Coach Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Pitman is our top scorer ... Keogh has never been prolific, Pitman is our player ... Keogh is merely on loan. I could understand if Pitman blatantly wasn't good enough or if Keogh was clearly outstanding at this level BUT neither are anywhere near true. I don't mind loanees coming in but not at the expense of very good players already here. What has Pitman done to firstly be shoved wide left at every opportunity then dropped for a journeyman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC Jordan Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 He should of been brought on when it was end to end football at 1-1 also, as all know how great of a finisher he is, possibly a more natural finisher than Nicky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I can't understand Why Pitman doesn't start every game. He is better than Clarkson and Keogh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon79 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Pitman is our top scorer ... Keogh has never been prolific, Pitman is our player ... Keogh is merely on loan. I could understand if Pitman blatantly wasn't good enough or if Keogh was clearly outstanding at this level BUT neither are anywhere near true. I don't mind loanees coming in but not at the expense of very good players already here. What has Pitman done to firstly be shoved wide left at every opportunity then dropped for a journeyman? Because he is more of a lone striker than Pitman i would imagine. I didnt see the game or any of the hilights, but he is more suited to that role than Pitman from the games i have seen. He probably works harder and is more capable of getting hold of the ball which is vital in that role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbcfc Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Because he is more of a lone striker than Pitman i would imagine. I didnt see the game or any of the hilights, but he is more suited to that role than Pitman from the games i have seen. He probably works harder and is more capable of getting hold of the ball which is vital in that role. In theory I agree, but when you have a target man he plays with his back to goal alot, he then when under control plays it either to our playmaker (but we haven't got one) or our wingers who then have to rely on the midfield being quick enough and clever enough to get into the box (we haven't got those) so when the cross comes in it finds more than a goalkeeper and a couple of center halfs. At least if Pittman was playing when we launch our aimless balls forward he has the ability to run off the shoulder of the center half (like at qpr) and we get a shot away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty-H Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Attacking-wise we were playing 4-3-3, not 4-5-1. The two wide men drop back to 4-5-1 defensively Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon79 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 In theory I agree, but when you have a target man he plays with his back to goal alot, he then when under control plays it either to our playmaker (but we haven't got one) or our wingers who then have to rely on the midfield being quick enough and clever enough to get into the box (we haven't got those) so when the cross comes in it finds more than a goalkeeper and a couple of center halfs. At least if Pittman was playing when we launch our aimless balls forward he has the ability to run off the shoulder of the center half (like at qpr) and we get a shot away. Possibly, but then for the other 89 mins or so we cant get hold of the ball up front long enough to get the team to push up. While continually turning over possesion and thus allowing them to attack and control the game. IMO from what i have read regarding last nights game, the result was nothing to do with team selection or formations. It was down to individual errors or decisions if you like and a lack of luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbcfc Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Possibly, but then for the other 89 mins or so we cant get hold of the ball up front long enough to get the team to push up. While continually turning over possesion and thus allowing them to attack and control the game. IMO from what i have read regarding last nights game, the result was nothing to do with team selection or formations. It was down to individual errors or decisions if you like and a lack of luck! You say we wouldn't get possesion but surely when playing 2 defensive midfielders it's their job to win the ball back play it out to the wings or clarkson, but they're not doing that. Agreed that the team makes too many poor decisions, this comes down to the fact we haven't got a midfielder at the club who is capable of passing a ball more than 10 yards resulting in us lumping the ball forward. If we had a midfielder who was capable of holding onto the ball and laying it off into the right direction then we wouldn't need to lump it forward. The whole problem with this team stems from the midfield and if all 4 central midfielders at the club were to leave in the summer I for one wouldn't be upset. No brains, not aggressive enough and too slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Could it be what Coppell adhered to in his pre season Q and A session. He stated that most Prem clubs who loan players do so in the belief that there player MUST play if not injured. Could well be the reason we have Keogh now and not Cardiff, because he wasn't a regular starter at Cardiff. Will be interesting to see what happens when Stead and Maynard are fully fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon79 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 You say we wouldn't get possesion but surely when playing 2 defensive midfielders it's their job to win the ball back play it out to the wings or clarkson, but they're not doing that. Agreed that the team makes too many poor decisions, this comes down to the fact we haven't got a midfielder at the club who is capable of passing a ball more than 10 yards resulting in us lumping the ball forward. If we had a midfielder who was capable of holding onto the ball and laying it off into the right direction