. Maybe they read the thoughts of three bellends on borochat and tweak accordingly?
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 474
I like that our excellent home form is the result of almost every away team being unable to set up for our pitch and gifting us points rather than anything we do.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 544
Freestone as a wingback? Have you actually seen him play.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 557
Believe Saxon always takes part in the shooting drill. And I don't think Freestone is seen as a WB option
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 1097
You are an incredible troll, fair play.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Pidge
Views: 916
Sweeney had a fantastic match. Didn’t put a foot wrong!
Better?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 1061
Yeah massive shock , poor defending from Sweeney - how Pidge is on the bench for this man I’ll never know
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 1067
Dino would never have made that mistake. He’d be costing us games in non-league.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 1069
Donkey Dan at it again. Genuinely one of the most pathetic things I’ve ever seen
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 1054
Baffling how he’s picked over Pidge.
Makes Jamie McCombe look alright
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 1114
This is as bad as when Gary Smith dropped Robbo for Ben Chorley
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 978
NOTHING will ever be as bad as that.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 1105
When we’re sitting as deep as we are then his pace shouldn’t be an issue. Which also means Sweeney shouldn’t be starting ahead of him.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Pidge
Views: 1188
Everyone's been moaning at how slow he is/ how many mistakes he makes all winter?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 1098
Sweeney is slower and makes more mistakes
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Pidge
Views: 1190
Because like most of the cbs he's been poor recently.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 1111
Second best defence in the league is "really poor" ?
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 1102
What are we basing that on? I'd love to see the 'second best defences' ball retention stats, or are we just basing it on one stat?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 983
Goals conceded. WTF else would we base it on, hairstyles?
(Now 4th best so still good)
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Pidge
Views: 934
So the fact they repeatadly give the ball back to the opposition means nothing when we are talking about how good a defence is?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 893
The job of a defence is to stop goals.
That's how defenders are judged.
Over the season they've done that better than 75% of teams.
If they could pass the ball nicely they'd be midfielders or defenders at a bigger club earning more money.
And Sweeney is far better at carrying and moving the ball out of defence than his CB team mates, unfortunately there is always a risk attached to being (over)confident as a defender on the ball.
You can't have it both ways.
You either want 'safety first get rid agricultural defending' or you want confident ball playing CBs comfortable recieving under a bit of pressure putting a foot on the ball, looking up, threading passes or driving into midfield with the ball.
Edited by BALDOCKBORO at 15:34:07 on 21st February 2026
Edited by BALDOCKBORO at 15:41:16 on 21st February 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 941
We've won 3 home games "recently".
Statistics eh.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Pidge
Views: 939
He said the CB’s have been poor recently lol. You misread it, it’s fine.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 932
Which is only partly true. Against Peterborough and Huddersfield we kept clean sheets and they didn't have a single shot on target. Against Vale we were comfortable (and won). But away we have an issue.
Although saying that, dare I say even today we looked unthreatened for the most-part, yet individual mistakes got punished and cost us, yet again. For a good spell after our goal it looked like only one team was going to score and win, and then a defensive fuck-up and everything changed. Which is becoming a theme away from home now. Six straight defeats and conceded three times in each of the past four.
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 920
Yes agreed.
I don’t think Jasper should escape criticism today. Really poor.
Luther’s availability is starting to become very frustrating, perhaps even problematic?
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 923
By far Pattenden's worse performance for us today, I cannot disagree. He really struggled, maybe his first return to them after spending a few years there got to him mentally?
But I think we can all agree he has been very solid and impressive when he has played for us previously this season so hopefully back to that next weekend!
Edited by Chuds at 15:04:55 on 21st February 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 899
Yeah he was uncharacteristicly poor today.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 920
The problem is, it's nearly relentless pressure all game. The more you have to face, the more mistakes are going to show. Even if you have a solid bank of defenders, there's only so many times you can kick a ball away and it come straight back without conceding.
I don't like the way we set up for away games, but I'll accept our options are a bit limited.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Pidge
Views: 929
I didn't think it was though. Nor do the stats suggest so. Possession was 56-44, we had 11 shots to their 8 (they had five on target to our three).
We started poorly and were poor in our passing, and kept giving up possession easily, and gifted them poor goals thanks to individual mistakes, but overall that was never a performance that looked like they were going to score three times or battered us. And for a good 20-25 minute spell to start the second half we were all over them.
And yet again we had an early defensive injury in an away game, like when Pattenden got concussed at Barnsley, which led to us having to change things up at the back.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Pidge
Views: 894
That first half was pretty much one way traffic. Feel like we play that way until something happens. I'll accept we had a decent spell at the second half, when we finally brought a player on with decent movement off the ball (by far one of our biggest issues). In that sense their second was very unfortunate as we were comfortable at that point, but this run of away form really highlights the limitations (enforced on them or otherwise) of the side.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Pidge
Views: 887
It does highlight some limitations, but sadly a club of our stature in L1 is very likely going to have that by this point in the season.
