|
Post by rubicon on Nov 23, 2014 0:46:41 GMT 1
I'm in agreement , at least with the fact that he shouldn't be on the bench in a home game against Wednesday. Now he'll probably start at Bolton, and when we lose 4-3 or whatever, he'll be dropped again for Brentford. I THOUGHT the idea was to get fans into the ground, which the games against Forest and Blackpool would certainly do long term anyway, but todays performance certainly won't. And yes I know Wells didn't play all of those games anyway, and Wednesday certainly were a different team at least defensively. Thing is there were chances going begging, even first half, and I rather think Wells would have fed off Holt and perhaps picked one or two of those up. Yes he was greedy, but as has been pointed out most good strikers are. It doesn't help when you only have twenty minutes to impress in, as it leads to young lads like Wells trying too hard. I've felt for the lad for a few games now, and no matter what Powell states about unity etc, in the long run it's not gonna do Town any good when he wants away. At least half of DATM though will be able to slag him off even more then, so the "fans" will be happy. PS. Worthington made 41 appearances in the 2 seasons prior to 69-70 and scored 9 goals. It takes time, and I for one am gonna be right pee'd off when he's banging 30 goals a season in for a rival. Situation was probably the same for Rhodes at Ipswich, but for once we called that one right.
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Nov 23, 2014 1:41:54 GMT 1
What - I've started so I'll finish? It takes time to get into a game when you come on from the bench, just saying if he had been on from the start he might have put his chances away........... Or he might not have done. If Vaughan had been fit he might of scored 3, or he might not. Give up on the mights.
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Nov 23, 2014 1:46:00 GMT 1
I'm in agreement , at least with the fact that he shouldn't be on the bench in a home game against Wednesday. Now he'll probably start at Bolton, and when we lose 4-3 or whatever, he'll be dropped again for Brentford. I THOUGHT the idea was to get fans into the ground, which the games against Forest and Blackpool would certainly do long term anyway, but todays performance certainly won't. And yes I know Wells didn't play all of those games anyway, and Wednesday certainly were a different team at least defensively. Thing is there were chances going begging, even first half, and I rather think Wells would have fed off Holt and perhaps picked one or two of those up. Yes he was greedy, but as has been pointed out most good strikers are. It doesn't help when you only have twenty minutes to impress in, as it leads to young lads like Wells trying too hard. I've felt for the lad for a few games now, and no matter what Powell states about unity etc, in the long run it's not gonna do Town any good when he wants away. At least half of DATM though will be able to slag him off even more then, so the "fans" will be happy. PS. Worthington made 41 appearances in the 2 seasons prior to 69-70 and scored 9 goals. It takes time, and I for one am gonna be right pee'd off when he's banging 30 goals a season in for a rival. Situation was probably the same for Rhodes at Ipswich, but for once we called that one right. Have you thought that the chances might not have been there in the first half if Wells had been playing. It would be nice to have 6 in midfield to create the chances and 6 up front to finish them off. Unfortunately the rules only allow 11 in total. Did you feel for Wells last season when he was playing every game and we were playing like tools.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 2:04:14 GMT 1
Typical English outlook: 'Why 451 at home!?!?!??' Playing 451 does not mean you aren't looking to win. Spain and Germany have won World Cups with variations of it. It can change into a 4231, 41311 pretty easily and is a nightmare to defend against if indeed it is used in a fluid way. The 442 mindset is what has made English football fall about 20 years behind other European nations. Powell wants to play the 451 and is currently looking at how well his current players are suited to it, and will no doubt bring in his own guys in Jan and the summer. IMO, the problem as it stands today is that our wingers (apart from Bunn) don't score enough and our midfielders certainly don't. Its crucial that these guys support the #9. That's what I reckon Powell will target (Like Poyet coming in on loan). It doesn't matter what the formation is, if you don't have a single shot on target for 65 minutes, at home, to a side that hasn't won in 9, with your leading scorer on the bench, then something isn't quite working. 4-5-1, 4-3-3, 4-4-2 - who cares? If the side is playing with a high tempo, getting stuck in, creating chances, formations won't be discussed. It's not rocket science, and we're in danger of over complicating a simple game. I think it entirely the opposite tbh, football is incredibly complicated. The difference between winning and losing is often miniscule. 'If the side is playing with a high tempo, getting stuck in, creating chances, formations won't be discussed.' Formations are what lead to these three things you want, it doesn't just happen by throwing eleven players onto the pitch. For me, its that the players aren't right for the system, and that makes sense considering Robins wanted to play the 352 with wingback instead of CP's favoured attacking/goalscoring wingers. You could argue that we should play a different formation else then, but I reckon Powell is trying to evaluate what we have got before a summer overhaul. We've signed the perceived best players available for too long, Powell seems to favour bringing in people to play in the system he wants us to have. By going down this route, we are likely to have more games where it doesn't work and to me that's fine until Powell has his own guys in. Only then will I judge his overall performance. We are still picking up more than enough points to stay safe.
