James Bailey

Could do with his hair cutting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Aye he needs a suede head.

 

Very average player who appears to be more concerned about his looks and hairstyle than the standard of his performance on the field.
More worrying is the form of Hourihane who was very poor also. We know the ability is there but the lads confidence levels appear very low at the moment.

 

Bailey plays in front of the back 4. He steps in between the two centre halves and then tries to move the ball forward. We have seems some good distribution at times. In fact Jay has commented on this often. When he was replaced, Berry took up the same role. Unfortunately how many options have we seen the last two games in a midfield of 3 to play the ball out from the back to? When we have players wide and a diamond point or two attacking mid behind the front man we have options. 5 vs 3 didn't work for us but worked nicely for Chesterfield, S****horpe and Colchester who were a little unlucky it didn't for them. I don't recall many attacks where we carried the ball through midfield. In fact the crowd get impatient when we stop look up and find there are no options on, no runs down the channel, no-one dropping to receive in the centre. People shout to hoof it forward. Then we wonder why the players who don't want to give possession away and pass sideways or back. Don't get me wrong we had a very slow tempo and when we did look up from the back we moved the ball far too slow. But anyone who thinks that the players were at fault individually for the last two defeats are misguided. I can't imagine the instructions that were given for our formation today as to me we looked disorganised from start to finish. Its not the first time either when we play a weakened midfield

 

Bailey comes short from half way line to recieve ball off Nyatanga, he then plays it straight back to Nyatanga, who then does with the ball what he could have done first time round.

 

Just think we get overrun and outnumbered in midfield playing the diamond . Time to go back to 4-4-2 and get some width in our play

 

Come on Jay. We gave them chances because we were pushing forward looking for a goal. Bailey was very poor, his part in the second goal he should be embarrassed about. A defensive midfielder who won't put a challenge in. He had a couple of opportunities to nick the ball on that goal but didn't for some unknown reason. He has been largely poor for us.

 

People will say he's not a defensive midfielder and I suppose that would be true as he does not have any attributes required of someone in a defensive role. Unfortunately he doesn't have any attributes required of someone in an offensive role either. Pointless player.

I've just watched the highlights and I'm absolutely livid with him about the second goal. Complete embarrassment. Wouldn't get a shirt for me tomorrow.

 

Agree with that. And i agree with you that he is as ineffective as David Fox. Very poor signing.

 

It's a worry that players of this type are becoming more and more common place. At every level of the game.

 

Poor signing but Wilson has signed plenty worse since returning to the club.

 

This diamond midfield formation with Bobby H at the base of it would have been great. I really like Bailey as a footballer, but not in that role.

 

True.

 

Where from and who with?

 

Or the spreadsheet has...

 

I thought that Bailey looked very effective when we had Williams in the side. The absence of Williams and the fact that for the last 3 games, we have been outnumbered in midfield are the reasons that Bailey has become less effective. We were moving the ball so slowly on Saturday, and there was so little room ahead of the passer that it would have been difficult for any midfield player to look good. Also, without a target man, we are so predictable because the long pass pretty much equals giving the ball away. Anyone doubting what I have just written should have done what I did. In order to see why we were having so much trouble getting the ball forward, I took my eyes away from the player with the ball and looked at the space and the movement ahead of the passer.

If you want to see how hard it is to play in a three man midfield when facing a five, then just play a 5-a-side for 90 minutes and see how well you compete after the first 20. It is this irrational targeting of individual players that the most destructive aspect of this place. There is a belief by some posters, keen to promote their own brand of football logic that reasons are excuses and only the soft offer excuses for poor performances. Not so! Reasons have to be found for poor performances or you cannot correct what went wrong. Where those reasons are unequivocally the poor performance of an individual player, then he must take the blame. But when the reason for a poor performance is as obvious as it was on Saturday, the manager takes part of the blame and an injury to a player who is vitally important to the balance of the team take the other part. To blame Bailey in such circumstances is to exercise an agenda which is unhelpful.

 

Nobody is blaming him for our loss, that's just what you've decided we are doing. He didn't play well though and has had other poor games, he's also had good games. We all watch the games, we may not write essays like you choose to, but rather just simply call it as we see it. His contribution to the 2nd goal was poor.

Agree about the lack of movement mind, it was glaring on Saturday.

 

All fair but not an excuse for getting beaten far too easily

 

You are right that Bailey was at least partly to blame for the second goal, but only partly. As I recall, and I have not seen any replay, Ramage was originally at fault for the poor touch that took the ball to Madden, his second poor touch of the game as a matter of fact. He went to ground, putting himself out of the game, got up and chased Madden for 30 yards, unable to make any ground. Bailey's challenge was ineffective, but did slow Madden down enough for Ramage to catch him, but he was still unable to make a tackle on Madden. I see no hint in this topic of Ramage's part in the debacle, even though he was 75% to blame, just blame heaped upon Bailey, just one member of an under strength midfield.

Perhaps people are looking for a scapegoat for a poor goal and because Ramage is a favourite, his part can be ignored. Now Ramage remained on the ground for some time after the goal, and it may well be that he was already injured, and that this injury contributed to his part in the goal. It is a possible explanation, and I an happy to accept explanations.

 

It's a fair point, and Ramage has taken a bit of stick on here since Saturday.

Agree about the under strength midfield, for which DW has to take the blame. Bit of arrogance maybe that we think we can stick 3 forwards on the pitch and we'll win, it was only Scunny after all. Personally I think we need to win the mf battle to get a foothold in any game. Hoping to see some width in our mf too, but we are lacking the personnel in the squad unfortunately. But again that is up to the manager to balance the squad.