It appears to me that Revs clearly wants to play a back three, signed players (and back-ups) to do so with adequate cover, and with three or four solid CBs, but we have been unlucky with injuries, particularly to FB/WBs, that has prevented us playing our preferred formation (and the one everybody seems to agree is best for us and our most dangerous) for long spells, and in two recent away games injuries to our FBs has also hampered our gameplan.
I am not sure we could do much about it, we have already lost £2mil in the past two seasons so have to be careful with our budget and cannot be bringing in even more cover that was unlikely to be needed, and we cannot afford two top quality L1 players in every position, so some positions we have as cover are going to have had a few inuries in their career (but will have undergone a thorough medical before signing) or will be a bit of a drop in quality compared to the starter in the respective position.
It is annoying and unfortunate, but I honestly believe the squad we had assembled in the summer was very good, as our early season form and results showed, but injuries have hurt us.
Butler, Ahadme, Cornick, Simpson and Freeman all injured long-term. Louis T and Saxon both missed a large period of the season. Luther, Kemp, White, Houghton and Young all missed a bunch of games through injury.
Edited by Chuds at 15:57:52 on 21st February 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 800
I disagree. If he wanted to play a 5 he would have been doing it a lot earlier, albeit Saxon is a more natural LWB than Butler. I think the signings and building of the squad lends itself more to a back 4 and wingers so I think that is Revs' preferred setup. The big issue that everyone has highlighted with the 5 is being unable to get players like Kemp, Phoenix and Chem into the side who carry a lot of our attacking threat.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 750
You only bring Pheonix and Chem in if you intend playing wingers. That's undeniable.
Roberts can do other jobs, (arguably. I'm jot a big fan, too often has no impact).
I think maybe Rev's has been pushed into trying a back 3/5 by results and has seen it can increase our chance creation.
But it doesn't really matter whether it's accident or design, what matters is making it work. And from my perspective as a fan showing that 1 up top is not the future.
442 or 352 I'm not that fussed. What I like is the width and the 2
Edited by BALDOCKBORO at 18:43:29 on 21st February 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Pidge
Views: 753
I definitely favour two up top. I hope there's enough in terms of numbers in the squad fit to keep doing that. However, I think I'd prefer a back four where we're not looking to necessarily ask our centre backs to do anything special with the ball. We could then better use some of the other players in our squad, such as Phoenix and Chem
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 733
I think it's madness expecting our CBs to be the ones to drive us forward. Everything in the midfield is too safe. A lot of our chance creation comes from wide areas in either system so it's whether we can create better chances through Luther/Saxon or Chem/Phoenix/Roberts. It is unfortunate that Phoenix and Chem haven't been able to get in the team since the change of system but the 5 at the back has definitely been working (particularly at home) and it's great to see our WBs looking to beat a man or fashion a crossing opportunity - our wingers tend to play inverted and want to cut in on their stronger foot which often leads to them getting crowded out.
You would typically expect a WB system to be more effective on a wider pitch (where we've traditionally struggled anyway), so it's strange to see us putting it to good use at BHW
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 713
'You would typically expect a WB system to be more effective on a wider pitch (where we've traditionally struggled anyway), so it's strange to see us putting it to good use at BHW'
Absolutely, that's the thing that's confusing me the most!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 595
I'm not going to question it if it's working. And I think a lot of our joy at home is down to how the opponent sets up. Would be nice if we could start to see some improvement in how we approach our away games (whether in the same system or finding another way to play) although I'm not sure how much the formation really matters compared to the intent and tactical set up.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 883
I think a big, mobile target man is fundamental in the summer if we are going to play this way, even if it means sacrificing other players.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 869
Agreed. The difference M. Phillips and his superior movement, ball control and passing has made in the past three games has been hugely evident.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Pidge
Views: 839
and that's not even his natural position!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 1150
He had been poor to be fair.
but he was dropped for Northampton away and we all know how that went. Should be back in the side for me.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 1152
Yes, one goal doesn't change that. If you understood football you would see it.
Kemp is the one we miss. Zero creativity without him in the side.
Edited by RockyBottom at 12:58:27 on 21st February 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Pidge
Views: 1040
Well finally Kemp is on, even if the wrong one went off.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Pidge
Views: 1068
1-1 straight away. What do I know?...
Edited by RockyBottom at 13:39:34 on 21st February 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Previous thread: 🎙️SFC POD: ERROR / S7EP43 by Boromatt23/2 07:40Mon Feb 23 07:40:43 2026view thread