Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Super

Palmer

Recommended Posts

Why on earth was he not brought on today? That was a game that was crying out for a bit of magic and he certainly should have come on instead of Taylor if not before then. 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taylor hasn't been very good for a while now to be fair. Think he might be sold in the summer. We don't know what we will get from Palmer. Even as a sub he can be brilliant or very poor. Hard one for LJ. All I know is he got the starting 11 wrong for sure.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 2
  • Aubergine 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Super said:

Eh?

Walsh came on for Smith quite early on. If the latter had stayed on Palmer would have come on for him or somebody else later on, I suspect. As it happens we ran out of subs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, steveybadger said:

Walsh came on for Smith quite early on. If the latter had stayed on Palmer would have come on for him or somebody else later on, I suspect. As it happens we ran out of subs 

Bring Palmer on for Pack then!  Keep Weimann on. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Hmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, steveybadger said:

Walsh came on for Smith quite early on. If the latter had stayed on Palmer would have come on for him or somebody else later on, I suspect. As it happens we ran out of subs 

Why not him instead of Taylor?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with it but I suppose LJ thought he could retain the same patterns with a direct replacement Smith for Walsh.

He doesn't seem to trust Palmer to track back which is a shame as I thought we needed someone with a clever pass - whether Palmer or Pato today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the naivety that frustrates me. It was clear that diagonal balls into the box were idea for the Reading keeper and defence. Either overhit or lobbed into the keepers hands. The one that wasn’t got us a goal. 

We lack a leader to boss the game so often. Marlon, Josh and Korey when fit rarely do defence splitting passes so we rely on DaSilva and Hunt too much in that formation. We are a decent team but our inability to break down teams at home looks like costing us. One or two good additions could help that in the summer but the difference between us and the top 5 is a top creative midfielder and a 20 goal a season striker. Neither will be easy to find or cheap but both are essential to progress.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Super said:

Why not him instead of Taylor?

I don't know and I'm not saying I even disagree, just explaining why Taylor and Palmer didn't come on

41 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Bring Palmer on for Pack then!  Keep Weimann on. 

See post above - I don't necessarily disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JonDolman said:

Taylor hasn't been very good for a while now to be fair. Think he might be sold in the summer. We don't know what we will get from Palmer. Even as a sub he can be brilliant or very poor. Hard one for LJ. All I know is he got the starting 11 wrong for sure.

Sag’s can have him back, we can have his replacement goal machine, now what's his release clause?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Johnny Musicworks said:

It is the naivety that frustrates me. It was clear that diagonal balls into the box were idea for the Reading keeper and defence. Either overhit or lobbed into the keepers hands. The one that wasn’t got us a goal. 

We lack a leader to boss the game so often. Marlon, Josh and Korey when fit rarely do defence splitting passes so we rely on DaSilva and Hunt too much in that formation. We are a decent team but our inability to break down teams at home looks like costing us. One or two good additions could help that in the summer but the difference between us and the top 5 is a top creative midfielder and a 20 goal a season striker. Neither will be easy to find or cheap but both are essential to progress.

A 20 goal a season striker is what every club wants but few have, and to get a proven one in today's market would be very expensive.

Another poster commented about Weimann's movement and that he is on a different wavelength from his teammates, who just don't seem to see the runs he makes. This ties in with the points you make in your second paragraph as we miss a midfielder who can control a game and dictate our play. A Hartley or Elliott would be just what we need and with a player of their ilk providing the ammunition we might see FD and AW up their scoring rates so that we don't need a 20 goal striker.

For all there good things LJ has done and achieved with the team, I've long thought that the style of play he wants is one that eliminates as much risk as possible, and that this causes us to be a bit too cautious. This is particularly noticeable in home games, where we often appear to be the exact opposite of what you would expect of a home team .Does this cautionary style of play inhibit our midfield play, which in turn limits the chances we create compared to playing in a more expansive way? 

It's not just defence splitting passes we seem to struggle to create, but also midfielders breaking past the opposition and into the opposing penalty area and making chances through the middle. This was raised on the thread about penalties and  is something we rarely see from our midfield. The one player who seems to have this ability is Palmer, but his opportunities have been limited - perhaps because LJ sees his style of play too risk prone.

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RedDave said:

Bring Palmer on for Pack then!  Keep Weimann on. 

It’s not Fifa where you can go ‘all out attack’. What would your formation/line up be if we made that sub? And if you made it you risk losing the game way more than the gamble to win it. A draw to reading at home isn’t ideal but it’s alot better than losing surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, downendcity said:

A 20 goal a season striker is what every club wants but few have, and to get a proven one in today's market would be very expensive.

