Pisano, Silva, Taylor? Game Plan?

[Harry]

Hadn’t seen any threads yet tonight specifically on the full back scenario today. 

I 100% see why Kelly got switched to CB today. Fine. No problem with that. 

But why did Pisano play left back. He’s a right back (and arguably not a great one). We loaned Silva as our left back competition for Kelly so why did Silva not start? Why play a guy who’s had a pretty poor time of it in an unusual position? 

Their 2nd goal showed his deficiencies in playing on the wrong side. A right sided full back is naturally best at defending players whilst facing to the right. With him facing up to the left, easy crosses were inevitable. A player who is more comfortable defending players whilst facing up to the left will have had a better percentage chance of stopping that cross. 

Why bring in a specialist left back if you’re gonna play an out of form right back there instead? 

I can think of 2 reasons LJ may have done this. 1) wanted more height in the team or 2) didn’t want too much ‘inexperience’ in the back 4. 

My take is that if you have to play a makeshift defence, you play as many of them in ‘natural’ positions as possible. Silva should have started. 

Next. Taylor. So, you’re 2 down with 25 to play and need a goal. Do you turn to a player who’s proven not to be able to score at this level or do you turn to a player you’ve signed who’s a more natural striker and more likely to nick you a goal (Eisa). Taylor is shite. Eisa should’ve been the go-to sub if you need a goal. 

Finally. I’m not sure yet what our style / identity / game plan is this year? Last year we saw a clear plan. High tempo, high press, possession based play featuring intricate front 4 movement, drawing opposition out of shape to create opportunity. 

What I’ve seen so far this year reminds me of our style just before we went on our record-breaking run of defeats - lots of possession, no penetration, lack of movement, no pizazz. We’re keeping the ball and playing nice passes around the back and midfield, but we’ve got no idea how to create space, penetration, width and opportunities. I really can’t see what our actual game plan is, other than ‘keep the ball for a bit’. Whilst off the ball, we are making simple errors and conceding goals with few chances created against us. 

It’s very reminiscent of that Oct-Feb run of 2 seasons ago. Not a promising start to this campaign. And it has me worried. 

[BobBobSuperBob]

6 minutes ago, Harry said:

Hadn’t seen any threads yet tonight specifically on the full back scenario today. 

I 100% see why Kelly got switched to CB today. Fine..........

 

...... making simple errors and conceding goals with few chances created against us. 

It’s very reminiscent of that Oct-Feb run of 2 seasons ago. Not a promising start to this campaign. And it has me worried. 

Good post with lots of good points Harry

[marcofisher]

12 minutes ago, Harry said:

Hadn’t seen any threads yet tonight specifically on the full back scenario today. 

I 100% see why Kelly got switched to CB today. Fine. No problem with that. 

But why did Pisano play left back. He’s a right back (and arguably not a great one). We loaned Silva as our left back competition for Kelly so why did Silva not start? Why play a guy who’s had a pretty poor time of it in an unusual position? 

Their 2nd goal showed his deficiencies in playing on the wrong side. A right sided full back is naturally best at defending players whilst facing to the right. With him facing up to the left, easy crosses were inevitable. A player who is more comfortable defending players whilst facing up to the left will have had a better percentage chance of stopping that cross. 

Why bring in a specialist left back if you’re gonna play an out of form right back there instead? 

I can think of 2 reasons LJ may have done this. 1) wanted more height in the team or 2) didn’t want too much ‘inexperience’ in the back 4. 

My take is that if you have to play a makeshift defence, you play as many of them in ‘natural’ positions as possible. Silva should have started. 

Next. Taylor. So, you’re 2 down with 25 to play and need a goal. Do you turn to a player who’s proven not to be able to score at this level or do you turn to a player you’ve signed who’s a more natural striker and more likely to nick you a goal (Eisa). Taylor is shite. Eisa should’ve been the go-to sub if you need a goal. 

Finally. I’m not sure yet what our style / identity / game plan is this year? Last year we saw a clear plan. High tempo, high press, possession based play featuring intricate front 4 movement, drawing opposition out of shape to create opportunity. 

What I’ve seen so far this year reminds me of our style just before we went on our record-breaking run of defeats - lots of possession, no penetration, lack of movement, no pizazz. We’re keeping the ball and playing nice passes around the back and midfield, but we’ve got no idea how to create space, penetration, width and opportunities. I really can’t see what our actual game plan is, other than ‘keep the ball for a bit’. Whilst off the ball, we are making simple errors and conceding goals with few chances created against us. 

