Jump to content
IGNORED

Marlon Pack


DavidNoble

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, DavidNoble said:

Not in the matchday squad but did the warm up so not injured and I didn't see anything about him being suspended?

Anyone know what went on there?

Think it's just a position we've got lots of options in. The midfield LJ picked today was high energy and designed to press Reading. It worked for the most part. I guess the plan was to shift the central midfielders about if we were losing early on. Probably not a game for Marlon today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Think it's just a position we've got lots of options in. The midfield LJ picked today was high energy and designed to press Reading. It worked for the most part. I guess the plan was to shift the central midfielders about if we were losing early on. Probably not a game for Marlon today.

 

Press?? Did you watch the game? 9 defenders behind the ball inviting pressure is not pressing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Think it's just a position we've got lots of options in. The midfield LJ picked today was high energy and designed to press Reading. It worked for the most part. I guess the plan was to shift the central midfielders about if we were losing early on. Probably not a game for Marlon today.

 

Maybe not, but if you are going to try and hold on to a lead (as we clearly did), how much more useful on the bench would he be than having 2 wingers, 2 strikers and Bobby Reid? 

Apart from a kid who had never featured before all our outfield subs were attacking players.

This just sums up the complete lack of planning by him, what would have happened if Flint had gone over on his ankle after 5 minutes?

His subs, in fact even more than his bizarre starting XI (Matthews at CB, FFS) were a complete shambles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nickolas said:

Press?? Did you watch the game? 9 defenders behind the ball inviting pressure is not pressing. 

 

Spot on - we pressed on half a dozen occasions and it worked quite well.  The rest of the time we stood offor them and let them have it like they were ******* Barcelona - inept and embarrassing again....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone asked me today who I wanted holding CDM, Smith or Pack; 90% sure I would choose Pack, much quicker to offload the ball, and his passes wide could've made us much more effective.

Smith made one tackle I was in the first half that was not a foul. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He probably had the same impact on the game from the stand (bar missing a good chance) as Korey the passenger.

Should have been in the team in my opinion, but to not even have him on the bench is utter madness. But to be fair not a level of madness that compares with playing an unfit, uninterested right back at centre half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Maybe not, but if you are going to try and hold on to a lead (as we clearly did), how much more useful on the bench would he be than having 2 wingers, 2 strikers and Bobby Reid? 

Apart from a kid who had never featured before all our outfield subs were attacking players.

This just sums up the complete lack of planning by him, what would have happened if Flint had gone over on his ankle after 5 minutes?

His subs, in fact even more than his bizarre starting XI (Matthews at CB, FFS) were a complete shambles.

He'd always be in the squad if it was me. I rate his ability to keep possession as well as his height winning the ball in the air. I felt our midfield were a bit intimidated by Maite's size and directness and couldn't handle Kelly's movement - Pack could've helped with that.  

I was trying to unpick the theoretical reasons why he may not have featured but it's also possible he's fallen out with LJ like the rumours about Tomlin and O'Neil.

That said, I was pretty impressed with Bryan/Brownhill today (especially Brownhill) and felt they had the makings of a good balanced pairing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Maybe not, but if you are going to try and hold on to a lead (as we clearly did), how much more useful on the bench would he be than having

2 wingers, 2 strikers and Bobby Reid? 

Apart from a kid who had never featured before all our outfield subs were attacking players.

This just sums up the complete lack of planning by him, what would have happened if Flint had gone over on his ankle after 5 minutes?

His subs, in fact even more than his bizarre starting XI (Matthews at CB, FFS) were a complete shambles.

We had 2 wingers on the bench? and yet when we took our wide men off we replaced them with a CM and a Target man ...... odd

and we had a RB at CB and dropped a £2m CB ...... again odd

Pack would have started in front of Smith for me, since he's come back he has been very poor. Nearly set up another goal today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

That said, I was pretty impressed with Bryan/Brownhill today (especially Brownhill) and felt they had the makings of a good balanced pairing. 

I wouldn't mind us playing 5 in midfield more often, Pack in the middle of Brownhill/Bryan allowing them to break when possible could work. 451 worked for 70 minutes today, we just bottled it when trying to settle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Think it's just a position we've got lots of options in. The midfield LJ picked today was high energy and designed to press Reading. It worked for the most part. I guess the plan was to shift the central midfielders about if we were losing early on. Probably not a game for Marlon today.