|
|
|
Post by rubicon on Nov 23, 2014 10:16:38 GMT 1
Yeh "goodshot" typical negative attitude. Considering he had two chances in the time he was on, then I'm sure some chances would have fallen for him, whoever the other 10 players were. Yes I did feel for him actually, simply because he was left to do it all on his own, in a season when he'd stepped up a division anyway. We're leaving a 20+ goals a season on the bench, and scoring goals breeds confidence to put more chances away, Getting 20 minutes, trying to impress and missing a couple, then leaving him to stew on it until he finds out whether he's in the team for the next game is really going to do him no good whatsoever. Well it could turn him into the next Theo Robinson I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Mcgee on Nov 23, 2014 11:34:52 GMT 1
You can't justify leaving Nahki out cos we were Shiite without him - we were dull and offered no goal threat and had the division's hottest striker on the bench. Now call me old fashioned but I can't make sense of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 11:35:21 GMT 1
IMO.I think CP got his selection nearly right.Wells would never have coped a full 90 with SW's big strong defence.My only gripe was why Poyet instead of Hogg? and got to add that Bunn had a poor game yesterday
|
|
|
Post by Henry Mcgee on Nov 23, 2014 11:41:54 GMT 1
IMO.I think CP got his selection nearly right.Wells would never have coped a full 90 with SW's big strong defence.My only gripe was why Poyet instead of Hogg? and got to add that Bunn had a poor game yesterday Wells wouldn't have coped with SW's big strong defence???!!! Is that a serious comment? Shall we just play him against little defences? FFS!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 11:48:45 GMT 1
No but with their current form and strong big defenders IMO it was not the match to start Nakki.He will play a very important part for Town this season but as stated IMO CP got it right yesterday.As always it is about we individual fans perceive things .UTT
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Nov 23, 2014 12:12:38 GMT 1
Yeh "goodshot" typical negative attitude. Considering he had two chances in the time he was on, then I'm sure some chances would have fallen for him, whoever the other 10 players were. Yes I did feel for him actually, simply because he was left to do it all on his own, in a season when he'd stepped up a division anyway. We're leaving a 20+ goals a season on the bench, and scoring goals breeds confidence to put more chances away, Getting 20 minutes, trying to impress and missing a couple, then leaving him to stew on it until he finds out whether he's in the team for the next game is really going to do him no good whatsoever. Well it could turn him into the next Theo Robinson I suppose. Theo scored yesterday. If you would play Nahki under all circumstances - fine - I wouldn't. I would have started with him yesterday in a 4-4-2 and it might have been successful. However, they had more chances than us after Nahki came on. Do you want to play 4-4-2 in every game - why not go very positive and go back to the old 4-2-4?
|
|
rocky
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,078
|
Post by rocky on Nov 23, 2014 12:14:27 GMT 1
We are at home to a team who have not won in 10 games and we leave our leading scorer on the bench till 20 mins from the end. Shit management - full stop! Somebody else who thinks the only way to win games is by playing lots of attackers. Simple this football management thing! I must have imagined how threatening Wednesday looked after Wells came on.