It’s very reminiscent of that Oct-Feb run of 2 seasons ago. Not a promising start to this campaign. And it has me worried. 

I had not seen Dasilva before today but I can completely understand why he didn't start once I saw his height, we wouldn't have stood a chance from set pieces as were already lacking that physicality. 

Annoying though because Pisano was absolutely awful. 

One would imagine Dasilva will start all games from now on. 

[shelts]

18 minutes ago, Harry said:

Hadn’t seen any threads yet tonight specifically on the full back scenario today. 

I 100% see why Kelly got switched to CB today. Fine. No problem with that. 

But why did Pisano play left back. He’s a right back (and arguably not a great one). We loaned Silva as our left back competition for Kelly so why did Silva not start? Why play a guy who’s had a pretty poor time of it in an unusual position? 

Their 2nd goal showed his deficiencies in playing on the wrong side. A right sided full back is naturally best at defending players whilst facing to the right. With him facing up to the left, easy crosses were inevitable. A player who is more comfortable defending players whilst facing up to the left will have had a better percentage chance of stopping that cross. 

Why bring in a specialist left back if you’re gonna play an out of form right back there instead? 

I can think of 2 reasons LJ may have done this. 1) wanted more height in the team or 2) didn’t want too much ‘inexperience’ in the back 4. 

My take is that if you have to play a makeshift defence, you play as many of them in ‘natural’ positions as possible. Silva should have started. 

Next. Taylor. So, you’re 2 down with 25 to play and need a goal. Do you turn to a player who’s proven not to be able to score at this level or do you turn to a player you’ve signed who’s a more natural striker and more likely to nick you a goal (Eisa). Taylor is shite. Eisa should’ve been the go-to sub if you need a goal. 

Finally. I’m not sure yet what our style / identity / game plan is this year? Last year we saw a clear plan. High tempo, high press, possession based play featuring intricate front 4 movement, drawing opposition out of shape to create opportunity. 

What I’ve seen so far this year reminds me of our style just before we went on our record-breaking run of defeats - lots of possession, no penetration, lack of movement, no pizazz. We’re keeping the ball and playing nice passes around the back and midfield, but we’ve got no idea how to create space, penetration, width and opportunities. I really can’t see what our actual game plan is, other than ‘keep the ball for a bit’. Whilst off the ball, we are making simple errors and conceding goals with few chances created against us. 

It’s very reminiscent of that Oct-Feb run of 2 seasons ago. Not a promising start to this campaign. And it has me worried. 

Fantastic share . 

[Dman_Red]

The height argument for Pisano is the only logical one I can see. I think if we're in the same situation for future games we need to accept that whilst we may lose a presence at set pieces playing Dasilva ahead of Pisano, we'll gain much more offensively (and hopefully defensively in open play).

Are our defenders told to stand off attacking players? The amount of times we seem to back off and allow the opposition into our box with the ball, therefore making a tackle much more risky is worrying. 

Agree on the Taylor point. Desperate for him to do well, but he's not the man to get us a goal. If we're defending a lead and need someone to chase things down, waste time and wind up the opposition he's fine. The moment that summed him up for me today was when he tried to control the ball in the box and instead of killing it and getting a shot/cross away, it got away from him and we lost possession. 

[Flagon]

I think LJ was expecting an aerial bombardment today. I'm not sure if I fell asleep but it didn't happen. Middlesbrough were not interested at all in coming at us. Everytime we had the ball there was no pressure from them at all, they just left Assombolonga up top, hit the channels and Kelly stood up to it well.

Obviously this is hindsight but I do not think Middlesbrough played the way LJ thought they would so we would have been fine I think having Dasilva and Elliason on and forgoing any fears of lack of height and strength.

It is early in the season still and I think with a few more players back we will be ok in the main but we have been in a prolonged period of having lots of possession, failing to take chances and conceding really poor goals as a team. 

Something has to change, getting Famara back will help of course but tactically we get so many games wrong at the moment and we always seem a mistake away from throwing any game away whoever plays.

[Lack of Action Man]

I don't think LJ knows how to get the best out of Taylor. Taylor is an annoying little shit of a player who needs to be fired up and getting into the faces of the opposition, causing them to pick up bookings, and importantly drifting out of their natural position to create space for runners from midfield. 

