|
Post by York Terrier on Aug 29, 2015 19:25:25 GMT 1
Looking at the squad and hearing CP say we have a small squad it's hard to understand why with a small squad we don't invest in better players. In the summer it was obvious we needed a new central defender,new left back and a replacment for JV.
What was also blindingly obvious was that Miller is not good enough and Smith is not good enough so out of the most glaringly obvious needs to strengthen with 5 quality players in the above areas we have filled just one of the problem positions WHY?
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Aug 29, 2015 19:29:12 GMT 1
I don't think we do have a small squad myself.
Also, how can a bloke that isn't even using the squad he has to it's potential complain about a lack of options?
|
|
|
Post by HuddsTerrier on Aug 29, 2015 19:39:05 GMT 1
Looking at the squad and hearing CP say we have a small squad it's hard to understand why with a small squad we don't invest in better players. In the summer it was obvious we needed a new central defender,new left back and a replacment for JV. What was also blindingly obvious was that Miller is not good enough and Smith is not good enough so out of the most glaringly obvious needs to strengthen with 5 quality players in the above areas we have filled just one of the problem positions WHY? Sorry did the goal come down Smiths side today or was it again down our left? The only other shot on target also came down the left hand side Aside from a cock up on a throw today I can't think of a reason to criticism Smith - supported Scannell well and our right hand side was never exposed As for Miller, the bloke is a real handful and holds the ball up excellently Neither are world beaters but both do a decent job If you have to pick a player out today have a look at Butterfield, who was a mix of excellent and awful with his passing. He was also involved with Davidson on a comical set piece near the corner flag that saw us go from attack to being on the back foot.
|
|
|
Post by Nickhudds.UTT on Aug 29, 2015 19:42:32 GMT 1
Looking at the squad and hearing CP say we have a small squad it's hard to understand why with a small squad we don't invest in better players. In the summer it was obvious we needed a new central defender,new left back and a replacment for JV. What was also blindingly obvious was that Miller is not good enough and Smith is not good enough so out of the most glaringly obvious needs to strengthen with 5 quality players in the above areas we have filled just one of the problem positions WHY? Sorry did the goal come down Smiths side today or was it again down our left? Aside from a cock up on a throw today I can't think of a reason to criticism him As for Miller, the bloke is a real handful and holds the ball up excellently Neither are world beaters but both do a decent job If you have to pick a player out today have a look at Butterfield, who was a mix of excellent and awful with his passing. He was also involved with Davidson on a comical set piece near the corner flag that saw us go from attack to being on the back foot. I agree re Miller, some folk slagging him, Wells needs to take a look at himself. And then you have a bloke on 15 k a week taking the proverbial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 20:11:56 GMT 1
Our policy seems muddled. We spend transfer fees on players such as Lolley, Hiwula and (to date) Dempsey yet they don't seem to be ready for the first team.
In the meantime we lack quality and funds for the first XI. I believe their combined fees were £700k. Would this not be better spent on x1 'good' player paid their combined wages?
Speculating on young talent may be a necessity but surely where funds are so short such an outlay MUST strengthen the team?
|
|
|
Post by royrace on Aug 29, 2015 20:15:07 GMT 1
Looking at the squad and hearing CP say we have a small squad it's hard to understand why with a small squad we don't invest in better players. In the summer it was obvious we needed a new central defender,new left back and a replacment for JV. What was also blindingly obvious was that Miller is not good enough and Smith is not good enough so out of the most glaringly obvious needs to strengthen with 5 quality players in the above areas we have filled just one of the problem positions WHY? Sorry did the goal come down Smiths side today or was it again down our left? The only other shot on target also came down the left hand side Aside from a cock up on a throw today I can't think of a reason to criticism Smith - supported Scannell well and our right hand side was never exposed As for Miller, the bloke is a real handful and holds the ball up excellently Neither are world beaters but both do a decent job If you have to pick a player out today have a look at Butterfield, who was a mix of excellent and awful with his passing. He was also involved with Davidson on a comical set piece near the corner flag that saw us go from attack to being on the back foot. Good point re Butterfield, he was poor today compared to his usual standard. Offered very little. Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by dewsburyterrier on Aug 29, 2015 20:17:54 GMT 1
I think we have plenty of players under 21 that the current manager won't pick, so why did we sign another 2?