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Nov 23, 2014 12:18:39 GMT 1
You can't justify leaving Nahki out cos we were Shiite without him - we were dull and offered no goal threat and had the division's hottest striker on the bench. Now call me old fashioned but I can't make sense of that. Dull - I thought our patches of midfield dominance let us play some nice football at times in the first half. That chance set up for Scannell was as good a bit of football you are likely to see. It came directly because Butterfield could get his head up and pick out a pass. Only denied by a brilliant bit of defending. When we only play 2 in midfield Butterfield is rarely allowed the time to get his head up. I think Nahki is far from the hottest striker in the division. However, I thought he did well yesterday and did what all good strikers do - got in the position to score - regardless of whether he scored or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 22:19:44 GMT 1
You can't justify leaving Nahki out cos we were Shiite without him - we were dull and offered no goal threat and had the division's hottest striker on the bench. Now call me old fashioned but I can't make sense of that. Dull - I thought our patches of midfield dominance let us play some nice football at times in the first half. That chance set up for Scannell was as good a bit of football you are likely to see. It came directly because Butterfield could get his head up and pick out a pass. Only denied by a brilliant bit of defending. When we only play 2 in midfield Butterfield is rarely allowed the time to get his head up. I think Nahki is far from the hottest striker in the division. However, I thought he did well yesterday and did what all good strikers do - got in the position to score - regardless of whether he scored or not. I reckon Butterfield is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to breaking down our own attacking play. Time and time again he tries to pick out the long ball to the wing, slowing the game down. The ball is always at chest height, which means the receiver has to control it before going forward. You know how many assists Butterfield has in his entire career other than at Barnsley? Two in over eighty games. They might look nice, but they are not effective.
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Nov 23, 2014 22:45:48 GMT 1
Back to the original point. In our last home game we battered Forest, Wells started, scored a superb goal. He should have started on Satueday - with Holt & either Scannell or Bunn on the bench. Holt did not have his best game (far from it) but he was isolated with both Bunn & Scannell 20 yards away. He needs a striker to play up front with him & Wells is the right guy. He has scored 9 goals so to have him on the bench is poor management - full stop.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Nov 23, 2014 23:18:57 GMT 1
its a tough league, going into games with holding sides in the hope of scraping something isn't the way to approach home games. It wasn't the line up it was the approach that was wrong. We never got a midfielder past Holt.. its difficult to win these games from a set piece/free kick , wonder shot etc.. our chances, as they were, before wells came on were nothing as clear cut as we had after he came on. He didn't score but you have to think he would/could have had more decent opportunities if he had played the whole game, he just gives us that extra attacking option of putting it beyond their back 4, which we don't have with holt on his jack.. Defenders can cope with Holt, even if its a struggle when he is on his own, its harder when they have something else to worry about. We should be trying to get a partnership going up front, whoever it is , this chopping and changing is making us a very bitty team to watch. teams coming here and having to plan for Holt being all over their centre halves whilst Wells is running in behind them and into the channels might have to think harder about what they do and how they set up.. a striking pair putting the wind up opponents or a solid midfield??? its a rhethorical question...
|
|
|
Post by Floyds on Nov 24, 2014 10:29:08 GMT 1
We are at home to a team who have not won in 10 games and we leave our leading scorer on the bench till 20 mins from the end. Shit management - full stop! Somebody else who thinks the only way to win games is by playing lots of attackers. Simple this football management thing! I must have imagined how threatening Wednesday looked after Wells came on. I think the point is more, the only way to win games is by having shot (or shots) on target. We had none for 65+ minutes whilst leaving our leading scorer and main goal threat out. And we'll go down if we lose our away games conceding 3, and fail to have a single shot on target at home (where we may scrape a nil nil). So in this respect, I'd argue football is a fairly simple game. Put players on the pitch that a) score and b) stop us conceding goals. Play them in any formation you like, but play them, would be my simplistic view.