Taylor was doing this very well when he first signed. It doesn't seem to be the case so much anymore. This has to come down to man-management or positional instruction from the management team imo. 

[Flagon]

11 minutes ago, OddBallJim said:

I don't think LJ knows how to get the best out of Taylor. Taylor is an annoying little shit of a player who needs to be fired up and getting into the faces of the opposition, causing them to pick up bookings, and importantly drifting out of their natural position to create space for runners from midfield. 

Taylor was doing this very well when he first signed. It doesn't seem to be the case so much anymore. This has to come down to man-management or positional instruction from the management team imo. 

Yeah know what you mean. He still seems to finding pockets of space though but so far this season his control has been really poor and I think that's why been less effective.

[Lack of Action Man]

1 minute ago, Flagon said:

Yeah know what you mean. He still seems to finding pockets of space though but so far this season his control has been really poor and I think that's why been less effective.

I think there could definitely be a solid Championship player in there, but I don't think our coaches know how to get it out of him. A shame really!

[Flagon]

Yeah I think so. I don't think he was bought with the intention he would be a goal scoring threat like in the lower divisions, but more for what he can bring to the game.

He's never had an out and out run in the side. He's either been injured or other players have been injured so we've never really got to use him properly. 

He has shown he can be very useful. In the minutes played he's had a fair few assists and has actually got himself into good positions quite regularly. It's just not really come off for him and then we keep changing stuff about anyhow.

[CityCiderEd]

If Matty Taylor had come from a championship club to us he would have been crucified. I've seen him quite a few times now and I don't think he's ever going to cut it in this division. His first touch is awful and I've yet to see him hit a shot he hasn't scuffed. Another Agard and amazed he get's so much slack.

[Red-Robbo]

I actually thought Eros did reasonably well today. Certainly brought the ball forward ok, which is what Johnson is asking of his defenders, and arguably came nearest to scoring. You have to ask who else to play there? I imagine DaSilva didn't start on the left because Lee didn't fancy having a pint sized defender trying to cope with one of the tallest teams in the Championship. He looked an asset when he came on because Boro were clearly stepping off the gas, but would he have coped in the first half? I wasn't that enthralled in the Plymouth game.

As for Taylor - he isnt "shite": he injected forward momentum. But it's fair to say he's on a shot-free run and Eisa would have been my choice sub.

 

 

[Eddie Notgetinya]

Eisa should of had some time. Flint has no pace so why on earth have we not tried to exploit that!!!!!

Agaist Forest it was the same with 43yr old Dawson. He actually started to feel his hamstring towards the end. I saw it from the south stand so it shouldnt escape the notice of the bench. RUN AT HIM MO HE’S DONE.

fed up with it.

[BobBobSuperBob]

5 minutes ago, NorwichbasedWurzel said:

Eisa should of had some time. Flint has no pace so why on earth have we not tried to exploit that!!!!!

Agaist Forest it was the same with 43yr old Dawson. He actually started to feel his hamstring towards the end. I saw it from the south stand so it shouldnt escape the notice of the bench. RUN AT HIM MO HE’S DONE.

fed up with it.

Flint was the third quickest player in our squad last year

[BITW]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

Hadn’t seen any threads yet tonight specifically on the full back scenario today. 

I 100% see why Kelly got switched to CB today. Fine. No problem with that. 

But why did Pisano play left back. He’s a right back (and arguably not a great one). We loaned Silva as our left back competition for Kelly so why did Silva not start? Why play a guy who’s had a pretty poor time of it in an unusual position? 

Their 2nd goal showed his deficiencies in playing on the wrong side. A right sided full back is naturally best at defending players whilst facing to the right. With him facing up to the left, easy crosses were inevitable. A player who is more comfortable defending players whilst facing up to the left will have had a better percentage chance of stopping that cross. 

Why bring in a specialist left back if you’re gonna play an out of form right back there instead? 

I can think of 2 reasons LJ may have done this. 1) wanted more height in the team or 2) didn’t want too much ‘inexperience’ in the back 4. 

My take is that if you have to play a makeshift defence, you play as many of them in ‘natural’ positions as possible. Silva should have started. 

Next. Taylor. So, you’re 2 down with 25 to play and need a goal. Do you turn to a player who’s proven not to be able to score at this level or do you turn to a player you’ve signed who’s a more natural striker and more likely to nick you a goal (Eisa). Taylor is shite. Eisa should’ve been the go-to sub if you need a goal. 