Another poster commented about Weimann's movement and that he is on a different wavelength from his teammates, who just don't seem to see the runs he makes. This ties in with the points you make in your second paragraph as we miss a midfielder who can control a game and dictate our play. A Hartley or Elliott would be just what we need and with a player of their ilk providing the ammunition we might see FD and AW up their scoring rates so that we don't need a 20 goal striker.

For all there good things LJ has done and achieved with the team, I've long thought that the style of play he wants is one that eliminates as much risk as possible, and that this causes us to be a bit too cautious. This is particularly noticeable in home games, where we often appear to be the exact opposite of what you would expect of a home team .Does this cautionary style of play inhibit our midfield play, which in turn limits the chances we create compared to playing in a more expansive way? 

It's not just defence splitting passes we seem to struggle to create, but also midfielders breaking past the opposition and into the opposing penalty area and making chances through the middle. This was raised on the thread about penalties and  is something we rarely see from our midfield. The one player who seems to have this ability is Palmer, but his opportunities have been limited - perhaps because LJ sees his style of play too risk prone.

 

Interesting comments...I actually think we play a game that is high risk.

Defensively we are sorted. We as a team are now very organised and have some fantastic defenders.

Offensively...imo, what we try to do, only comes off occasionally, because we don't have the quality of player to do it. However...the more we try, the better they will become. It's planning in progress. LJ imo, is looking at Prem like tactics and asking Championship players to achieve success doing them. They will fall slightly short because of their quality, but will improve over time.

I'd rather we did this, than stagnate. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How we could have fitted in Palmer in last 20 plus stoppage...one or two possible blueprints.

1)

                   O'Leary

Hunt Kalas Webster Da Silva

Brownhill Pack Walsh Eliasson

                    Palmer

                    Diedhiou

Thinking here is, was a bit asymmetrical in parts. Brownhill-Hunt right side, but definitely the fomer drifting inside as and when.

Left side definitely more orthodox but with Eliasson having potential to get forward with Palmer and Weimann creating a loose 4-3-3. While you still have a bit of an engine room in the form of Brownhill, Pack and Walsh. 

2) Alternative? Much the same but take Diedhiou off and keep Weimann on- let that potentially uber fluid front 3 drift, kind of a 4-3-3 but also potential to become more rigid in phases. May have some defensive issues though!

The horrible injury to Smith, with the resultant need to change him for Walsh? Undoubtedly restricted LJ's options at rolling the dice. Hot day, Weimann may well have needed to be replaced at that stage...first version could've been interesting though IMO. Second more of an idea moving forward.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Kasey Palmer is the type of player required to improve us.  All we need is one the manager can trust. Even for 15 minutes as a sub. 

 

Yes where did Marley watkins come from who was he going to replace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GTFABM said:

It’s not Fifa where you can go ‘all out attack’. What would your formation/line up be if we made that sub? And if you made it you risk losing the game way more than the gamble to win it. A draw to reading at home isn’t ideal but it’s alot better than losing surely?

I’m aware it’s not FIFA. 

I would have played this which is hardly gung ho! 

                 O’Leary

Hunt. Kalas. Webster. Dasilva

         Brownhill   Walsh

  Weimann. Palmer. Elliason

               Diedhiou 

Edited by RedDave
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think Walsh had s good game when he came on. definitely one for next season. i do agree palmer should have come on instead of matty. but hay if Taylor had scored the winner we would be happy. who would be a manager. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even before smith went off we were struggling to create too many openings. We needed more creativity.  Palmer should have come on for Smith and brownhill moved to smiths position. I believe the negative substitution cost us the win. (Not hindsight I said it at the time of the injury). 

By the way Walsh did well particularly 2nd half. 

Edited by aa_bcfc
Added text.
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

How we could have fitted in Palmer in last 20 plus stoppage...one or two possible blueprints.

1)

                   O'Leary

Hunt Kalas Webster Da Silva

Brownhill Pack Walsh Eliasson

                    Palmer

                    Diedhiou

Thinking here is, was a bit asymmetrical in parts. Brownhill-Hunt right side, but definitely the fomer drifting inside as and when.

Left side definitely more orthodox but with Eliasson having potential to get forward with Palmer and Weimann creating a loose 4-3-3. While you still have a bit of an engine room in the form of Brownhill, Pack and Walsh. 

