Jump to content
IGNORED

Danny Simpson


Davefevs
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, CiderHeadDan said:

Thought he was good today. There was a couple of clearances when we went 3-1 and particularly 3-2 up where he looked very panicked and I expected him to be more assured with his experience

In these situations he could have taken a touch and retained possession but swang a leg at it and ensured pressure instead with a poor, sliced clearance. 
Definitely a better option than Vyner at right back but I wouldn’t say any more than a 7/10.

I noticed this, both full backs lost the ball a lot in silly areas in the last 5-10 minutes. Probably my only criticism of them though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SBB said:

My memory is a little fuzzy but at the time I thought Alex Scott didn’t track his man as he ran beyond Simpson? 

Exactly and both Simpson and Scott thought the Reading player had taken the ball over the line and were then caught flat-footed when play carried on. So Simpson was partially at fault for the build-up for their 1st goal, but compare that to Vyner being majorly at fault for Boro's first goal.

Defensively Simpson's positioning at RB is way better than Vyner's, although Vyner does offer more offensively on the overlap he a) does not do that often and b) his crosses are such poor quality that we don't get anything out of them anyway.

I'd like to see us have a better RB option, but if it's a question of Vyner or Simpson, it's Simpson for me.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though Simpson did ok. A solid 6/10. Don’t think he’ll offer enough going forward at home though but that wouldn’t matter if we had a decent right sided attacker in front of him which might be Semenyo when fit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OddBallJim said:

:dunno:well I thought he was decent tbf so must’ve been watching a different game.

If he had all the attributes that some are clamouring for then he wouldn’t be playing for us.

Full back/wing back has become such a highly competitive and sought after position these days, at the higher levels.

I think he’s decent and think I can see why he’s been brought in.

At this stage of his career he is what he is and that’s fine.

15 minutes ago, old_eastender said:

Exactly and both Simpson and Scott thought the Reading player had taken the ball over the line and were then caught flat-footed when play carried on. So Simpson was partially at fault for the build-up for their 1st goal, but compare that to Vyner being majorly at fault for Boro's first goal.

Defensively Simpson's positioning at RB is way better than Vyner's, although Vyner does offer more offensively on the overlap he a) does not do that often and b) his crosses are such poor quality that we don't get anything out of them anyway.

I'd like to see us have a better RB option, but if it's a question of Vyner or Simpson, it's Simpson for me.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, I forgot the ball was out of play before there first goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Totally agree….just what I wanted tonight. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

Had a 17 year old in front of him for 67 minutes and we didn’t get exposed. I need to review the goal to see where I think it broke down on that occasion….but Reading have some good footballers and Simpson stood up well.

Almost a beautiful first time pass through to James first half too.

Just kept it simple.

I have no issue with Vyner either, but hopefully some fans will be less negative about Simpson when he plays again.

Last year I thought he was competing with Gus Caesar & Gary Stanley for City's worst XI. TBF towards the last few games last year he started to find some fitness. Thought he was decent last night, didn't offer as much supporting forward later on, but as what I see as a season stop gap, OK.

8 hours ago, mozo said:

I see that Hunt and his defence is yet to concede a goal this season!

TBF that's only one level higher than the squatters, so 🤔

40 minutes ago, SBB said:

My memory is a little fuzzy but at the time I thought Alex Scott didn’t track his man as he ran beyond Simpson? 

Scott appeals for a throw and gives his man a couple of yards. Then the shit camera work means I'm not sure who, but someone (possibly King) lets his man run off and gets the cross in. Looks like a miss hit that turns into a pass. But again, passive defending. It looks like King is goal side of his man, Simpson has pushed out but with King's man on the move Simpson ends up crashing. 
Reoccurring theme so far this season.

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Then the shit camera work means I'm not sure who, but someone (possibly King) lets his man run off and gets the cross in.

It was definitely King who didn't track, so I would say that he, rather than Simpson, should take responsibility for Reading's first. Simpson has to be wide as Reading had 2 out there.