|
|
|
Post by rantinray on Aug 29, 2015 20:35:45 GMT 1
Looking at the squad and hearing CP say we have a small squad it's hard to understand why with a small squad we don't invest in better players. In the summer it was obvious we needed a new central defender,new left back and a replacment for JV. What was also blindingly obvious was that Miller is not good enough and Smith is not good enough so out of the most glaringly obvious needs to strengthen with 5 quality players in the above areas we have filled just one of the problem positions WHY? I have said this for a long time. Fewer players but of a better quality is what we need.Or we mix some quality with some hungry young players who would run through a brick wall for exposure.
|
|
|
Post by ACW on Aug 29, 2015 20:37:21 GMT 1
Looking at the squad and hearing CP say we have a small squad it's hard to understand why with a small squad we don't invest in better players. In the summer it was obvious we needed a new central defender,new left back and a replacment for JV. What was also blindingly obvious was that Miller is not good enough and Smith is not good enough so out of the most glaringly obvious needs to strengthen with 5 quality players in the above areas we have filled just one of the problem positions WHY? Sorry did the goal come down Smiths side today or was it again down our left? The only other shot on target also came down the left hand side Aside from a cock up on a throw today I can't think of a reason to criticism Smith - supported Scannell well and our right hand side was never exposed As for Miller, the bloke is a real handful and holds the ball up excellently Neither are world beaters but both do a decent job If you have to pick a player out today have a look at Butterfield, who was a mix of excellent and awful with his passing. He was also involved with Davidson on a comical set piece near the corner flag that saw us go from attack to being on the back foot. Smith's passing, as usual, was poor - his insistence on hitting high, hopeful balls does my head in. And I don't think he supported Scannell that well either. Just passed the ball to him and expected him to do the rest, rather than supporting him in a meaningful way.
|
|
|
Post by rantinray on Aug 29, 2015 20:40:25 GMT 1
Sorry did the goal come down Smiths side today or was it again down our left? The only other shot on target also came down the left hand side Aside from a cock up on a throw today I can't think of a reason to criticism Smith - supported Scannell well and our right hand side was never exposed As for Miller, the bloke is a real handful and holds the ball up excellently Neither are world beaters but both do a decent job If you have to pick a player out today have a look at Butterfield, who was a mix of excellent and awful with his passing. He was also involved with Davidson on a comical set piece near the corner flag that saw us go from attack to being on the back foot. Smith's passing, as usual, was poor - his insistence on hitting high, hopeful balls does my head in. And I don't think he supported Scannell that well either. Just passed the ball to him and expected him to do the rest, rather than supporting him in a meaningful way. Far too many static players on the field today. Very few triangles played. Huge distances between players. All in all a bit of a shambolic performance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 20:41:19 GMT 1
Smith was awful yet again davidson was solid tbf we desperately need a rb smith gets worse by the game
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Aug 29, 2015 20:42:49 GMT 1
Sorry did the goal come down Smiths side today or was it again down our left? The only other shot on target also came down the left hand side Aside from a cock up on a throw today I can't think of a reason to criticism Smith - supported Scannell well and our right hand side was never exposed As for Miller, the bloke is a real handful and holds the ball up excellently Neither are world beaters but both do a decent job If you have to pick a player out today have a look at Butterfield, who was a mix of excellent and awful with his passing. He was also involved with Davidson on a comical set piece near the corner flag that saw us go from attack to being on the back foot. Smith's passing, as usual, was poor - his insistence on hitting high, hopeful balls does my head in. And I don't think he supported Scannell that well either. Just passed the ball to him and expected him to do the rest, rather than supporting him in a meaningful way. his not supporting scannell is the set gameplan.. nobody supports anyone going wide on the other side either.. we gave the ball away in a stupid place for the goal and everyone was playing catch up.. Butterfield was 'busy' today.. Hogg was 'busy' , same goes for whitehead.. its makes us workmanlike and we conceeded very little by way of goal scoring opportunities, it does not make us an attacking side though, by any stretch of the imagination.. somebody has to support the ball when it goes into their half..