Finally. I’m not sure yet what our style / identity / game plan is this year? Last year we saw a clear plan. High tempo, high press, possession based play featuring intricate front 4 movement, drawing opposition out of shape to create opportunity. 

What I’ve seen so far this year reminds me of our style just before we went on our record-breaking run of defeats - lots of possession, no penetration, lack of movement, no pizazz. We’re keeping the ball and playing nice passes around the back and midfield, but we’ve got no idea how to create space, penetration, width and opportunities. I really can’t see what our actual game plan is, other than ‘keep the ball for a bit’. Whilst off the ball, we are making simple errors and conceding goals with few chances created against us. 

It’s very reminiscent of that Oct-Feb run of 2 seasons ago. Not a promising start to this campaign. And it has me worried. 

Fully agree with all of this. Re Taylor, I don’t know what anyone sees in the bloke. No where near good enough at this level and would get a lot more criticism if we hadn’t nicked him from our neighbours imo.

This team looks a million miles from the team we were watching a year ago. Worrying times. 

Also think Eliasson can feel hard done by today. I think he’s done enough the pat two games to of got some minutes today, especially considering how utterly ineffective Watkins was!

 

[Eddie Notgetinya]

6 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Flint was the third quickest player in our squad last year

He’s not Mobile though 

[wendyredredrobin]

Firstly, Flint is quicker than you think. Secondly, Taylor is not up to it at this level. He has done F all this season and we need to ship him out.  Eisa needs perhaps one more chance before going on a lian move to a division where he can develop.

We need to import a tall and/or strong centre forward who can compete physically annd/or who has some height.

This team in general has little ability to win much in the air in all areas of the field.

[BobBobSuperBob]

3 minutes ago, NorwichbasedWurzel said:

He’s not Mobile though 

Know what you’re getting at but Lots of clever movement ,late runners , would have caused him worries more than pace

Flint still vastly underrated by a fair few IMHO

[TBW]

1 hour ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Firstly, Flint is quicker than you think. Secondly, Taylor is not up to it at this level. He has done F all this season and we need to ship him out.  Eisa needs perhaps one more chance before going on a lian move to a division where he can develop.

We need to import a tall and/or strong centre forward who can compete physically annd/or who has some height.

This team in general has little ability to win much in the air in all areas of the field.

"Done f all this season"

"One more chance"

We're barely four games in!

[BCFCGav]

Couldn’t agree more with that analysis of the full back situation. Yes we have defensive injuries, but we also have the right tools to cover (i.e Kelly goes central and Da Silva to LB). We have to use them.

[Fatalist]

17 hours ago, marcofisher said:

I had not seen Dasilva before today but I can completely understand why he didn't start once I saw his height, we wouldn't have stood a chance from set pieces as were already lacking that physicality. 

Annoying though because Pisano was absolutely awful. 

One would imagine Dasilva will start all games from now on. 

 

5 hours ago, JonDolman said:

But why can't we play to our strengths? It was clear that Pisano's selection was only to have a bit of a physical presence in our box when defending set pieces, and he isn't even very good at that anyway, like when he let Flint have a free header. Downing might be 34, but he's still quick and Pisano couldnt cope with his pace. And we had no one to go on the outside of Paterson. Joke of a selection really. I said after Shrewsbury friendly that Cameron Pring looked far better than Pisano at left back. I'm not saying Pring is the answer, but surely that friendly showed Pisano is not good enough at left back. And all the games at right back shows he lacks the pace, stamina and concentration to play anywhere in our side. I actually think he looked more comfortable at centre back as at least he doesn't have to run much in that position, but then it wasn't like Plymouth really attacked us much so was generally an easy game for him. 

Interesting to see in the highlights how many of our best chances involved Pisano. His flick on to send Paterson clear in the first half; his run through two challenges to send Paterson away again in the second, and of course his header against the woodwork. Not a MoM performance, but hardly "awful".

As for Downing, yes he got past Pisano for the second goal, but not by speed. I'm struggling to remember an instance of Downing (or anyone else) racing past him in a foot race. When all is said and done, was his performance worse than that of Hunt on the other side?

[BCFC Grim]

Taylor was brought in for one reason. It was to take the focus off how abysmal we were at the time (we still are), and take pressure off Johnson and Co. And it worked. People are now seing Taylor for what he is, a lower league player.