Obviously a comically mishit shot then went straight to Azeez... so they needed a slice of fortune on top of that slight breakdown to get their goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, AshtonYate said:

Never got why the fans wanted to force him out.  At least he offered something! Vyner offers absolutely nothing. 

He's not good enough. He could cross a ball but for an experienced player had appalling positioning defensively.   I'd rather have what we have now which is a very experienced player to step in when needed (ie last night) whilst another is learning the position.  Typical OTIB to write a player off after a bad performance.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, old_eastender said:

Exactly and both Simpson and Scott thought the Reading player had taken the ball over the line and were then caught flat-footed when play carried on. So Simpson was partially at fault for the build-up for their 1st goal, but compare that to Vyner being majorly at fault for Boro's first goal.

Defensively Simpson's positioning at RB is way better than Vyner's, although Vyner does offer more offensively on the overlap he a) does not do that often and b) his crosses are such poor quality that we don't get anything out of them anyway.

I'd like to see us have a better RB option, but if it's a question of Vyner or Simpson, it's Simpson for me.

 

 

 

I’d like to have seen the incident again, on first look I thought it went out of play but we made nothing of it after the goal & so I assume not.

On that note it was great to see King, Martin & James prepared to chip away at the ref (who I thought was excellent) throughout, as Reading never missed an opportunity to try and influence him, so good to see us standing up for ourselves.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Super said:

For me we need an upgrade still.

I imagine everyone, including Pearson will agree. Thing is we had no money, and it looks like it was a good choice to spend what we had on Atkinson.
As I said, he's a stop gap until we can spend some more money.

19 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

I’d like to have seen the incident again, on first look I thought it went out of play but we made nothing of it after the goal & so I assume not.

On that note it was great to see King, Martin & James prepared to chip away at the ref (who I thought was excellent) throughout, as Reading never missed an opportunity to try and influence him, so good to see us standing up for ourselves.

The problem is Scott did appeal, put him yards off of his man and the Lino & Ref aren't going to change their mind just because you moan.

No problem letting the Ref know he's made a mistake, or that the CB is pushing every time etc. But while the ball's in play you can't stop to appeal.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I think your preconceived bias is shining through 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

Im not comparing to Jay Dasilva.

Would love to know how Alex Scott felt playing with DS behind him.  Some nice link ups in the opening half an hour, and lots of little points to where he wanted him.

I am commentating on his game rather than his character.and the only preconceptions there are what I’ve seen from him for us before. I accept that last season he wasn’t fully fit and he had to have time to get up to speed.  
 

Now he’s there, I’m not convinced he still has what we need in him. He clearly was once a decent player and he may improve with more games,  but right now he’s looking like a very limited RB, offering less solidity and little going forward.  Combine vyner’s athleticism and skill with Simpsons experience and knowledge and we would have a player, but as things stand it looks like a real weak spot for us and I think a loan may be needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever I read that player X was responsible for a goal as he "lost the man he should have marked" I always wonder why player Y who gave away the ball in the first place or player Z who let the attack go unhindered through midfield, never get blamed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does exactly what NP wants.

Flat back 4 with 2 holding midfielders screening them. Pring used left mid to give us some width and then Scott, Martin and Weimann had quite a bit of freedom and were somewhat interchangeable. Was nice to see us having a clear and sensible game plan to be honest. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

Whenever I read that player X was responsible for a goal as he "lost the man he should have marked" I always wonder why player Y who gave away the ball in the first place or player Z who let the attack go unhindered through midfield, never get blamed.

 

We tend to look for a scapegoat , there is usually someone to blame and bias comes into it. As you say, a lot of the time it's not one player.
Looking at the goal last night. Scott appeals for a throw, that gives his man a couple of yards. Simpson has gone with his man to the touchline. King is goal side of his man, but is slow to react to the run. With no pressure on Scotts man on the ball, easy pass into space. 
Depending how you break it down, there are 1, 2 or all 3 at fault. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Capman said:

I thought he did well. The right did not defend as well as our left but that was about combinations not individuals. I am not convinced that our midfield and defence are operating well yet when we don’t have the ball. We defend well at the front but it becomes disjointed when the opposition is between the half way line and our box. Still, it’s early days so I suspect they will work it out.