|
|
rocky
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,078
|
Post by rocky on Nov 24, 2014 10:44:24 GMT 1
Somebody else who thinks the only way to win games is by playing lots of attackers. Simple this football management thing! I must have imagined how threatening Wednesday looked after Wells came on. I think the point is more, the only way to win games is by having shot (or shots) on target. We had none for 65+ minutes whilst leaving our leading scorer and main goal threat out. And we'll go down if we lose our away games conceding 3, and fail to have a single shot on target at home (where we may scrape a nil nil). So in this respect, I'd argue football is a fairly simple game.
Put players on the pitch that a) score and b) stop us conceding goals.Play them in any formation you like, but play them, would be my simplistic view. Can't argue with that logic mate! The reason I was defending CP was there have been quite a few posts about his perceived negative tactics & I don't think that's the case at all. Look at the goals for & against by all the teams below 10th in the table. There is only 1 that have scored more than us, yet only 1 has conceded more (happens to be Fulham in both cases). We can score, yet we concede far too many & CP has to balance everything. As I said yesterday, he has to take the opposition into account. Wednesday are very strong away from home & break with lots of pace. Powell obviously thought that Holt, Wells, Bunn & Scannell all starting would leave us wide open. I just think it's ridiculous to suggest he is a negative manager & that is clearly borne out by the stats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 10:45:34 GMT 1
In the formation that Powell selected then Holt over Wells anyday for me. I thought our other joint leading league scorer had a mare today (Bunn) I thought him and Scannell just came up against 2 really good full backs thats all
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Nov 24, 2014 11:03:51 GMT 1
Dull - I thought our patches of midfield dominance let us play some nice football at times in the first half. That chance set up for Scannell was as good a bit of football you are likely to see. It came directly because Butterfield could get his head up and pick out a pass. Only denied by a brilliant bit of defending. When we only play 2 in midfield Butterfield is rarely allowed the time to get his head up. I think Nahki is far from the hottest striker in the division. However, I thought he did well yesterday and did what all good strikers do - got in the position to score - regardless of whether he scored or not. I reckon Butterfield is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to breaking down our own attacking play. Time and time again he tries to pick out the long ball to the wing, slowing the game down. The ball is always at chest height, which means the receiver has to control it before going forward. You know how many assists Butterfield has in his entire career other than at Barnsley? Two in over eighty games. They might look nice, but they are not effective. I think he is one of our best players and I've enjoyed watching him this season much more than I've enjoyed watching other midfielders we have had over the last several seasons. Can't actually remember him hitting too many longish passes out to the wide men. He wouldn't have got an "assist" if Scannell had scored the goal in the first half. However, he supplied the critical pass in the build up to put Smith through.
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Nov 24, 2014 11:07:39 GMT 1
Back to the original point. In our last home game we battered Forest, Wells started, scored a superb goal. He should have started on Satueday - with Holt & either Scannell or Bunn on the bench. Holt did not have his best game (far from it) but he was isolated with both Bunn & Scannell 20 yards away. He needs a striker to play up front with him & Wells is the right guy. He has scored 9 goals so to have him on the bench is poor management - full stop. Comma, why would you drop Holt, Scannell or Bunn? Its a fair point if you say we should have started with the same line up as started against Forest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 11:10:41 GMT 1
I reckon Butterfield is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to breaking down our own attacking play. Time and time again he tries to pick out the long ball to the wing, slowing the game down. The ball is always at chest height, which means the receiver has to control it before going forward. You know how many assists Butterfield has in his entire career other than at Barnsley? Two in over eighty games. They might look nice, but they are not effective. I think he is one of our best players and I've enjoyed watching him this season much more than I've enjoyed watching other midfielders we have had over the last several seasons. Can't actually remember him hitting too many longish passes out to the wide men. He wouldn't have got an "assist" if Scannell had scored the goal in the first half. However, he supplied the critical pass in the build up to put Smith through. He certainly offers something different and is very involved, but he does go for the long pass more often than the rest of the team (other than defenders), something I think hinders the entire offence. I don't think we have replaced Clayton's goals and creativity with Butterfield alone. Butterfield + Coady don't do it either.