2) Alternative? Much the same but take Diedhiou off and keep Weimann on- let that potentially uber fluid front 3 drift, kind of a 4-3-3 but also potential to become more rigid in phases. May have some defensive issues though!

The horrible injury to Smith, with the resultant need to change him for Walsh? Undoubtedly restricted LJ's options at rolling the dice. Hot day, Weimann may well have needed to be replaced at that stage...first version could've been interesting though IMO. Second more of an idea moving forward.

 

For God sake man your talking to much sense putting up formations like that, please leave this thread immediately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Super said:

Why on earth was he not brought on today? That was a game that was crying out for a bit of magic and he certainly should have come on instead of Taylor if not before then. 

100% agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, spudski said:

Interesting comments...I actually think we play a game that is high risk.

Defensively we are sorted. We as a team are now very organised and have some fantastic defenders.

Offensively...imo, what we try to do, only comes off occasionally, because we don't have the quality of player to do it. However...the more we try, the better they will become. It's planning in progress. LJ imo, is looking at Prem like tactics and asking Championship players to achieve success doing them. They will fall slightly short because of their quality, but will improve over time.

I'd rather we did this, than stagnate. 

Absolutely!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Johnny Musicworks said:

It is the naivety that frustrates me. It was clear that diagonal balls into the box were idea for the Reading keeper and defence. Either overhit or lobbed into the keepers hands. The one that wasn’t got us a goal. 

We lack a leader to boss the game so often. Marlon, Josh and Korey when fit rarely do defence splitting passes so we rely on DaSilva and Hunt too much in that formation. We are a decent team but our inability to break down teams at home looks like costing us. One or two good additions could help that in the summer but the difference between us and the top 5 is a top creative midfielder and a 20 goal a season striker. Neither will be easy to find or cheap but both are essential to progress.

And a different Head Coach who will know how to keep all the supporters happy by playing entertaining, winning football in home matches!

To the inevitable Johnson lovers, I'll give you the Sheff U and WBA home games. The rest have been pretty awful, especially against sides in the bottom six.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RobintheRed Red said:

Yes where did Marley watkins come from who was he going to replace?

O'Leary?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, aa_bcfc said:

Even before smith went off we were struggling to create too many openings. We needed more creativity.  Palmer should have come on for Smith and brownhill moved to smiths position. I believe the negative substitution cost us the win. (Not hindsight I said it at the time of the injury). 

By the way Walsh did well particularly 2nd half. 

Smith has never been a creative midfielder. His job is/was to break up play and win or intercept the ball. Walsh is a similar type of player so him coming on was like for like.

Palmer is a very different type of midfielder. His strengths are creating opportunities with his vision for a smart pass as we saw at Forest. Had he come on for Smith then City would have become more open. 

LJ made the right call.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Between heaven and hell said:

For God sake man your talking to much sense putting up formations like that, please leave this thread immediately. 

Next thing you know he'll be posting that logical and sensible ffp stuff and analysis of club's accounts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weimann, Eliasson, they always go forward with the ball, try to do something. Think Weimann is a classplayer. Palmer has the same way thinking, forward, try to pass or shot on goal. When we went for all points vs Reading, think Palmer should have played in the second half. The mainthing when we have the ball is get it in the penalty area. Movement with players and ball I will see more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

And a different Head Coach who will know how to keep all the supporters happy by playing entertaining, winning football in home matches!

To the inevitable Johnson lovers, I'll give you the Sheff U and WBA home games. The rest have been pretty awful, especially against sides in the bottom six.

You didn't enjoy Norwich at home? Swansea? QPR 2nd half, Wigan and Bolton were decent comebacks though we couldn't see out the job v Wigan so that'd clearly be 2 points dropped and not so great.

Blackburn at home, 4-1 v a decent side wasn't so bad, especially 2nd half.

Nottingham Forest home back in August, was a decent draw and fairly open game IIRC.

Now Stoke at home that was a loss but 2nd half we were very good. Dominated, woodwork and Butland denied us but we put some strong pressure on. Hull 2nd half we won and just about edged it v a decent side over the 90.

In Cup, though in defeat, 2nd half v Wolves deserved praise for performance.

Not been a vintage home season, nobody would argue it has been, but few more than 2 decent games or displays IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robbored said:

Smith has never been a creative midfielder. His job is/was to break up play and win or intercept the ball. Walsh is a similar type of player so him coming on was like for like.

Palmer is a very different type of midfielder. His strengths are creating opportunities with his vision for a smart pass as we saw at Forest. Had he come on for Smith then City would have become more open. 