[Davefevs]

17 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

I actually thought Eros did reasonably well today. Certainly brought the ball forward ok, which is what Johnson is asking of his defenders, and arguably came nearest to scoring. You have to ask who else to play there? I imagine DaSilva didn't start on the left because Lee didn't fancy having a pint sized defender trying to cope with one of the tallest teams in the Championship. He looked an asset when he came on because Boro were clearly stepping off the gas, but would he have coped in the first half? I wasn't that enthralled in the Plymouth game.

As for Taylor - he isnt "shite": he injected forward momentum. But it's fair to say he's on a shot-free run and Eisa would have been my choice sub.

 

 

I thought Pisano had a decent game too.  He dealt well with Shotton from their keeper’s kick.  Would’ve been a free header against Dasilva.  I thought he did okay with the ball too.  Also, look at Brownhill for their second.  Does nothing to help Pisano.  Also shows how a wideman (Downing) prepared to go in either foot can create the extra yard, cue Freeman, cue O’Dowda.

The Taylor that came on yesterday reminded me of all of my critical posts about him.  

Dasilva did look lively when he came on.

[Aaron-Bcfc]

44 minutes ago, BCFC Grim said:

Taylor was brought in for one reason. It was to take the focus off how abysmal we were at the time (we still are), and take pressure off Johnson and Co. And it worked. People are now seing Taylor for what he is, a lower league player.

I think Taylor was brought in because he’d scored 19 in 33 playing in the division below and cost us £300k, an absolute no brainer and most sides in this division would’ve done the same thing if they knew about the release clause. Just so happened to humiliate our closest rivals in the process.

Interested to hear your thoughts on the Eisa signing, given he was scoring at a lower rate than Taylor, in a lower division, and at 24 is at a similar stage of his career as when Taylor was signed. And he cost us 5x more.

[Simon79]

19 hours ago, Harry said:

Hadn’t seen any threads yet tonight specifically on the full back scenario today. 

I 100% see why Kelly got switched to CB today. Fine. No problem with that. 

But why did Pisano play left back. He’s a right back (and arguably not a great one). We loaned Silva as our left back competition for Kelly so why did Silva not start? Why play a guy who’s had a pretty poor time of it in an unusual position? 

Their 2nd goal showed his deficiencies in playing on the wrong side. A right sided full back is naturally best at defending players whilst facing to the right. With him facing up to the left, easy crosses were inevitable. A player who is more comfortable defending players whilst facing up to the left will have had a better percentage chance of stopping that cross. 

Why bring in a specialist left back if you’re gonna play an out of form right back there instead? 

I can think of 2 reasons LJ may have done this. 1) wanted more height in the team or 2) didn’t want too much ‘inexperience’ in the back 4. 

My take is that if you have to play a makeshift defence, you play as many of them in ‘natural’ positions as possible. Silva should have started. 

Next. Taylor. So, you’re 2 down with 25 to play and need a goal. Do you turn to a player who’s proven not to be able to score at this level or do you turn to a player you’ve signed who’s a more natural striker and more likely to nick you a goal (Eisa). Taylor is shite. Eisa should’ve been the go-to sub if you need a goal. 

Finally. I’m not sure yet what our style / identity / game plan is this year? Last year we saw a clear plan. High tempo, high press, possession based play featuring intricate front 4 movement, drawing opposition out of shape to create opportunity. 

What I’ve seen so far this year reminds me of our style just before we went on our record-breaking run of defeats - lots of possession, no penetration, lack of movement, no pizazz. We’re keeping the ball and playing nice passes around the back and midfield, but we’ve got no idea how to create space, penetration, width and opportunities. I really can’t see what our actual game plan is, other than ‘keep the ball for a bit’. Whilst off the ball, we are making simple errors and conceding goals with few chances created against us. 

It’s very reminiscent of that Oct-Feb run of 2 seasons ago. Not a promising start to this campaign. And it has me worried. 

With regards Pisano, definitely think the height & experience were a factor. I also wondered if Downing cutting in was a factor, as we all know how good his left foot can be. Not that it seemed to work mind, but just a thought. COYR 

[1960maaan]

21 hours ago, Harry said:

Hadn’t seen any threads yet tonight specifically on the full back scenario today. 

I 100% see why Kelly got switched to CB today. Fine. No problem with that. 

But why did Pisano play left back. He’s a right back (and arguably not a great one). We loaned Silva as our left back competition for Kelly so why did Silva not start? Why play a guy who’s had a pretty poor time of it in an unusual position? 

