Things that i noticed people put yesterday

Re: At no point on Saturday did we play 4-4-2

It certianly wasn't the 4-4-2 we played earlier in the season as a diamond formation. It was a lop-sided 4-3-1-2 with Cywka playing on the left. And no-one playing on the right at all. Presumably assuming Stones would push on and provide the width. Except that didn't work, and anything we created was from Golbourne because he had the support of a man in front of him. Despite the fact Cywka was crap. So in short, it was confused. Still should of won though.

Not sure why people keep bringing up RNL though, he was injured.

 

By not playing a 4-4-2 it seems to me that Keith Hill thinks our two central midfielders aren't good/strong enough, which is why he tends to "pack" the midfield?

Hill is way out of his depth and he knows it........maybe dropping down a league will allow him to look a better manager against lower league opposition?

I've had a ST for >30 years and it will take something monumental for this club that I love, to get me to buy one for next season. END.

 

Also, our best results and performances weren't with 4-5-1

They were with a diamond formation in midfield and two up front, like at Birmingham, although Dagnall played slightly off Davies.

 

Re: Also, our best results and performances weren't with 4-5-1

I was on about last season. 4-5-1 with Davies as lone striker with five man midfield of Vaz/Drinkwater/Perkins/JOB/Buttercup.

 

Re: Also, our best results and performances weren't with 4-5-1

Sorry about that. You clearly state so in your previous post. I must have been reading with my eyes shut. Apologies.

 

Couldn't agree more, Hemsy, me owd. Our weakness is that we're crap! The oppositions strength is that they're usually better than us! Except Saturday when we simply couldn't score.

 

Good spot.

 

What I noticed, even whilst they were warming up, was how tall Wednesday were as a side. It was clear that we had to changed our central defense or we risked failing to win a header all game. No complaints there from most of those posting on here I suspect, although the reasoning may be different. However, it did affect our ability to pass the ball from the centre of defense, and consequently, we saw mamy more balls hit long, playing right into the Wednesday game plan. Most on here would argue about the midfield formation. I have watched us play teams of giants before, and they tend to try to spoil in midfield... knock it up in the air, compete using their power and knock us about. Sadly, we do not have the Redfearn type anymore who could sort that sort of business out, get it down and play.

Wednesday were allowed to dominate the game with their style of play in the first half and we never got to impose ourselves on the game until Perkins appeared, and we began to attack on the floor. I think that Keith saw this coming and did not want to relinquish control over central midfield by using width to leave just two small players in red in that important area. Perkins appeared when we were already behind, and consequently had nothing to lose. I think on reflection that we would have been better with 5 there, but how many home fans would have been happy with one striker at home against our nearest and dearest.

I will not dwell upon Stones, but will refer you to the Davies/Tudgay combo. One moment in the second half summed them up for me. A cross from the left was won by Tudgay beyond the far post and he headed it back paralleling the 6 yard box. Instead of instinctively attacking the space like a natural fox in the box, Davies was standing on his heels expecting nothing. As a result of his slow reactions/lack of foresight, their defense reacted first to close up the gap and hurriedly clear. The problem is, he is not a fox in the box, and he never will be. He scores a different type of goal, mainly strikes from distance, which is why he likes to carry the ball in from the left across the face of the opposition defense, looking for the space to strike spectacularly. Strike partners need to be different so that they instinctively take up different positions. The problem is that most of our are alike. Only Dagnall is different, and we all know what his problem is.

The game was up when Keith brought on a third forward and we attacked down the central 30 yards, and I do not understand why he did this.

I have seen most of our our loanees for long enough now to make some conclusions. Now that Perkins is fit, Greening is no longer needed. He slows the game down and is not a constructive passer. Buzsaky is no better than Mellis and their inclusion can only be justified in a 4-5-1 system, in my opinion of course. Tudgay is the most difficult to assess, because I think he is a good player. If Davies was to leave, I think Tudgay would be a decent replacement, but the team is desperate for a sniffer if we are to stand any chance at all of scoring the goals that will keep us in this league.

 

Step forward, Christopher Dagnall.

 

We lost so how did it work??

Although I suppose it shows what you actually know about working.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwW3ytid4DA

 

England's best team at cricket enforced changes apart has been based around a core of the same players for the last five years or so.

Consistently picking the same team will deliver the results. At home especially you set your stall out and let them worry about you not the other way around.

Load of rubbish suggesting otherwise....

 

Dont understand you sometimes Hemsie, other week you said Steele was poor at Hull cos he cost us a goal and now Wiseman played well at Leicester even tho he was at fault for 2 of the goals.

Make ya mind up.

 

I felt that Steele didn't have much to do at Kingston communication. I'll be honest apart from one or two good saves.
Wiseman did a lot right there and the change worked for that game.

 

Load of ****

 

Are you here today?

 

What do you mean?

 

Only joking Hemsie, I say it to people to confuse em.