Jump to content
IGNORED

Message for mr pearson


Banjo Island

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Banjo Island said:

Zak yyner is not a championship footballer

To be fair he was the best of a terrible back three first half but then reverted to type. The kid just cannot concentrate at this level. As for Naismith, shouts a lot, claps his hands, points here there and everywhere, nice left peg but he forgot he’s in the side to DEFEND. Obviously we have to give him a few games but his performance was shambolic today.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Yoyo2345 said:

Another message. GO NOW

I’m about another 2/3 shit performances away from being Pearson out. The football is still diabolical. He’s been here long enough now to at least have us playing well. We’re no different to when he took over. Needs to sort this shit out pronto 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 95% of people on here would agree that Vyner is not good enough for the championship. The question is, why does Mr Pearson? Seems to me that he had every intention of starting vyner the first match of the season by his selection for the last 2 pre-season games. Pearson’s inability to structure the side so that we stop conceding goals whilst retaining a threat at the top end of the pitch remains a concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Negan said:

I’m about another 2/3 shit performances away from being Pearson out. The football is still diabolical. He’s been here long enough now to at least have us playing well. We’re no different to when he took over. Needs to sort this shit out pronto 

I didn’t think we were shit at all WITH the ball but football is also played without the bastard and that is where we were exceptionally poor today.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

I didn’t think we were shit at all WITH the ball but football is also played without the bastard and that is where we were exceptionally poor today.

Few good bits of link up play and decent attacks however a game is 90 minutes long. We seem to play well for about 9 of those minutes ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Negan said:

Few good bits of link up play and decent attacks however a game is 90 minutes long. We seem to play well for about 9 of those minutes ?

We have enough in our side to win games if we defend well but we seem unable do it. Kalas will make a difference but if it was I’d bring in a defender that can run and a specialist CDM in on loan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could do with a defensive midfielding bully , who breaks play up is aggressive and gives it simple  , and not no 5ft 5 player someone in the mild of a Marvin Elliot type player / physique.

that would then give us some sort of platform to go forward , where we are half decent , but you can’t keep conceading  week in week out . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Missed the game, been out on a Birthday do

Was it good bad or indifferent?? 

Mixed...

1st half terrible play by Naismith to gift them a goal after 4 mins, then some good play equaliser and we looked the better side for rest of 1st half. Martin should have scored for 2-1 after lovely play by Scott.

2nd half started well went 2-1 up then left ourselves totally exposed with Vyner left 1-on-1 and their Everton loanee getting the better of him. After they went 2-2, they totally outplayed us up to scoring their 3rd, when they then sat back somewhat. Martin missed a sitter to make it 3-3.

Williams was not quite on the pace all game, although can't fault his effort. Sykes was poor at RWB, offered no defensive cover at all and did little going forward either. 

Chance to out some things right against Coventry in the cup, hope Conway, or Wells, starts ahead of Martin and Kane Wilson starts ahead of Sykes.

 

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

4 minutes ago, redkev said:

Could do with a defensive midfielding bully , who breaks play up is aggressive and gives it simple  , and not no 5ft 5 player someone in the mild of a Marvin Elliot type player / physique.

that would then give us some sort of platform to go forward , where we are half decent , but you can’t keep conceading  week in week out . 

It would help but the whole set up is off imo. Look how Sunderland play with a back 3. The left side was very attacking. Clarke and their LCB love to overload that side and Pritchard helped. Their right side more defensive. 
 

We are both sides defensive with 2 sat in front of them. It is just too easy to pin us back. Probably because we don’t have near the outlet Sunderland had with two big athletic and strong forwards.
 

Chris Martin is a liability at this level. I imagine he plays because Weimann needs a partner like Martin but he adds nothing to our play. Can’t press, can’t get in behind. Links up ok at times but as I said before when he does get it to feet and lay off to someone else, he doesn’t have the pace or desire to be a goal scoring option. He needs to be on the bench when Semenyo is back. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Capman said:

I must admit I find the scapegoating of Zak on here very tedious. The second goal was nothing like as clear a mistake as the first and he was not on the pitch for the third.

This.

Zak was at fault in the second phase of the second goal, great work by Williams, HNM & one other (Dasilva)? though to let one opponent go round all of them in advance of his mistake & his confidence then disappeared.

However by that stage he had also provided his second assist in 2 games, he was not at fault for the first (Naismith was) & was off the pitch by the third.

I don’t think he’s as good as Klose but let’s be honest, Simms & Stewart troubled all of our defenders, but “Zak Vyner”, eh?

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Capman said:

I must admit I find the scapegoating of Zak on here very tedious. The second goal was nothing like as clear a mistake as the first and he was not on the pitch for the third.

I agree do not like scapegoating a player as often undeserved, thought Vyner was partly at fault in the build up to the pen last week as his man just peeled away from him and ball knocked over his head, again today lost his man initially which gave the space and created the problem.

He just seems to either switch off or not capable of the spacial awareness required

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This 3 at the back just doesn’t work. Was we look a threat going forward but no shape defensively and our centre backs get isolated. Vyner was poor yes but it doesn’t help that he had two wing backs on his side that cannot defend. We have to revert to 4 at the back. I personally would go with the following:

 

O’Leary

 

Tanner

Klose

Atkinson

Dasilva

 

Wilson

Naismith

Scott

Sykes

 

Weimann

Martin

 

Neismith sat in front of the back 4. Wainman in the hole behind Martin.

 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Hmmm 1
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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