Much has been made of the defeats in the last two away games. Most of the comments are a reaction to disappointment of a season which has ended early. Like the comments that followed our rise to 7th place in the league, they are an over-reaction. Many ignored the logic of our situation. They saw the strength of our league position and they refuse to acknowledge any logical argument about our results being better than the team. It is all about opinion, and when you are not required to provide the safety net, it is easy to be bullish and to argue for investment, forsaking the caution of older, and perhaps, wiser heads. Even the announcement of the loss on trading last season and Mr Cryne’s continued investment in the club failed to introduce any realism to the situation. I always had a different view. I always expected the outcome that we eventually saw in the January transfer window. It was the only sensible thing to do. I was always one of those who saw survival in the Championship as our primary aim this season. As a result, I am not disappointed with the turn of events in January, and because I am not shouldering the weight of that disappointment, I am able to look at those events with a much more balanced view. I do not think that the club has missed its chance because it was very much an outsider’s chance in a 12 horse race. Disappointed people say foolish and hurtful things. They want to punish someone because their hopes have disappeared, albeit that those hopes were unrealistic. They react by trying to punish those who have contributed most, those who they believe will be hurt most by their comments. I do not agree that the club has been badly run since Mr Cryne took over. In fact, I am grateful that his ambition and wealth has seen him invest so heavily in the club that I have supported for most of my 66 years. But I see the club for what it is, a club that holds is own against the odds, a club that has to watch the pennies, a club that in most seasons relies on the financial support of its owner, a club that has had just 1 season in the top division throughout its long history and which has no logical right to hold a place in the Premier League. Although I am older now, I still look forward to August and the new season. It is going to be a very busy summer, with plenty of comings and goings. The new season will bring with it plenty to praise and grumble about, but that is football, as many of the younger posters will realise when there are a few more years on their backs. The Ipswich game is my first chance to compare my realistic approach to watching our team with some of the descriptions that I have read on here after our recent defeats at Derby and QPR. This is what I think: The atmosphere had an end of season feel to it. The teams seemed to struggle to get going, and I was surprised to see McCarthy pick his team with a back three and wing backs. They had come to make life difficult for us. By the end of the first half, Barnsley had had most of the ball, but Ipswich had missed the better chances. The half time conversation revolved around square pegs and round holes. Bradshaw played as the target man. Our first thought after we had won back possession was to knock it up to Bradshaw, and 9 times out of 10, Berra took it off him. Many will say that Bradshaw had a poor game, but he is just not strong enough to play that position. I am not being harsh here, because no forward at the club is strong enough to play in that position. Bradshaw was just unfortunate to draw the short straw this week. He does not deserve to be hammered because he is doing his best in a position that his play does not suit. Similarly, Armstrong is a player who will be in his element on the shoulder of the last man, in a team that dominates midfield. Today, he was asked to play deeper than Bradshaw and help out with a midfield that was over-stretched by the opposition formation. Once again, he did his best, but it was clear to see that he was another square peg struggling to fit a round hole. For all our possession, our goal came on the break when James won the ball and caught Ipswich out position. Marley Watkins showed us what we are going to miss next year as he found the strength and the pace to hold off two defenders and keep his head to score. After that, the game became more open and McCarthy used his bench to bring on pace, going more direct. We had chances on the break to score a second and finish off the game, but when we did not, tiredness began to show in those who had worked the hardest. Our midfield players could no longer get back into position when the ball was lost, and Ipswich threw everyone forward in search of the equaliser, as they were duty bound to do. When the equaliser came, we looked in total disarray with so many players away from where they should have been, and out of position. The problem is that since January we have had to work so hard to cover our team deficiencies that our energy reserves had become depleted. The work that had been done in the last three games especially finally told. As you can tell, I am by no means as angry as many who passed me dressed in red. Basically, I am less competitive when the result has few consequences. For me, it was an indicator of what is needed this summer, and top of my list would be a player who can play as a target man.
