I've swung back and forth about yesterday's game, obviously we were superb, but obviously they were 2 players short. But my conclusion is this - A team with 10 men can be a dangerous animal, can often win but can also be very difficult to break down. 9 men is only one player less, and they still had 4 men across the back. You still need to play your best to beat a 10 man squad, you can hope to not concede, but you can't guarantee scoring. A 9 man squad you can hope to not concede but we guaranteed that they never even had a shot, and we put 7 past them. It's impossible to say whether that team would have played that well against 11 men, but that's not their fault, the point is that they took their chance and played superbly against whoever was up against them. Some of the passes we saw, Neil's to set up Rob, Paul through to Neil and Adam's through to Dave Lewis, left them with no options at the back, even when they had two players chasing our one. I think we saw the difference of having quality balls going forward to the front players, when sometimes that's where we've lacked a little.

It's easy to say that you should have done well cos you were only up against 9 men, but you did do well, and that's the best you could have done on the day. I honestly don't think that putting two more players on their team would have made much of a difference. You know how good you can play now, so in future games you just need to work to have the right to play that stuff.

Next game is at home to TVS, a very good side, but a team who we know we can keep down to limited chances even though they may have a lot of the ball. Good defence, but they'll need to be.

Anyone got any ideas what effing team I should pick?