Jump to content
IGNORED

Liam Walsh


BCFCGav

Recommended Posts

Amazing performance. Such a good first touch, and makes space for himself with the ball when in tight spaces. Passes quickly with either foot, and almost always perfectly accurately. It is prem standard technique no doubt. And he's aggressive and demands the ball, doesn't hide. Has to be a regular now surely. Yeah it's one sub appearance, but he just looks to have too much quality to leave out. If he has a stinker against Reading then by all means drop him, but give him his chance now surely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Been saying for weeks he needs to start in a 4-3-3. Now everyone can see why!

Except LJ perhaps. He really seems to be dead set against 4-3-3 and is happy to be outnumbered in midfield in most games.

I could understand it if the wingers were tearing up the opposition but they are not exactly flying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Been saying for weeks he needs to start in a 4-3-3. Now everyone can see why!

Same as that mate, a player that keeps the ball moving and always makes himself available, learnt his trade at one of the biggest clubs in the country, I’ve been baffled by his lack of game time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walsh certainly impressed in the 45 mins he got. He wanted the ball, was lively and his presence stopped Allen dominating as he had in the first half.

He was proactive, always looking to pass offensively. He looked pdg to me.

Dasilva as well made a difference, his attacking threat down the left was causing Stoke all sorts of problems and it begs the question as to why neither of them were in the starting line up.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robin_unreliant said:

Just heard LJ asked about Walsh on RB.

'Yeah he played well - in a 3'. There you go. Pretty much saying he can only play in a three and that isn't what I play.

Annoying.

He said last week Walsh plays in a 3. Maybe we just play a 3 from now on. Think we lost the game because we got outnumbered first half. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robin_unreliant said:

Just heard LJ asked about Walsh on RB.

'Yeah he played well - in a 3'. There you go. Pretty much saying he can only play in a three and that isn't what I play.

I missed that interview but if Walsh plays well in a three, why did he take Brownhill off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

Just heard LJ asked about Walsh on RB.

'Yeah he played well - in a 3'. There you go. Pretty much saying he can only play in a three and that isn't what I play.

Annoying.

Damn right it is. He likes to talk about 'my 4-4-2' which gives you a pretty good idea that he is not prepared to change. Not quite the modern, progressive coach then.

A bit like SC and his stubborn refusal to change from 3-5-2 regardless of the evidence of his own eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chinapig said:

Damn right it is. He likes to talk about 'my 4-4-2' which gives you a pretty good idea that he is not prepared to change. Not quite the modern, progressive coach then.

A bit like SC and his stubborn refusal to change from 3-5-2 regardless of the evidence of his own eyes.

It is frustrating. I'm all for 442, but when Pack drops deep and we have Brownhill crowded out in front of him, there are not many options. When there's a 3 Pack has 2 midfielders making a triangle shape in front of him, with 2 higher wingers than what he has in a 4. By far the best formation for the passing game Johnson likes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I missed that interview but if Walsh plays well in a three, why did he take Brownhill off?

Because he was poor and has been playing poorly?

0-1 and let's face it LJ got HT right because it was a travesty we didn't score a few 2nd half goals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

Because he was and has been playing poorly?

I dispute that. And when he did take Josh off, we went from having 100% possession near enough to allowing them glimpses at the ball and some runs at us.

The player to have taken off was Patto. Not a bad game, and he had that one good shot, but not the biggest contributor by any  means.

 

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...