then we wouldn't need to lump it forward. The whole problem with this team stems from the midfield and if all 4 central midfielders at the club were to leave in the summer I for one wouldn't be upset. No brains, not aggressive enough and too slow. Think we have crossed wires. I thought you were saying Pitman should play instead of Keogh up top? I was saying that if this was be to the case, that he would struggle imo to hold the ball and keep possesion of the ball. This then puts us under even more pressure than normal. I agree we need a new "creative" midfielder. But what i would say to that is, we could have Xavi in our engine room and he would struggle in our team, due to a severe lack of movement around him. I really believe that this is our biggest problem with regards our lack of "creativity"! It really baffles me how proffesional footballers/coaches do not seemingly work on this or in a players case, have the gumption to use it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveF Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I was there last night and I have to say Keogh and Clarkson offer nothing up front together. We looked so much better when Keogh came off and started to pass the ball rather than hoofing it at every opportunity. I much prefer the team that finished the game, they can pass a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchay Red Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Could it be what Coppell adhered to in his pre season Q and A session. He stated that most Prem clubs who loan players do so in the belief that there player MUST play if not injured. Could well be the reason we have Keogh now and not Cardiff, because he wasn't a regular starter at Cardiff. Will be interesting to see what happens when Stead and Maynard are fully fit. This may well be the case. However if/when JS and NM are both fully fit, I'm thinking it won't matter if we don't play Keogh and Wolves want him back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Think we have crossed wires. I thought you were saying Pitman should play instead of Keogh up top? I was saying that if this was be to the case, that he would struggle imo to hold the ball and keep possesion of the ball. This then puts us under even more pressure than normal. I agree we need a new "creative" midfielder. But what i would say to that is, we could have Xavi in our engine room and he would struggle in our team, due to a severe lack of movement around him. I really believe that this is our biggest problem with regards our lack of "creativity"! It really baffles me how proffesional footballers/coaches do not seemingly work on this or in a players case, have the gumption to use it! Mate...No disrespect, but can you sort out your signiture...it's ******* annoying, even though i loved Jack. Can't you make them smaller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Pitman is our top scorer ... Keogh has never been prolific, Pitman is our player ... Keogh is merely on loan. I could understand if Pitman blatantly wasn't good enough or if Keogh was clearly outstanding at this level BUT neither are anywhere near true. I don't mind loanees coming in but not at the expense of very good players already here. What has Pitman done to firstly be shoved wide left at every opportunity then dropped for a journeyman? I have been arguing this point for quite some time. I think you improve morale and build team spirit far more if you make do with what you have and improvise rather than constantly bringing in fresh faces. We have now used a total of nine strikers this season, following on from the nine we used last season. It's far too high a turnover and continues the obsession with strikers that we have at our club, to the detriment of improving the overall balance of the squad. Last season: Maynard, Haynes, Clarkson, Saborio, Iwelumo, Agyemang, Akinde, Maierhofer, Velicka. This year (so far) : Stead, Pitman, Haynes, Clarkson, Akinde, Jackson, Vokes, Keogh, Maynard. That's off the top of my head, I may have missed some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon79 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Mate...No disrespect, but can you sort out your signiture...it's ******* annoying, even though i loved Jack. Can't you make them smaller? None taken. Hope this has worked? As for Jacki, absolute class! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Nope... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellRedPhil Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Completely agree. I think he's a much better player than Keogh anyway and Keogh is merely a loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 we dont know the ins and outs of what happens in the dressing room. for all we know, Pitmann could have picked up a knock or was not feeling 100% whereas Keogh was match fit. He could also be performing better in traning which makes him merit a first team place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmite Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I have been arguing this point for quite some time. I think you improve morale and build team spirit far more if you make do with what you have and improvise rather than constantly bringing in fresh faces. We have now used a total of nine strikers this season, following on from the nine we used last season. It's far too high a turnover and continues the obsession with strikers that we have at our club, to the detriment of improving the overall balance of the squad. Last season: Maynard, Haynes, Clarkson, Saborio, Iwelumo, Agyemang, Akinde, Maierhofer, Velicka. This year (so far) : Stead, Pitman, Haynes, Clarkson, Akinde, Jackson, Vokes, Keogh, Maynard. That's off the top of my head, I may have missed some. With all these strikers, why are we always amongst the lowest goalscorers in the division? The fault is with the "defensive" style of football we play. 11 defending corners, midfield not supporting strikers, no give and go, slow square build up, big hoof upfield from defence which comes straight back. A rethink in style might bring more goals (and wins). All our strikers are capable of scoring with the right service, which explains why they score before they join us and after they leave! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.