He's had a decent season. Why is it when the team plays bad, Andy Gray is singled out? He holds the ball up, he never stops running, and he chips in with a few goals, okay he isn't exactly prolific, but 1 in 5 is better than a lot of strikers we've had in recent years, I think only Bogdanovic and Harewood better Gray in the last 5 years or so.
Re: We played 2 up front (from halfway through the first half) Many would keep their thoughts to themselves after a good win in which both forwards scored, but I am not one of the many, so here goes. If you look at the BBC statistics, we had less of the ball than did Hull. They dominated large parts of the game especially through midfield. Today we won with less of the ball, but on other occasions we will not. Butterfield was forced to spend long periods out of the game because he was sacrificed on behalf of the team. That is, our most constructive player was shuttled off to play a position that he is ill suited for. Why did this happen? Butterfield cannot be trusted to play central midfield in a midfield quartet, so his most effective position is behind the front man. In my view, there is no point him playing unless you play him there. The best forward pairings comprise two players who do not share the same attributes. For me, Gray and Davies are a pair that do share the same attributes, and specifically, they go not have the pace to force a defence to defence closer to their own goal. Haynes does have pace, and when he is fit, he could be the player to play in a two. So the choice is Butterfield and 4-4-1-1 or Haynes and 4-4-2. Pairing Gray and Davies makes no sense to me, but as I say, now may not be the best time to say so.
Re: We played 2 up front (from halfway through the first half) Don't think that changes his first touch and the way he brought others players in etc. Perkins made a big difference. He goes forwarsd, Doyle goes backwards.
Re: We played 2 up front (from halfway through the first half) Good post, and I agree. While it was exciting to watch and we scored a couple we were miles too open, getting caught down our left too often as Butterfield didn't track back. I'd have brought him off much earlier for Done. But I disagree with Davies/Gray. Think Davies has more than enough pace and movement, seen by his chances these last few games. Loads better facing the goal than Gray who's our best/only target man.
You've lost me Both Gray and Davies could have scored 3 each tonight. They both had three very good chances. That's 6 chances just for the 2 forwards. In one night! We were half way in to September before we'd had six shots on goal!
Re: You've lost me We were also very open in midfield and Hull made as many chances as we did. We were saved by our excellent keeper. If you are confident that we can win an open game because our forwards are better at taking chances than are our opponents, then you have to justify that by pointing out the excellence of our finishing. I usually arrive at games early and watch the finishing practice that our players do before the games. Andy Gray is by far the best finisher in these practice sessions. Davies is the worst. As you point out, we missed 4 good chances. I would also point out that their keeper made an absolute mess of fielding Drinkwater's shot for the second goal. Had that happened at the other end, our fans would have been howling for the head of our keeper. I do not say that 4-4-2 is always wrong. I am simply pointing out that 4-4-2 is never always right either. The system used should depend on the strengths of our team and the strengths of the opposition. Given the circumstances of his appointment, the lack of funds at his disposal and the injury situation that he has come through our manager has done an amazing job in amassing the points total he has. In these circumstances, I found your concerted campaign against him after the result on Saturday hard to bear. You clearly have an agenda, and it is an agenda that I believe is not helpful to the club that I have supported for 45 years.
It's not about formations and systems then It's that you didn't like what I said about the manager. You could have saved a lot of time and effort by just stating that from the beginning.
Re: It's not about formations and systems then Look, you are an intelligent poster who I follow because you generally have interesting things to say. Your style is generally the one line comment which means that you can be read quite quickly. You rarely explain your conclusions which could be taken for arrogance, but I will let that pass for now. Because of your writting style you have many followers, as I say, I am one. Nevertheless, when I disagree with you, I intend to say so. On the matter of 4-4-2, I disagree and on the matter of attacking the manager because he does not play that system for all the home games, I also disagree. As I have said, I regard you as an intelligent poster, but if you think that you can say that you were not booing on Saturday, and yet you are upset by the manager's mild comments about those who were, then you have offended my intelligence. I believe that the club needs to stop changing managers every year and a half. My position is consistent, I have taken the same view every since Spackman, who was the last manager I thought did deserve to go.
Re: It's not about formations and systems then If you ever see me calling for the manager's head on here then please feel free to call me up on it. I've been using the BBS for over 10 years now and it seems to me I've spent a lot of that time putting forward my opinion on why a manager shouldn't be sacked. So if you think I want Keith Hill gone, if you think I've got an agenda then you're very much mistaken. I didn't like his comments at the weekend, I didn't like his comments when we lost our other home matches, but it's big leap to go from me disagreeing about those, however vociferous I may have been, to me wanting him sacked. As far as 4-4-2 goes I've never said we should play it every game. I don't for a minute think if we play it every week we'll win every game. I said that I thought it made the difference last night. I believe Hull are our biggest scalp this season. They're by far the highest placed club we've beaten. Not only did we beat them but we created more chances than we have done in any other game. In my opinion that was due to us playing 2 strikers up front.
Re: It's not about formations and systems then In Jay's defence - and we had a long debate about this yesterday - I think his main issue was with Hill's post-match comments which, to be fair, are not Hill's strong point. Personally I think we are in a catch-22 situation with two up front. We look more likely to score but are much more exposed and don't retain the ball as well. Furthermore, Butterfield is far from effective. What pleases me is that we do now have options - I was particularly worried early season as to who would play Butterfield's role if he got injured. I don't think we have anyone who could, so given his contract situation and the potential for injuries in a long season, to have an alternative way of playing is very useful. I'm not sure Gray and Davies are too similar. I actually think they are quite different and Gray is an essential part of how we play. If Davies is to get in the time it will be at the expense of Haynes. Gray makes the space and retains the ball. I thought Davies has done very well to exploit the gaps in behind that Gray is creating, but I also think Haynes may be able to exploit them equally well, if not more. Either way, I think we are reaching a point where we have alternative systems and as the injury problems clear alternative players that Hill can change as the oppostion demands. I do think Hill, with a fully fit squad will prefer to play a lone striker but in doing so that will place a lot of onus on the midfield to contribute with more goals than they currently are. More importantly its good to have a proper debate about his tactics rather than his words, which I think is the original point Jay was making after Saturday