With £10-12M in the club coffers (or entirely justifiably mostly repatriated into Mr Cryne's coffers) this last half season was what may turn out to be a unique opportunity. We did not need the comparatively trivial amounts that the sales of Bree, Winnall and Hourihane brought in. Our chance of playoff glory was comparatively small. But I estimate it was probably twice as likely (still unlikely) had we retained Winnall and Hourihane. They were contracted to us. We could have insisted they stay until June. If we felt guilty about their denied opportunity, we could have compensated them for the remainder of their contract accordingly. This afternoon's result was not important. But it was a demonstration of what happens when you offload your most creative midfield player and your most prolific striker. There is no guarantee that the seedcorn players we bring in will turn out to be as good, or as open to development as the squad prior to the January window. There is, in my view, a very fine line between the good season we have had (even now) and the downturn which Rotherham have experienced this time around. Armstrong and Bradshaw are both very good players. But it is utterly pointless to select them and to then allow the ball to spend so much time in the air - even though Bradshaw pops up with the odd headed goal. They need balls on the ground - through balls to run on to. And we should have brought on an extra defender for Armstrong or Bradshaw once we got to the last tem minutes. That's my view.
Don't tell me what my faults are. I'm married, and have somebody full time to tell me that. Tell me why you disagree with me and why I'm wrong. Then maybe I will learn something new about the game.
When people do that you say you will ignore them as they are unable to engage with you. I will say that I completely disagree that Armstrong is a hard worker.
Armstrong is young. He came here to learn his trade at a higher level than he was used to. That is what we do. We take young players and make them better. Armstrong is naturally quick. He is also quite small and lightweight. If we wanted the best out of him, we would play him in a position that made best use of his talents. Yesterday, because the team does not have a target man, and because Ipswich played 3-5-2, he had to help out in a position where he is not best suited to. You may well be right. He may well prove to be average. All that I am saying is that yesterday was not the day to make that judgement.
When was the last time the team played a target man? but we still insist on playing long high balls down the middle or down "the channels"
Surely as part of making him better we would want to enable him to play in different ways. In fact, Hecky has spoken about this. What bothers me most about him is not that we don't play to his perceived strengths as doing so would weaken us as a team but that he has absolutely no work rate whatsoever. Bradshaw isn't the target man you say we need but he works works and works. Armstrong does not. I cannot see any value in still starting him. Play Watkins, play Lee, play Brown. Someone who might be here next season who could benefit from games.
I definitely take the point about him being young and he can certainly develop. All season I have felt that we do not play to his perceived strengths at the same time above L1 level the times that the centre forward is running away from defenders 1 on 1 with the keeper are very few and far between ( despite Marley doing that very thing yesterday). Defenders are faster and cleverer and if his to prosper he will need to adapt. He will also need to up his work rate. I'm not saying that we are, but if in the summer we wanted to spend decent money on a forward, I don't think many people would want that money spent on Armstrong. I guess I think he flatters to deceive.
You are drawing an inference that I had not intended to make. No Armstrong is not a particularly hard worker, but then again, sprinters aren't. If they were Usain Bolt would be running masathons.
The club does not have a target man. I hope that we will remedy that in the summer. Ipswich worked hard. They pressed the man with the ball. When they do that effectively, sometimes the only way out is hit the ball over the press.
It certainly allowed him to score a lot of goals in L1 where he outpaced lumbering centre halves 1 on 1 to svore the majority of his goals. He was never going to be able to do that higher up the pyramid so he has to develop his game somehow. At the minute he does not seem able to or willing to put the necessary work in to do so.
You have a point. At times on Saturday Armstrong looked a little boy lost. I argued at half time that we may have been better playing Watkins up front. He may not be a target man, but at least he fights. However, that means that he does not play wide, which leaves us with either Kent or Hedges or Williams wide. That might be fine normally, but Ipswich played with wing backs and Watkins is the better option against a wing back. He kept him pretty much pinned back for most of the game.
No, Armstrong is not at all what we need in the summer. I defend him because of his youth, and because he must find it frustrating that he is asked to play outside his comfort zone, if only to help the team. I see him as a Jermaine Defoe type, and you just cannot see Jermaine Defoe making a success of anything but out and out striker on the shoulder of the last defender. Of course, he is not as good as Defoe, and most likely will never be as good, but Defoe works as a illustration.
Shortly before Armstrong came to us Rafa Benitez signed him up on a new four-year deal. That tells you all you need to know about his quality, and whether we are getting the best out of him. It also makes it crystal clear we wouldn't have a hope in hell of signing him on a permanent deal.
I think his new contract says that Newcastle can gamble on protecting someone who may become an asset in the way we cannot. No more or less.
