RC1984 Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 I can't believe the only player he has a pop at is Maynard!!! Up top on his own with shit service & it's his fault as he's not sharp enough. Goes on to say not fully fit but still plays him on his own. His subs are confusing. Left wing/centre mid for Stead?! Woolford looks a better LB than LW. Time to let Bolasie loose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taunton_City Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 He is a clueless clown who has no idea on his best 11!! He has to go! Leeds will destroy us Saturday!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 I can't believe the only player he has a pop at is Maynard!!! Up top on his own with shit service & it's his fault as he's not sharp enough. Goes on to say not fully fit but still plays him on his own. His subs are confusing. Left wing/centre mid for Stead?! Woolford looks a better LB than LW. Time to let Bolasie loose! Did you bother to read the whole article? Here's the bit that you accidently must have overlooked. '' Millen defended his decision to deploy leading goalscorer Nicky Maynard as a lone striker and said: "It was a 4-3-3 formation, rather than 4-5-1, and Jamal Campbell-Ryce, Marvin Elliott and Albert Adomah were all a threat."I played people in their strongest positions and looked to put us on the front foot. I thought there were a lot of good individual performances, but Nicky was a bit off his game and needs to be sharper. "We've had to be a bit careful with him because he has had a couple of niggles and has missed nine days training in the past fortnight." He added: "It was difficult to know whether to stick or twist. You can go for it and throw more men into attack, but if you do that, Brighton will play through you. "You cannot be suckered into just playing more forwards up front, because you leave yourselves wide open. "We kept it tight in the right areas and still had enough of the ball to punish them." Self explanatory when you read the whole piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Millen needs training in what he say's in public. Maynard has missed 9 days's training out of 14 and still gets picked as a lone striker !! I can't see the logic behind that one , Stead & Pitman must be getting a bit fed up with it. I said before the game on Saturday the only way we can play 5 in midfield is to play Stead rather Maynard in a 4-5-1 or leave Adomah out to play 3-5-2 but I doubted wether KM had the guts to drop either of them. I think we now have the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Did you bother to read the whole article? Here's the bit that you accidently must have overlooked. '' Millen defended his decision to deploy leading goalscorer Nicky Maynard as a lone striker and said: "It was a 4-3-3 formation, rather than 4-5-1, and Jamal Campbell-Ryce, Marvin Elliott and Albert Adomah were all a threat."I played people in their strongest positions and looked to put us on the front foot. I thought there were a lot of good individual performances, but Nicky was a bit off his game and needs to be sharper. "We've had to be a bit careful with him because he has had a couple of niggles and has missed nine days training in the past fortnight." He added: "It was difficult to know whether to stick or twist. You can go for it and throw more men into attack, but if you do that, Brighton will play through you. "You cannot be suckered into just playing more forwards up front, because you leave yourselves wide open. "We kept it tight in the right areas and still had enough of the ball to punish them." Self explanatory when you read the whole piece. If 4-4-2 leaves you 'wide open' this of course begs the question as to why you bother bringing these strikers to the club in the first place. In addition why play a guy who's missed nine days training in the last two weeks when you've got perfectly good replacements to step in. What message are you sending out to Pitman and Stead ? 'I have no confidence in you and would rather play a guy who's not fully fit.' Time for all our other strikers to join Maynard in looking for a move I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeRed Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Did you bother to read the whole article? Here's the bit that you accidently must have overlooked. '' Millen defended his decision to deploy leading goalscorer Nicky Maynard as a lone striker and said: "It was a 4-3-3 formation, rather than 4-5-1, and Jamal Campbell-Ryce, Marvin Elliott and Albert Adomah were all a threat."I played people in their strongest positions and looked to put us on the front foot. I thought there were a lot of good individual performances, but Nicky was a bit off his game and needs to be sharper. "We've had to be a bit careful with him because he has had a couple of niggles and has missed nine days training in the past fortnight." He added: "It was difficult to know whether to stick or twist. You can go for it and throw more men into attack, but if you do that, Brighton will play through you. "You cannot be suckered into just playing more forwards up front, because you leave yourselves wide open. "We kept it tight in the right areas and still had enough of the ball to punish them." Self explanatory when you read the whole piece. He was probably right to start 4-5-1 given the perceived style of Brighton, but on the day they didn't look anything special and it was clear a bolder approach was then called for. If Maynard was off his game then why didn't KM sub him? 2 strikers were ready,fit, and on the bench. If he really believed he played people in their strongest position then why did Stead go left wing and Pitman in midfield? His comments on the OS and on RB saying things like -"Tactically we got it spot on" and "It's a good game to analyse" show that KM believes he made no mistakes which is worrying. As the game progressed into the second half Kilkenny went deeper and deeper and became ineffective, refusing (or lacking the confidence) to hit through balls to Albert and JCR even though they made runs and the pass was "on" - NK bottled it and instead played a succession of short square passes. so with NM struggling with the lack of training the OBVIOUS subs