LJ made the right call.

Reading were a decent side but it was a game we needed to win. I know smith is not a creative player which is my point exactly. With smith on we were not creating enough so when he got injured that was the perfect opportunity to bring creativity onto the pitch in Palmer. If we are worried that having brownhill in smiths position makes us more open against a team near the bottom when the prize is potentially promotion then we don’t deserve it.

LJ got it wrong and it might well cost us. (In fairness he has got a lot right recently). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You didn't enjoy Norwich at home? Swansea? QPR 2nd half, Wigan and Bolton were decent comebacks though we couldn't see out the job v Wigan so that'd clearly be 2 points dropped and not so great.

Blackburn at home, 4-1 v a decent side wasn't so bad, especially 2nd half.

Nottingham Forest home back in August, was a decent draw and fairly open game IIRC.

Now Stoke at home that was a loss but 2nd half we were very good. Dominated, woodwork and Butland denied us but we put some strong pressure on. Hull 2nd half we won and just about edged it v a decent side over the 90.

In Cup, though in defeat, 2nd half v Wolves deserved praise for performance.

Not been a vintage home season, nobody would argue it has been, but few more than 2 decent games or displays IMO.

Playing 1 up front at home for much of the season is the reason for the poor home performances and form. A half decent home record would have cemented us in a playoff position already.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

I don't agree with it but I suppose LJ thought he could retain the same patterns with a direct replacement Smith for Walsh.

He doesn't seem to trust Palmer to track back which is a shame as I thought we needed someone with a clever pass - whether Palmer or Pato today.

I think Walsh has more than a ‘clever pass’ in him....

https://t.co/UxOh7FkSZY

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith’s injury using up one of our substitutions made things more difficult, but I agree Palmer should have come on. We had precious little creativity yesterday and seemed to rely on crosses into the box, which apart from Brownhill’s goal Reading dealt with comfortably. Presumably Weimann was taken off because he was running out of steam, but with hindsight it might have been better to keep him on and bring Palmer on for Pack. Taylor was largely ineffective, mainly because we weren’t really creating anything - we needed some spark in midfield instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aa_bcfc said:

Playing 1 up front at home for much of the season is the reason for the poor home performances and form. A half decent home record would have cemented us in a playoff position already.  

This one up front at home thing...

How many do Norwich play up front at home, typically?

Leeds were incredibly wasteful yesterday in a shock loss v Wigan- but in general pretty dominant at home. How many orthodox strikers do they play up front at some, typically?

Swansea score quite a few at home and win quite a few too- number of strikers typically?

Aston Villa?

Derby?

Last season, how many orthodox strikers did Wolves typically use at home on a game?

Fulham especially with Mitrovic? Well I don't even need to ask.

Having said that, I like the 3-5-2/3-4-2-1 hybrid in general. Maybe we should have used it sooner.

It's simplistic to blame '1 up front at home' though IMO. It can be a very fine line between a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 and 4-5-1...perhaps we have erred towards the latter a bit much at times during home games!

Would also suggest hitting the woodwork 12 times at home plays a part in perception of performance.

We've not been the luckiest side- arguably Rotherham 2 red cards and QPR last minute pen 2 exceptions to the rule.

Even the latter though was just recompense for the wrongly disallowed Pisano goal earlier in the game.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This one up front at home thing...

How many do Norwich play up front at home, typically?

Leeds were incredibly wasteful yesterday in a shock loss v Wigan- but in general pretty dominant at home. How many orthodox strikers do they play up front at some, typically?

Swansea score quite a few at home and win quite a few too- number of strikers typically?

Aston Villa?

Derby?

Last season, how many orthodox strikers did Wolves typically use at home on a game?

Fulham especially with Mitrovic? Well I don't even need to ask.

Having said that, I like the 3-5-2/3-4-2-1 hybrid in general. Maybe we should have used it sooner.

It's simplistic to blame '1 up front at home' though IMO. It can be a very fine line between a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 and 4-5-1...perhaps we have erred towards the latter a bit much at times during home games!

Would also suggest hitting the woodwork 12 times at home plays a part in perception of performance.

We've not been the luckiest side- arguably Rotherham 2 red cards and QPR last minute pen 2 exceptions to the rule.

Even the latter though was just recompense for the wrongly disallowed Pisano goal earlier in the game.

It definitely helps if the one up top has the clinical finishing of Pukki or Tammy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mozo said:

It definitely helps if the one up top has the clinical finishing of Pukki or Tammy

That's one factor, yes.

