|
Post by Ricc on Dec 29, 2017 10:42:39 GMT
Certainly not blameless - but not exclusively. Why did he tell McMahon to not bother defending on Saturday? I'll give you the money myself if he did.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Dec 29, 2017 10:47:25 GMT
I'm not blaming Stuart for this one - thought he set up nicely attacking. I just don't think you can legislate for do many of your first-teamers playing so utterly shit.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Dec 29, 2017 10:54:38 GMT
Why did he tell McMahon to not bother defending on Saturday? I'll give you the money myself if he did. Well someone told him to not bother defending, are you suggesting the players don't follow orders?
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Dec 29, 2017 10:57:47 GMT
I'm not blaming Stuart for this one - thought he set up nicely attacking. I just don't think you can legislate for do many of your first-teamers playing so utterly shit. To be fair to McCall he's damned if does damned if he doesn't sometimes. Fans have been bitching about wanting two wide players on the flanks, he does it with Robinson and Gilliead and then gets pelters for it. Gives the fans what they want then gets a slating. Theres a reason he played a midfield three, to stop us being opened up like the red sea.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Dec 29, 2017 11:14:49 GMT
I'm not blaming Stuart for this one - thought he set up nicely attacking. I just don't think you can legislate for do many of your first-teamers playing so utterly shit. To be fair to McCall he's damned if does damned if he doesn't sometimes. Fans have been bitching about wanting two wide players on the flanks, he does it with Robinson and Gilliead and then gets pelters for it. Gives the fans what they want then gets a slating. Theres a reason he played a midfield three, to stop us being opened up like the red sea. I honestly don't think the formation or selection was to blame. If McMahon and the like are going to turn in a performance like that we'd have been bummed even if we'd been allowed an extra man. I think the blame for this one begins and ends with the players. McMahon, Vincelot, Thompson etc. are where I point the finger and I just hope to fuck McCall dropped the pals act for once and let them know they were fucking shite.
|
|
|
Post by Nice boy on Dec 29, 2017 11:19:23 GMT
I'm not blaming Stuart for this one - thought he set up nicely attacking. I just don't think you can legislate for do many of your first-teamers playing so utterly shit. To be fair to McCall he's damned if does damned if he doesn't sometimes. Fans have been bitching about wanting two wide players on the flanks, he does it with Robinson and Gilliead and then gets pelters for it. Gives the fans what they want then gets a slating. Theres a reason he played a midfield three, to stop us being opened up like the red sea. I still maintain that playing with 2 out and out wingers can work but you have to set up more defensively in the centre for it to do so. By playing with 2 genuine wingers AND putting law in the centre, getting overrun is inevitable as only one out of the 6 players across midfield and up front have a primary role to "provide cover". That ratio is ridiculously high. On the other hand I think we'd see better results if Dieng and maybe Reeves were to sit back so we don't get opened up and we have our attacking play coming from both wings, which Imo would be difficult to defend against. We'd also have everyone across midfield playing their natural game.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Dec 29, 2017 11:30:19 GMT
To be fair to McCall he's damned if does damned if he doesn't sometimes. Fans have been bitching about wanting two wide players on the flanks, he does it with Robinson and Gilliead and then gets pelters for it. Gives the fans what they want then gets a slating. Theres a reason he played a midfield three, to stop us being opened up like the red sea. I still maintain that playing with 2 out and out wingers can work but you have to set up more defensively in the centre for it to do so. By playing with 2 genuine wingers AND putting law in the centre, getting overrun is inevitable as only one out of the 6 players across midfield and up front have a primary role to "provide cover". That ratio is ridiculously high. On the other hand I think we'd see better results if Dieng and maybe Reeves were to sit back so we don't get opened up and we have our attacking play coming from both wings, which Imo would be difficult to defend against. We'd also have everyone across midfield playing their natural game. I agree with this and have said similar before. With our line up of centre midfielders we've got plenty of defensive cover in there so we should, in theory, be better geared towards two wingers than most. Playing with two wingers would not only give us much needed attacking impetus but, as you say, would stop us trying to force round pegs into square holes every game.
|
|
|
Post by Ricc on Dec 29, 2017 11:36:26 GMT
I'll give you the money myself if he did. Well someone told him to not bother defending, are you suggesting the players don't follow orders? I'm suggesting that he's an unprofessional lazy fuckwit that was too lethargic after his christmas food and booze to turn in a performance.
|
|
|
Post by Bacon on Dec 29, 2017 11:37:45 GMT
To be fair to McCall he's damned if does damned if he doesn't sometimes. Fans have been bitching about wanting two wide players on the flanks, he does it with Robinson and Gilliead and then gets pelters for it. Gives the fans what they want then gets a slating. Theres a reason he played a midfield three, to stop us being opened up like the red sea. I still maintain that playing with 2 out and out wingers can work but you have to set up more defensively in the centre for it to do so. By playing with 2 genuine wingers AND putting law in the centre, getting overrun is inevitable as only one out of the 6 players across midfield and up front have a primary role to "provide cover". That ratio is ridiculously high. On the other hand I think we'd see better results if Dieng and maybe Reeves were to sit back so we don't get opened up and we have our attacking play coming from both wings, which Imo would be difficult to defend against. We'd also have everyone across midfield playing their natural game. You're spot on here, well done, especially as it's not really your game.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Dec 29, 2017 11:39:18 GMT
I still maintain that playing with 2 out and out wingers can work but you have to set up more defensively in the centre for it to do so. By playing with 2 genuine wingers AND putting law in the centre, getting overrun is inevitable as only one out of the 6 players across midfield and up front have a primary role to "provide cover". That ratio is ridiculously high. On the other hand I think we'd see better results if Dieng and maybe Reeves were to sit back so we don't get opened up and we have our attacking play coming from both wings, which Imo would be difficult to defend against. We'd also have everyone across midfield playing their natural game. I agree with this and have said similar before. With our line up of centre midfielders we've got plenty of defensive cover in there so we should, in theory, be better geared towards two wingers than most. Playing with two wingers would not only give us much needed attacking impetus but, as you say, would stop us trying to force round pegs into square holes every game. Problem is where are our 2 wingers. Robinson is still finding his way and Gilliead isn't an out and out winger. We leave Vince as a central two and be prepared to be opened up. We played two wide men against Peterborough and provided nothing. Wyke could benefit from two wide men but Taylor wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Dec 29, 2017 11:44:31 GMT
Also true. Better wingers would be a boon.
Our recruitment needs to seriously improve before we ever get to The Championship.
|
|
|
Post by Ricc on Dec 29, 2017 11:44:39 GMT
Robinson is better off where he started - on the bench til about 65/70 minutes.
|
|