Definitely a work in progress.

Ive now seen through pre-season and the first 3 league games that there is a clear pressing strategy for the front players against the opposition back line and keeper.

I think that is why he is playing “two” forwards, even if it isn’t a 442, or 4411 or 4231…..we definitely play two players to defend their CBs and keeper playing out.  That is a huge, huge huge improvement on last season which if it had a plan, was terribly executed.  Martin is looking really fit btw, which helps.

We have forced passing teams like Blackpool and Reading to kick long from their keeper and CBs very regularly. That’s good.

Agree the next improvement is in the middle part of our half.  Thought King was so good positionally last night, that they never really looked threatening first half.  His injury, players tiring a bit, changed that.  HNM gave us something different, and that was good too, but then with Palmer on too, we looked a bit more ragged, although we looked like we might get another goal too.

So let’s see if we can improve this bit next.  Good spot though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Solid.

That is all.

Not criticising Simpson, but it would be nice to have someone considered very good, that could also be dangerous going forward and accurately feed out front men.

I know we haven't got much to spend, but you can get a versatile Prem quality RB/RWB for £200k.

Just ask Leeds United.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Whenever I read that player X was responsible for a goal as he "lost the man he should have marked" I always wonder why player Y who gave away the ball in the first place or player Z who let the attack go unhindered through midfield, never get blamed.

 

People naturally want to identify someone as being at fault. When you break down probably 80% of goals it’s as you say, a number of players who could have done something different. Reading’s second goal, Massengo could have tackled or fouled, someone could have closed down, a keeper of Bentley’s shot stopping ability shouldn’t have got beat with that shot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

People naturally want to identify someone as being at fault. When you break down probably 80% of goals it’s as you say, a number of players who could have done something different. Reading’s second goal, Massengo could have tackled or fouled, someone could have closed down, a keeper of Bentley’s shot stopping ability shouldn’t have got beat with that shot.

 

Perchance even one of Massengo's colleagues could've helped him out and blocked the shot. But yeah, you're right, people love to identify one scapegoat.

Not just for goals conceded either. Sometimes one poor sod gets blamed for the loss of the whole game!  :laughcont:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

People naturally want to identify someone as being at fault. When you break down probably 80% of goals it’s as you say, a number of players who could have done something different. Reading’s second goal, Massengo could have tackled or fouled, someone could have closed down, a keeper of Bentley’s shot stopping ability shouldn’t have got beat with that shot.

I’ve been watching their first goal (Azeez) back this evening.  Can’t do it justice via video because the close proximity of the players on the far side, nor does the camera switch to zoom just after the ball almost goes out for a throw help the view of the movement.

D8E9996B-76AA-44ED-B47D-AAF5FDD937FF.thumb.jpeg.99127311eb3987fad03ca2e0cfe696c3.jpeg
decent shape, Scott about to go wide, Simpson too.  King on Laurent.

EDAA61D5-07B2-496F-AFAA-DB63A2B9622B.thumb.jpeg.248908c58cd7e22611e4cf48d4f133e2.jpeg

Ball almost goes out of play, Scott and King hands up appealing, Simpson tight enough to their player on the ball.

03712BA4-F3CA-4A4C-8355-645F047D749A.thumb.jpeg.207458e72cf7cd9715186b55f9f25fdc.jpeg

Just before the camera zooms in, you can see Scott a bit too slow to react having seen a throw-in not given.  Laurent is just about to bend a run behind King.  Simpson in fairness is just about to try a d provide a bit of cover narrow for King.