|
|
|
Post by huddstownonly on Aug 29, 2015 20:44:00 GMT 1
Smith was awful yet again davidson was solid tbf we desperately need a rb smith gets worse by the game He nearly scored though - albeit for QPR in the first half
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Aug 29, 2015 20:48:54 GMT 1
I think we would be better sacking off right backs altogether and get the played to play 352...
Smith is easily good enough CB to play right hand side of a 3. Lynch on the left. Just need a Morrison type to play the middle.
Need to buy proper wingbacks instead of hoping wingers will do.
Play one DM and 2 creative midfielders with 2 up front.
|
|
|
Post by richhtfc on Aug 29, 2015 20:48:50 GMT 1
Our policy seems muddled. We spend transfer fees on players such as Lolley, Hiwula and (to date) Dempsey yet they don't seem to be ready for the first team. In the meantime we lack quality and funds for the first XI. I believe their combined fees were £700k. Would this not be better spent on x1 'good' player paid their combined wages? Speculating on young talent may be a necessity but surely where funds are so short such an outlay MUST strengthen the team? It really doesn't take much thought to work out that proven first team players cost more than prospects does it? And that the latter are highly profitable if you gamble correctly. Have you read anything at all that the club have put out regarding their approach?
|
|
|
Post by ACW on Aug 29, 2015 20:53:04 GMT 1
Smith's passing, as usual, was poor - his insistence on hitting high, hopeful balls does my head in. And I don't think he supported Scannell that well either. Just passed the ball to him and expected him to do the rest, rather than supporting him in a meaningful way. his not supporting scannell is the set gameplan.. nobody supports anyone going wide on the other side either.. we gave the ball away in a stupid place for the goal and everyone was playing catch up.. Butterfield was 'busy' today.. Hogg was 'busy' , same goes for whitehead.. its makes us workmanlike and we conceeded very little by way of goal scoring opportunities, it does not make us an attacking side though, by any stretch of the imagination.. somebody has to support the ball when it goes into their half.. We're obviously shit-scared that if we support the man in possession when we're attacking and, God forbid, go beyond the man in possession, we'll turn the ball over and get caught out of position. Trouble is, if everyone sticks rigidly to their positions and doesn't support the play we may become less likely to concede, but we also become much, much less likely to score. The strikers have got a bit of stick today - some justified, some less so - but they aren;t helped by the fact that we don't attack as a team. We attack in ones and twos, not threes and fours. QPR attacked in numbers for their goal and when the first man missed the ball across a second was on hand to stick it in the net. Town would never have scored that goal because we wouldn't have had the numbers going forward. Yes, supporting our attacking play properly leaves us more open to a counter attack, but that's football. You have to take some chances, particularly at home. Today's performance was good in many respects, but it was still mainly risk-free football. We're not getting the results playing so cautiously so we might as well open up a little. We might be more likely to lose, but we'll also give ourselves a better chance of winning. And with 3 points for a win isn't that a chance worth taking?