|
|
|
Post by terraceterrier on Nov 24, 2014 11:17:42 GMT 1
Back to the original point. In our last home game we battered Forest, Wells started, scored a superb goal. He should have started on Satueday - with Holt & either Scannell or Bunn on the bench. Holt did not have his best game (far from it) but he was isolated with both Bunn & Scannell 20 yards away. He needs a striker to play up front with him & Wells is the right guy. He has scored 9 goals so to have him on the bench is poor management - full stop. Comma, why would you drop Holt, Scannell or Bunn? Its a fair point if you say we should have started with the same line up as started against Forest.
This is CP's quandary arguable these 3 are our top attacking players this season. To get Wells in a starting lineup that includes Holt Scanz and Bunn I feel he thinks he would have to go a conventional 4-4-2 and the problem with this is it MIGHT mean we cant control centre midfield. The only other way is to go 3-5-2 and Scanz and Bunn are the wing backs
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Nov 24, 2014 11:22:33 GMT 1
I think Butterfield is as creative as Clayton but can actually run with the ball as well. Comparisons are difficult because they play in different areas of the pitch in a differently balanced midfield. I think Coady has been brilliant - but CP made a mistake playing him where he did v Wednesday.
I've not noticed a problem with the balance of Butterfields passing - some short and some cross field and a bit longer. What was very clear at Fulham for example was that he was getting into some great positions around the box, looked up to pick the incisive pass, and there was no one in there to pass to. It would be great if we could get Wells in the box making his runs and Butterfield outside the box with his head up! They are not mutually exclusive but as a team we haven't found a way to do that yet on a consistent basis.
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Nov 24, 2014 11:26:08 GMT 1
Comma, why would you drop Holt, Scannell or Bunn? Its a fair point if you say we should have started with the same line up as started against Forest.
This is CP's quandary arguable these 3 are our top attacking players this season. To get Wells in a starting lineup that includes Holt Scanz and Bunn I feel he thinks he would have to go a conventional 4-4-2 and the problem with this is it MIGHT mean we cant control centre midfield. The only other way is to go 3-5-2 and Scanz and Bunn are the wing backs
Too true - but when CP tried the 3-5-2 at Ipswich Dixon and Smith were the wingbacks. He would have got slaughtered on Saturday for starting with that line up. That's the same dilemma that Robins faced last season and tried to solve it by converting Hammill to a wing back. Worked pretty well for a while. CP's real quandary though is what to do in January when Holt goes back to Wigan.
|
|
|
Post by shawsie on Nov 24, 2014 11:40:59 GMT 1
Too much being made of this imo - i too was disappointed on sat with a laboured performance, but on reflection i think we have to credit wed as much as bemoan town. Cp stated after fulham he was sick of conceding soft goals and had to put it right .......and promptly did so. Keeping a clean sheet is as vital for the back line as scoring is for the strikers.......the manager and players have taken a team rooted at the foot of the league along with blackpool and put us in mid table within 8/10 weeks - massive progress and if along the way we have a slight disappointment we have to take it and move on, because the games dont come any easier. Bolton, brentford, norwich and a massively improved brum before xmas and then rovrum, bolton again over xmas itself......if we can enter the new year with 30 pts plus we should all be very happy given where we were when the manager arrived. Gut feel is it might be nearer 26/28.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 11:58:16 GMT 1
town always struggle against teams who can put emselves about a bit. If Robins had still been here we'd have lost that game on saturday, but we coped pretty well against a very physical side.
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Nov 24, 2014 12:13:45 GMT 1
town always struggle against teams who can put emselves about a bit. If Robins had still been here we'd have lost that game on saturday, but we coped pretty well against a very physical side. Thought we were better against Fulham but got nowt - you have to take your points where you can in this div.
|
|