43274BB6-C15C-4D4C-8335-B19D54096C79.thumb.jpeg.7be43d6639e814a75b476a947a677b3f.jpeg

Next frame…..FFS

6D617C12-8B4F-4549-9823-DA2D47E2EB4E.thumb.jpeg.cd38cecb01753ba6bfef0e17b8dcf6f8.jpeg

Cameraman zooms out. Laurent has stolen 5 yards on King, Simpson trying to get back but to no avail.

So, the split second or so when the cameraman zooms out means we can’t tell what happened.

I suspect King got caught wondering whether to track Laurent or engage the player who’s got away from Scott.

So, one to probably give Reading credit for a slick move.

Its come down their left, so the automatic assumption when the video cuts back from zoom is that because Laurent is a yard or so beyond Simpson, that it’s Simpson’s fault.

For me, the ball almost going out causes

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’ve been watching their first goal (Azeez) back this evening.  Can’t do it justice via video because the close proximity of the players on the far side, nor does the camera switch to zoom just after the ball almost goes out for a throw help the view of the movement.

D8E9996B-76AA-44ED-B47D-AAF5FDD937FF.thumb.jpeg.99127311eb3987fad03ca2e0cfe696c3.jpeg
decent shape, Scott about to go wide, Simpson too.  King on Laurent.

EDAA61D5-07B2-496F-AFAA-DB63A2B9622B.thumb.jpeg.248908c58cd7e22611e4cf48d4f133e2.jpeg

Ball almost goes out of play, Scott and King hands up appealing, Simpson tight enough to their player on the ball.

03712BA4-F3CA-4A4C-8355-645F047D749A.thumb.jpeg.207458e72cf7cd9715186b55f9f25fdc.jpeg

Just before the camera zooms in, you can see Scott a bit too slow to react having seen a throw-in not given.  Laurent is just about to bend a run behind King.  Simpson in fairness is just about to try a d provide a bit of cover narrow for King.

43274BB6-C15C-4D4C-8335-B19D54096C79.thumb.jpeg.7be43d6639e814a75b476a947a677b3f.jpeg

Next frame…..FFS

6D617C12-8B4F-4549-9823-DA2D47E2EB4E.thumb.jpeg.cd38cecb01753ba6bfef0e17b8dcf6f8.jpeg

Cameraman zooms out. Laurent has stolen 5 yards on King, Simpson trying to get back but to no avail.

So, the split second or so when the cameraman zooms out means we can’t tell what happened.

I suspect King got caught wondering whether to track Laurent or engage the player who’s got away from Scott.

So, one to probably give Reading credit for a slick move.

Its come down their left, so the automatic assumption when the video cuts back from zoom is that because Laurent is a yard or so beyond Simpson, that it’s Simpson’s fault.

For me, the ball almost going out causes

Play to the whistle and the flag, end of. Drives me mad when players decide the are offside, for example. With no VAR, keep going.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it has been said before but last night for me proved what a poor signing he is.  What does he bring to the table?  No pace and whenever (as there were numerous occasions last night particularly in the second half) there was an opportunity to break and run into space he stops and passes sideways or back.  I know Jack Hunt was not the player he was but still a far better option than this guy.  Perhaps wages swung it but geez this guy really limits our options.  With Dasilva having a poor game we really did look exposed on both flanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need another thread, but as I said this on another of the threads, I will repeat, he struggled first half when he was left 1 on 1 numerous times by Scott, but he worked really hard in the 2nd half, covered well when the central defenders went forward and his passing was accurate with real zip in it. 

I would stick to whoever your previous whipping boy was, because he isn't as bad as half of this forum are trying to make out.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both our full backs were poor last night. Identified as weakness's by all opposition so far. Ball knocked in behind them numerous times and we are turned then under pressure. 

Lack of positional sense and height.

I hope NP gets a RWB from somewhere and we can play with Pring as LWB on the other side.

Otherwise this will be an ongoing problem all season.

We have James Taylor in the u-23s who is excellent, certainly could have done no worse last night - IMO.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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