 

Sorry but designed to press reading I can't remember us doing that once all game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, stokes7 said:

Sorry but designed to press reading I can't remember us doing that once all game

I think the game plan was to let them have the ball in their half but close them down, win the ball and break quickly when we had a chance in our own half. Brownhill, Bryan and Smith are all - at their best - athletic and impetuous. I think that was the intention and for 70 mins we did pretty well at it.

I get that people don't like seeing an away team dominate position at home, but I'm pretty sure that's what we were trying to do. We haven't got the ability or confidence to try and out-pass them but at the same time we don't have the personnel to effectively pressure them into making mistakes for an entire game. Considering the lineup, especially the weaknesses in defence, I don't think we played that badly for the majority of the game. We just don't have the know-how, ability or perhaps the composure to see out games against superior opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a lot of things I liked today and a few I didn't. First off, the game plan was working. We didn't press until they were in our half(and until about 70th min). They had no answers and maybe one true chance up until they scored. 

Brownhill and Bryan I really like in midfield. Both strong enough and athletic enough. O'Dowda and Freeman had good games but I want to highlight O'Dowda. Good athlete and draws fouls. One of my wingers from now on. 

We really tired out which was part of the reason they got back in it. I have to say LJ really messed it up at the end putting players out of position and changing the formation. Individually I though most had a good game. Flint and Little were solid. Golbourne I think was good if not spectacular and Matthews did a job. 

I was most disappointed with our captain and holding midfielder Korey Smith. Didn't really notice him other than a few fouls and misplaced passes. Also Frank Fielding I think should've saved at least one of the goals. None in the corners and none hit particularly hard. Not good enough in the build up but keepers are asked to make saves when the defence breaks down. He needed to be better. Wilbraham added nothing when he came on. Not his fault he came on and I don't know why LJ expected of him but we weren't going to have much of the ball for him to hold up. Reid looked like he wasn't synced up with when to press and not to. Again not his fault the coach put him out of position but made no impact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

I think the game plan was to let them have the ball in their half but close them down, win the ball and break quickly when we had a chance in our own half. Brownhill, Bryan and Smith are all - at their best - athletic and impetuous. I think that was the intention and for 70 mins we did pretty well at it.

I get that people don't like seeing an away team dominate position at home, but I'm pretty sure that's what we were trying to do. We haven't got the ability or confidence to try and out-pass them but at the same time we don't have the personnel to effectively pressure them into making mistakes for an entire game. Considering the lineup, especially the weaknesses in defence, I don't think we played that badly for the majority of the game. We just don't have the know-how, ability or perhaps the composure to see out games against superior opponents.

That's my point we weren't pressing just allowing them to come on to us all game, only once or twice did we attempt to break quickly and low and behold that resulted in chances when you play one up top the midfield is meant to support and yet again it wasn't happening 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I saw a lot of things I liked today and a few I didn't. First off, the game plan was working. We didn't press until they were in our half(and until about 70th min). They had no answers and maybe one true chance up until they scored. 

Brownhill and Bryan I really like in midfield. Both strong enough and athletic enough. O'Dowda and Freeman had good games but I want to highlight O'Dowda. Good athlete and draws fouls. One of my wingers from now on. 

We really tired out which was part of the reason they got back in it. I have to say LJ really messed it up at the end putting players out of position and changing the formation. Individually I though most had a good game. Flint and Little were solid. Golbourne I think was good if not spectacular and Matthews did a job. 

I was most disappointed with our captain and holding midfielder Korey Smith. Didn't really notice him other than a few fouls and misplaced passes. Also Frank Fielding I think should've saved at least one of the goals. None in the corners and none hit particularly hard. Not good enough in the build up but keepers are asked to make saves when the defence breaks down. He needed to be better. Wilbraham added nothing when he came on. Not his fault he came on and I don't know why LJ expected of him but we weren't going to have much of the ball for him to hold up. Reid looked like he wasn't synced up with when to press and not to. Again not his fault the coach put him out of position but made no impact. 

Excellent post, I agree with everything other than that Matthews did a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Maybe not, but if you are going to try and hold on to a lead (as we clearly did), how much more useful on the bench would he be than having 2 wingers, 2 strikers and Bobby Reid? 