|
|
|
Post by HuddsTerrier on Aug 29, 2015 21:03:01 GMT 1
Sorry did the goal come down Smiths side today or was it again down our left? The only other shot on target also came down the left hand side Aside from a cock up on a throw today I can't think of a reason to criticism Smith - supported Scannell well and our right hand side was never exposed As for Miller, the bloke is a real handful and holds the ball up excellently Neither are world beaters but both do a decent job If you have to pick a player out today have a look at Butterfield, who was a mix of excellent and awful with his passing. He was also involved with Davidson on a comical set piece near the corner flag that saw us go from attack to being on the back foot. Smith's passing, as usual, was poor - his insistence on hitting high, hopeful balls does my head in. And I don't think he supported Scannell that well either. Just passed the ball to him and expected him to do the rest, rather than supporting him in a meaningful way. I suspect that was under orders - most of our defenders aim long for Miller I've noticed As for linking with Scannell, I agree not as evident today as usual but he supported well - usually available etc - and after Scannell went of linked up well with Hogg via back heel to set up a good crossing opportunity. I just don't get the slating of Smith, if we started shipping as many goals down our right as well as we presently do on our left then we'd really struggle (also that's not a dig at Davidson who so far looks the best of the summer signings IMO across the games I've seen)
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Aug 29, 2015 21:10:40 GMT 1
Smith's passing, as usual, was poor - his insistence on hitting high, hopeful balls does my head in. And I don't think he supported Scannell that well either. Just passed the ball to him and expected him to do the rest, rather than supporting him in a meaningful way. Far too many static players on the field today. Very few triangles played. Huge distances between players. All in all a bit of a shambolic performance. shambolic performance? You really haven't got a clue have you lad.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Aug 29, 2015 21:15:03 GMT 1
Far too many static players on the field today. Very few triangles played. Huge distances between players. All in all a bit of a shambolic performance. shambolic performance? You really haven't got a clue have you lad. It wasnt shambolic it was very workmanlike..set plan adhered to well but little inspiration to match the perspiration..we have players who can run with the ball, we just dont do it enough.. and when we do its like 'see ya, you crack on and see how far you can get, we will all watch from here'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 21:16:08 GMT 1
Our policy seems muddled. We spend transfer fees on players such as Lolley, Hiwula and (to date) Dempsey yet they don't seem to be ready for the first team. In the meantime we lack quality and funds for the first XI. I believe their combined fees were £700k. Would this not be better spent on x1 'good' player paid their combined wages? Speculating on young talent may be a necessity but surely where funds are so short such an outlay MUST strengthen the team? It really doesn't take much thought to work out that proven first team players cost more than prospects does it? And that the latter are highly profitable if you gamble correctly. Have you read anything at all that the club have put out regarding their approach? That's great and we've got a fine record of developing prospects...in our first team. However, tying up our small transfer budget on players who rarely make it onto the pitch or are loaned out is not really helping at the minute. There is a balance to be made between building for the future and investing in the current team. We paid a transfer fee for 7 of today's 18 man squad. Surely if we have money to spend it sure strengthen the 11 men we start with first and foremost.
|
|
|
Post by rantinray on Aug 29, 2015 21:17:06 GMT 1
Far too many static players on the field today. Very few triangles played. Huge distances between players. All in all a bit of a shambolic performance. shambolic performance? You really haven't got a clue have you lad. You have you opinion and it is different to mine so what. Do I say you have not a clue? What I saw was shambolic. Not just from Town but QPR also.
