Jordan Tansley Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 That's such a simplistic view. We did play long balls when Maynard and Pitman played upfront, it was commented on frequently. Unfortunately at this level and with a central midfield of Elliot and Cissé defenders are going to clear their lines quite frequently. The one player in our squad who tries to stop this is Lee Johnson... And I'm gonna guess you don't rate him either! Fact is, we play with wingers. So not only is having a back to goal player good for feeding them in down the sides, it's also good because he can get his head on any crosses from our wingers. You can't simply say, "bigman=longball" when in English football it's "striker of any height = longball!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Jon Stead does promote long balls, although he is a better player when the ball is at his feet, our defenders see a big man up front and they just pump it up at him. When we played Maynard/Clarkson or Maynard/Pitman we looked a much better team and it was alot better to watch. I feel sorry for stead as he always has the ball just pumped up to him and that isnt even his game! So if we bring in this bloke, we are obviously planning for some direct long balls forward, otherwise Millen would have gone out and signed someone with pace. Lets just see what happens, im not slating him before he even plays for us, but just feel it will ecourage long ball and thats not what you wanna see as a mid table side! did you watch the Norwich game on the tele when we kept pumping the ball up to Maynard which Don Goodman picked up on and questioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somerset_Sam Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Its not the order I have a problem with. I just dont think we needed a winger or a stiker - its our strongest department! Fair enough, my view is that signing Yanock provides cover and competition for Albert, assuming the left side is Woolford and JCR As for Taylor, assuming it is cover for Stead, if Maynard stays it will give us Maynard/Pitman and Stead/Taylor as our 4 main strikers, Clarkson I think will be offered up if Maynard stays and Jackson will go out on loan. So not priorities no, but squad players and competition yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad blit Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I wonder where they got the story this time ....... http://www.thisisbri...tail/story.html And interesting on this read too stating hes a free agent, its just compensation thats required http://www.rotherham.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=244626 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Montana Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 That's such a simplistic view. We did play long balls when Maynard and Pitman played upfront, it was commented on frequently. Unfortunately at this level and with a central midfield of Elliot and Cissé defenders are going to clear their lines quite frequently. The one player in our squad who tries to stop this is Lee Johnson... And I'm gonna guess you don't rate him either! Fact is, we play with wingers. So not only is having a back to goal player good for feeding them in down the sides, it's also good because he can get his head on any crosses from our wingers. You can't simply say, "bigman=longball" when in English football it's "striker of any height = longball!" I absolutely agree with you, however i do believe Cisse is reliable when hes got the ball at feet, he may not be creative but he keeps hold of possession. Thats why we need a creative midfielder in more than a striker in my opinion, but i didnt know that Taylor was a free agent, in that case, i think maybe its worth the gamble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.