Also of assistance would be if support was got up to and around the lone striker more quickly. That makes a big difference tactically- get the feeling we have been a bit cautious in this regard at home.

Regardless, blaming 'one up front at home'- I stand by my point- is a somewhat simplistic take. There are quite a few variables in our relatively poor return at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Loosey Boy said:

No mention of Pato today before or after the game - is he injured?

He was sitting next to O’Dowda in the Lansdown W11. Assume injured unless those seats are on the naughty step. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That's one factor, yes.

Also of assistance would be if support was got up to and around the lone striker more quickly. That makes a big difference tactically- get the feeling we have been a bit cautious in this regard at home.

Regardless, blaming 'one up front at home'- I stand by my point- is a somewhat simplistic take. There are quite a few variables in our relatively poor return at home.

Yes, there are a number of variables. However, the plain fact is just 8 home wins in 22 matches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Arguably performances might merit more.

Not sure about that, we played particularly poorly against all the bottom teams and I still shudder at the PNE game, it’s typical of LJ’s tenure really where we have been really good against the top teams at home (bar dirty Leeds) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2019 at 15:52, JonDolman said:

Taylor hasn't been very good for a while now to be fair. Think he might be sold in the summer. We don't know what we will get from Palmer. Even as a sub he can be brilliant or very poor. Hard one for LJ. All I know is he got the starting 11 wrong for sure.

Only made 10 starts all season and in his last home one he got a goal and an assist, maybe a bit harsh?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Curr Avon said:

However, the plain fact is just 8 home wins in 22 matches. 

That particular stat won’t be lost on LJ. He knows, just as we all know that home form could have been much better.

Im not sure how many home draws we’ve had, but 8 wins = 24 points plus the draws.........:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Robin1988 said:

Only made 10 starts all season and in his last home one he got a goal and an assist, maybe a bit harsh?

LJ really likes Taylor not just the effort he puts in during matches but his bubbly persona around the club. With a full season of Championship football experience under his belt he could get more starts next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, harrys said:

Not sure about that, we played particularly poorly against all the bottom teams and I still shudder at the PNE game, it’s typical of LJ’s tenure really where we have been really good against the top teams at home (bar dirty Leeds) 

Hard to say.

Not saying we were wildly unlucky over the season, but we could have gained a few more points at home. The bottom third on the road have not often been thrashed over the course of the season.

This can help offer a bit of the context of the wider division, fairly easily at that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–19_EFL_Championship#Results

The nature of this League in some ways. Not saying we have got an acceptable number of points in these home games though!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2019 at 15:52, JonDolman said:

Taylor hasn't been very good for a while now to be fair. Think he might be sold in the summer. We don't know what we will get from Palmer. Even as a sub he can be brilliant or very poor. Hard one for LJ. All I know is he got the starting 11 wrong for sure.

Yeah, Taylor was ******* useless against Wigan, I wish he hadn't got an assist and scored, the crap bastard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, downendcity said:

A 20 goal a season striker is what every club wants but few have, and to get a proven one in today's market would be very expensive.

Another poster commented about Weimann's movement and that he is on a different wavelength from his teammates, who just don't seem to see the runs he makes. This ties in with the points you make in your second paragraph as we miss a midfielder who can control a game and dictate our play. A Hartley or Elliott would be just what we need and with a player of their ilk providing the ammunition we might see FD and AW up their scoring rates so that we don't need a 20 goal striker.

For all there good things LJ has done and achieved with the team, I've long thought that the style of play he wants is one that eliminates as much risk as possible, and that this causes us to be a bit too cautious. This is particularly noticeable in home games, where we often appear to be the exact opposite of what you would expect of a home team .Does this cautionary style of play inhibit our midfield play, which in turn limits the chances we create compared to playing in a more expansive way? 

It's not just defence splitting passes we seem to struggle to create, but also midfielders breaking past the opposition and into the opposing penalty area and making chances through the middle. This was raised on the thread about penalties and  is something we rarely see from our midfield. The one player who seems to have this ability is Palmer, but his opportunities have been limited - perhaps because LJ sees his style of play too risk prone.

 

Sorry, everyone else that has posted, I haven’t read them all.

I agree a lot with this DC.

LJ has built a team that is based around Marlon Pack protecting two fine CBs (Kalas and Webster) and being the pivot of our attack.  In fairness it has done pretty well, but....

....a team based on this type of player (and the DM position) can be restrictive in many other areas, especially at home.