Apart from a kid who had never featured before all our outfield subs were attacking players.

This just sums up the complete lack of planning by him, what would have happened if Flint had gone over on his ankle after 5 minutes?

His subs, in fact even more than his bizarre starting XI (Matthews at CB, FFS) were a complete shambles.

spotted that too.  I said pre-game, that if Matthews hammer went, Kelly would be making his debut.  I did wonder if the Cluedo pieces line-up was a ruse and that we were going with a three of Matthews-Flint-Golbourne

6 minutes ago, petehinton said:

We weren't set up to press. We were set up to frustrate them, not concede, then hit them on the break. 

I apologise as it seems we were away to Real Madrid, I could've sworn we were at home to Reading. 

On the back of the run, that we are on, had we got a point or 3 playing 460 with 10% possession, I'd have accepted that.

6 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I saw a lot of things I liked today and a few I didn't. First off, the game plan was working. We didn't press until they were in our half(and until about 70th min). They had no answers and maybe one true chance up until they scored. 

Yep, never really threatened.

Brownhill and Bryan I really like in midfield. Both strong enough and athletic enough. O'Dowda and Freeman had good games but I want to highlight O'Dowda. Good athlete and draws fouls. One of my wingers from now on. 

They were good and disciplined today, good to see.

We really tired out which was part of the reason they got back in it. I have to say LJ really messed it up at the end putting players out of position and changing the formation. Individually I though most had a good game. Flint and Little were solid. Golbourne I think was good if not spectacular and Matthews did a job. 

I'm not convinced they were knackered at 2-0, 2-1 even, but the shift to a midfield 4 meant more ground to cover, which ultimately did tire them.

I was most disappointed with our captain and holding midfielder Korey Smith. Didn't really notice him other than a few fouls and misplaced passes.

That's Korey to some extent.  I rave on about Danny Williams, but thought he was fairly anonymous today, because he didn't have any mopping up to do, or need to draw niggly fouls like he normally does against attacking focussed teams.

Also Frank Fielding I think should've saved at least one of the goals.

Don't think the 3rd should've gone in.  1st through Flint's leg, 2nd a good hit from Kermogant.

None in the corners and none hit particularly hard. Not good enough in the build up but keepers are asked to make saves when the defence breaks down. He needed to be better. Wilbraham added nothing when he came on. Not his fault he came on and I don't know why LJ expected of him but we weren't going to have much of the ball for him to hold up. Reid looked like he wasn't synced up with when to press and not to. Again not his fault the coach put him out of position but made no impact. 

Couple of embedded comments Joe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

 

We really tired out which was part of the reason they got back in it. I have to say LJ really messed it up at the end putting players out of position and changing the formation. Individually I though most had a good game. Flint and Little were solid. Golbourne I think was good if not spectacular and Matthews did a job. 

 

What job did Matthews do?

Win the competition for showing the least willingness of a member of the back four to put a challenge in, probably in case it messed up his hair?

Lose his man twice in the first half which could have easily resulted in goals?

Watch the goals again, he makes a totally token challenge in a couple of them.

Fact is that he simply does not care, contrast that with the effort put in by the OTIB scapegoat Mark Little, who gave everything he had and limited as he obviously is, did not deserve to be on the losing side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple question;

If Pack and Moore were available, why was an untried left back and a striker who LJ seems utterly disinterested in playing under any circumstance in the bench instead?

Weirder than Matthews starting at centre back for me, and has more worry undertones tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Think it's just a position we've got lots of options in. The midfield LJ picked today was high energy and designed to press Reading. It worked for the most part. I guess the plan was to shift the central midfielders about if we were losing early on. Probably not a game for Marlon today.

 

The midfield ran around a lot but I can't agree that they pressed Reading. In the first half Reading passed the ball around at will and in the second half it was even worse. Towards the end the entire City team was playing so deep, that if they had been any deeper they would have been in with the fans in the Atyeo. City only had 28% possession in the game! It was like watching a non league team playing a Premier League team in a cup match. To me it was an admission from LJ that his signings aren't good enough so let's try and get a 0-0 draw. Plus he hasn't a clue on how to make substitutions. Everyone complained that Cotts was stubborn and would never make a substitution till it was too late, but LJ makes them and loses the game 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...