Their 2nd goal showed his deficiencies in playing on the wrong side. A right sided full back is naturally best at defending players whilst facing to the right. With him facing up to the left, easy crosses were inevitable. A player who is more comfortable defending players whilst facing up to the left will have had a better percentage chance of stopping that cross. 

Why bring in a specialist left back if you’re gonna play an out of form right back there instead? 

I can think of 2 reasons LJ may have done this. 1) wanted more height in the team or 2) didn’t want too much ‘inexperience’ in the back 4. 

My take is that if you have to play a makeshift defence, you play as many of them in ‘natural’ positions as possible. Silva should have started. 

Next. Taylor. So, you’re 2 down with 25 to play and need a goal. Do you turn to a player who’s proven not to be able to score at this level or do you turn to a player you’ve signed who’s a more natural striker and more likely to nick you a goal (Eisa). Taylor is shite. Eisa should’ve been the go-to sub if you need a goal. 

Finally. I’m not sure yet what our style / identity / game plan is this year? Last year we saw a clear plan. High tempo, high press, possession based play featuring intricate front 4 movement, drawing opposition out of shape to create opportunity. 

What I’ve seen so far this year reminds me of our style just before we went on our record-breaking run of defeats - lots of possession, no penetration, lack of movement, no pizazz. We’re keeping the ball and playing nice passes around the back and midfield, but we’ve got no idea how to create space, penetration, width and opportunities. I really can’t see what our actual game plan is, other than ‘keep the ball for a bit’. Whilst off the ball, we are making simple errors and conceding goals with few chances created against us. 

It’s very reminiscent of that Oct-Feb run of 2 seasons ago. Not a promising start to this campaign. And it has me worried. 

Good post, my few points......
As you and others have said, Pisano was there probably for height/experience . My take on it, if you are really worried about that play  3 , then you have Webster central and a right footed player on the right, and a left on the left (Pisano & Kelly) Da Silva and Hunt then play as WB's.  we have 3 in MF , which helps as they packed theirs. Ironic thatPisano was beaten on his weaker foot by Dowling crossing off of his weaker foot. Totally agree about playing as many in their natural positions, always going to be difficult whichever way Johnson changed the team with so many central defenders out.

Hhmm Taylor. Full disclosure, I am not a fan. I was talking about subs as we got to half an hour to go, I would have brought on Eisa then. Last year the excuse was injury, but the season before he managed 2 in 15, not only that he looks like an on the shoulder striker but has no pace to get away when the chance comes. As it stand though, Eisa has no track record in this division so it's hard to argue if others are brought on in front of him. I would though , have brought on Eliasson for Paterson  to add natural width and pace, and that's one thing Eisa seems to have too, pace, not that I've seen much of him.

I'm not sure what our game plan is yet, at times the midfield movement was good and we created space with Wiemanns movement pulling people around, but that was at 2-0 and Boro happy to sit in more. LJ obviously wants us to play out from the back and play with wingers with movement around Fam coming from Wiemann (probably a little more as a striker than Ried was). Until FD is back and we have fit central defenders back in it's hard to see the real shape and style, 2 games to go and if nothing changes questions will be asked. Specially if no back up for FD has come in by then.

How many people have said, it's going to be a long season.

 

[Johnny Musicworks]

Pisano was beaten for the goal but otherwise put in a great shift and showed good skills bringing it out.

Taylors introduction coincided with our best spell of the game because he got in their faces and rattled a few cages. We lack players with the necessary nastiness and aggression and he has it.

As for Eisa, he looks a raw talent but when he played alongside Taylor he didn’t seem to make runs into the right spaces or yet have the intelligent movement needed at this level. He is not a team player at the moment but on the plus side he will run at defenders and shoot when he has an opportunity unlike many of our players who get into shooting positions and then opt to pass the ball or delay and lose possession.

[cidered abroad]

22 hours ago, OddBallJim said:

I think there could definitely be a solid Championship player in there, but I don't think our coaches know how to get it out of him. A shame really!

I don't think Taylor knows how to "get it out of him(self). 

Not a player to take us anywhere interesting and higher than we've been since 1979-80.

[Lack of Action Man]

20 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

I don't think Taylor knows how to "get it out of him(self). 

Not a player to take us anywhere interesting and higher than we've been since 1979-80.

I disagree on your first point. 

I can't say I see him playing any higher than in a mid-table championship team, but that is essentially what we are/trying to establish ourselves as... so?