I may be wide of the mark, but I could imagine LJ going to bed at night and dreaming of being Marlon Pack and having Marlon’s passing range and no-look passes, and I think it clouds his judgement of the impact Marlon has on games....because it’s impact is deep, too deep.  Our defensive record is better this season, but I think that is more to do with Kalas, Webster and Mäenpää than  Pack in front of them.  Our away form has been much better this season, and MP has been a decent part of this, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not digging out Marlon, just think his importance to the team in LJ’s mind is overstated.

We will never accommodate a Kasey Palmer-type if LJ insists on basing a style around a deep-lying midfielder.  Would things have been different with Korey available?  Not so sure....think he’d already made his mind up that Marlon and Josh were his first choice.  Korey playing might have made him Re-think, possibly.

Whether we go 4 or 3 at the back, the instance is that the ball must circulate through Pack.  The exception is Webster going forward, but that is flawed, because it never creates an extra man in midfield like it should, because Pack just fills in at CB....and teams can keep their defensive shape without being tested.  Birmingham at home was the classic example.

LJ, being a midfielder, sways his focus on thinking the DM is the most important role on the pitch. 

As I said above we have still had a very decent season, and it’s churlish to be too critical, but the small margins LJ talks about might be in different areas of the pitch to what he thinks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Yeah, Taylor was ******* useless against Wigan, I wish he hadn't got an assist and scored, the crap bastard.

Thought he did well to score and assist a goal. Don't think he has been the super sub he was a while ago. I think Semenyo's pace and power might cause defences different problems and is worth having on the bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Sorry, everyone else that has posted, I haven’t read them all.

I agree a lot with this DC.

LJ has built a team that is based around Marlon Pack protecting two fine CBs (Kalas and Webster) and being the pivot of our attack.  In fairness it has done pretty well, but....

....a team based on this type of player (and the DM position) can be restrictive in many other areas, especially at home.

I may be wide of the mark, but I could imagine LJ going to bed at night and dreaming of being Marlon Pack and having Marlon’s passing range and no-look passes, and I think it clouds his judgement of the impact Marlon has on games....because it’s impact is deep, too deep.  Our defensive record is better this season, but I think that is more to do with Kalas, Webster and Mäenpää than  Pack in front of them.  Our away form has been much better this season, and MP has been a decent part of this, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not digging out Marlon, just think his importance to the team in LJ’s mind is overstated.

We will never accommodate a Kasey Palmer-type if LJ insists on basing a style around a deep-lying midfielder.  Would things have been different with Korey available?  Not so sure....think he’d already made his mind up that Marlon and Josh were his first choice.  Korey playing might have made him Re-think, possibly.

Whether we go 4 or 3 at the back, the instance is that the ball must circulate through Pack.  The exception is Webster going forward, but that is flawed, because it never creates an extra man in midfield like it should, because Pack just fills in at CB....and teams can keep their defensive shape without being tested.  Birmingham at home was the classic example.

LJ, being a midfielder, sways his focus on thinking the DM is the most important role on the pitch. 

As I said above we have still had a very decent season, and it’s churlish to be too critical, but the small margins LJ talks about might be in different areas of the pitch to what he thinks.

One possible solution to that Pack being too deep might have been Hegeler as the first '1' in the 4-1-4-1.

This could have enabled Pack to get 5-10 yards up the pitch with more regularity, knowing he had an extra layer behind.

The dual benefit there is though starting with a back 4, in certain phases Hegeler could have dropped in alongside Kalas and Webster. Suddenly you have a back 3 as he has been deployed at CB before.

Even then could but only in limited circs have dropped to cover for Webster when he goes on his great runs. 

However the main benefits of Hegeler in that position would have been the first 2. Third would have been possible but only v certain opposition in certain phases IMO.

Would have had potential for increased options though. Flexibility and fluidity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One possible solution to that Pack being too deep might have been Hegeler as the first '1' in the 4-1-4-1.

This could have enabled Pack to get 5-10 yards up the pitch with more regularity, knowing he had an extra layer behind.

The dual benefit there is though starting with a back 4, in certain phases Hegeler could have dropped in alongside Kalas and Webster. Suddenly you have a back 3 as he has been deployed at CB before.

Even then could but only in limited circs have dropped to cover for Webster when he goes on his great runs. 

However the main benefits of Hegeler in that position would have been the first 2. Third would have been possible but only v certain opposition in certain phases IMO.

Would have had potential for increased options though. Flexibility and fluidity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know what you’re saying MrP, but I don’t think Pack has the mobility or speed of mobility to work in a 4141, where we would be a striker light.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...