|
|
|
Post by richhtfc on Aug 29, 2015 21:20:35 GMT 1
It really doesn't take much thought to work out that proven first team players cost more than prospects does it? And that the latter are highly profitable if you gamble correctly. Have you read anything at all that the club have put out regarding their approach? That's great and we've got a fine record of developing prospects...in our first team. However, tying up our small transfer budget on players who rarely make it onto the pitch or are loaned out is not really helping at the minute. There is a balance to be made between building for the future and investing in the current team. We paid a transfer fee for 7 of today's 18 man squad. Surely if we have money to spend it sure strengthen the 11 men we start with first and foremost. Well I suppose it depends on whether you buy in to the long term vision,and accept that the clubs plan is working (which it is) or lose your nerve and demand it happens sooner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 21:23:15 GMT 1
Far too many static players on the field today. Very few triangles played. Huge distances between players. All in all a bit of a shambolic performance. shambolic performance? You really haven't got a clue have you lad. captain this the type of post that i was talking about. shambolic performance ? what a idiot
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Aug 29, 2015 21:24:32 GMT 1
shambolic performance? You really haven't got a clue have you lad. You have you opinion and it is different to mine so what. Do I say you have not a clue? What I saw was shambolic. Not just from Town but QPR also. I have got a clue though and I know calling our performance today 'shambolic' is an utterly clueless thing to say. Youve either decided to be a WUM on here, or youve decided to be as toxic and negative as you can be, because although you'd never set your bar very high, your recent posts are , to use your word, shambolic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 21:28:09 GMT 1
That's great and we've got a fine record of developing prospects...in our first team. However, tying up our small transfer budget on players who rarely make it onto the pitch or are loaned out is not really helping at the minute. There is a balance to be made between building for the future and investing in the current team. We paid a transfer fee for 7 of today's 18 man squad. Surely if we have money to spend it sure strengthen the 11 men we start with first and foremost. Well I suppose it depends on whether you buy in to the long term vision,and accept that the clubs plan is working (which it is) or lose your nerve and demand it happens sooner. Not impatient at all. I'd love to give all the young lads a few games and see them hold their own. It just stands out to me that the 'prospects' we are buying are no longer first team players who just need a chance to show their quality and develop, they need time in the reserves and are (so it seems) not up to 1st team standard as yet.
|
|
|
Post by rantinray on Aug 29, 2015 21:34:04 GMT 1
You have you opinion and it is different to mine so what. Do I say you have not a clue? What I saw was shambolic. Not just from Town but QPR also. I have got a clue though and I know calling our performance today 'shambolic' is an utterly clueless thing to say. Youve either decided to be a WUM on here, or youve decided to be as toxic and negative as you can be, because although you'd never set your bar very high, your recent posts are , to use your word, shambolic. I did not see anything to be positive about today. The movement from many players was poor as was a lot of our distribution of the ball. The long ball to Miller very rarely worked the same went for the same long ball corners. Davidson and Lynch played well. Smith was his usual self whatever that may be. Mid field could not put the front two through who both looked to be stuck to the turf. So all in all a bit of a shambolic performance but hey you are far wiser than I.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 22:23:38 GMT 1
I thought we were the better side for long periods and dominated them in midfield for much of the game.
However, Do we actually practice set pieces ?
Are our full backs told to never over lap ?
I thought Miller did fine as a target man, But Wells was never anywhere near him.
Carayol looked decent, And when is Lolly going to get a run in the side ?
Oh and I idid think the ex England, Liverpool, West Ham and top flight Charlton player Konchesky did the biz on Scannell for most of the time he was on the pitch,
Also thought Hudson was having his best game for us before he was benched at the break.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 23:07:37 GMT 1
Smith's passing, as usual, was poor - his insistence on hitting high, hopeful balls does my head in. And I don't think he supported Scannell that well either. Just passed the ball to him and expected him to do the rest, rather than supporting him in a meaningful way. Far too many static players on the field today. Very few triangles played. Huge distances between players. All in all a bit of a shambolic performance. Agree-all this nonsense about playing well today annoys me. I think people just compare to a diabolical baseline. Static, lethargic and void of ideas other than 'give it Scannell'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 23:09:19 GMT 1
I think we would be better sacking off right backs altogether and get the played to play 352... Smith is easily good enough CB to play right hand side of a 3. Lynch on the left. Just need a Morrison type to play the middle. Need to buy proper wingbacks instead of hoping wingers will do. Play one DM and 2 creative midfielders with 2 up front. And what would you do with Scannell?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 23:10:09 GMT 1
Far too many static players on the field today. Very few triangles played. Huge distances between players. All in all a bit of a shambolic performance. shambolic performance? You really haven't got a clue have you lad. The first half was
|
|