were : Kilkenny & Maynard off, Stead and Pitman up front, Skuse to sit deeper and protect the back 4 and pick up any runners from midfield and Marv to push on into the box when we were on the attack. JCR and Albert to try and get crosses in to the box for Stead, Pitman and Marv arriving to pick/win up any loose ball. Instead he persisted with Maynard - then confessed in the EP that he knew he was struggling. Worrying times. CR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BITW Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Skuse and jcr went off injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Skuse and jcr went off injured. Millen said JCR did'nt look like he was moving very well..... As far as I could see, he was moving alot more than anyone else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 JCR and Albert to try and get crosses in to the box for Stead, Pitman and Marv arriving to pick/win up any loose ball. Instead he persisted with Maynard - then confessed in the EP that he knew he was struggling. Yep. Its definitely odd that Millen didn't swap Maynard for Pitman if he could see that Maynard was struggling having missed so much training. I'd like to hear his explanation of why he didn't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Yep. Its definitely odd that Millen didn't swap Maynard for Pitman if he could see that Maynard was struggling having missed so much training. I'd like to hear his explanation of why he didn't do it. Even a half fit maynard is a goal threat if he has some one like Stead doing the donkey work, Thing is he's isolated he needs at least a player behind him so he doesn't have to come deeper to get the ball, Same can be said for Pitman also which is why if you play them together you need someone attacking from the middle of the park to do the donkey work between the 18yrd box and centre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Millen needs training in what he say's in public. Why? What he said seems quite reasonable. Hardly his fault if people wilfully misinterpret it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Did you bother to read the whole article? Here's the bit that you accidently must have overlooked. '' Millen defended his decision to deploy leading goalscorer Nicky Maynard as a lone striker and said: "It was a 4-3-3 formation, rather than 4-5-1, and Jamal Campbell-Ryce, Marvin Elliott and Albert Adomah were all a threat."I played people in their strongest positions and looked to put us on the front foot. I thought there were a lot of good individual performances, but Nicky was a bit off his game and needs to be sharper. "We've had to be a bit careful with him because he has had a couple of niggles and has missed nine days training in the past fortnight." He added: "It was difficult to know whether to stick or twist. You can go for it and throw more men into attack, but if you do that, Brighton will play through you. "You cannot be suckered into just playing more forwards up front, because you leave yourselves wide open. "We kept it tight in the right areas and still had enough of the ball to punish them." Self explanatory when you read the whole piece. I wonder how many people on here thought that we played 4-3-3 rather than 4-5-1?? Second half, we definitely pushed more people forward to counter their short balls out from the GK. However, when we had the ball at the back I'd say it was 4-5-1. I wonder if Maynard thinks we played 4-3-3??? Also, when he says that JCR, Marvin and Albert were all a threat what does he mean? Albert was anonymous first half; JCR ran around a lot but hardly delivered one decent cross. I forgot that Elliot was playing. I assume Keef has used his famed Prozone stats to determine how many shots these three "threats" had. I'd imagine I could count them using the fingers from my left hand.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Why? What he said seems quite reasonable. Hardly his fault if people wilfully misinterpret it. You just answered your own post there CJE. If it is so easily misinterpreted then he is doing something wrong. He needs PR training to stop making the same mistakes when talking to the press. It is not rocket science. Concise to the point, leave nothing there to misrepresented, especially in the current climate. It smacks of unprofessionalism from the club as a whole, Millen should not take the brunt for this, media relations and the board should be picking him up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 I wonder how many people on here thought that we played 4-3-3 rather than 4-5-1?? Second half, we definitely pushed more people forward to counter their short balls out from the GK. However, when we had the ball at the back I'd say it was 4-5-1. I wonder if Maynard thinks we played 4-3-3??? Also, when he says that JCR, Marvin and Albert were all a threat what does he mean? Albert was anonymous first half; JCR ran around a lot but hardly delivered one decent cross. I forgot that Elliot was playing. I assume Keef has used his famed Prozone stats to determine how many shots these three "threats" had. I'd imagine I could count them using the fingers from my left hand.... I think the problem is we play 451, then when we need to change to 433 to become offensive the formation just is not right, messers Albert and JCR are not in the correct positions to play 433, it is more of a pushed up 451. Check how the top clubs in the Prem play 433 (I know we don't have the same quality players to pull this off,but using it as an example), then look how we play 433 when changing from 451 in midplay. And therein lies the problem, it maybe 433 in everyone's eyes but it is a totally ineffective 433. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Millen said JCR did'nt look like he was moving very well..... As far as I could see, he was moving alot more than anyone else! I made the point on another thread that JCR looked totally pissed off at the decision to substitute him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 I made the point on another thread that JCR looked totally pissed off at the decision to substitute him. I noticed about 5 mins before he was subbed JCR and Millen had ''an exchange of views''. Obviously no idea what Millen was saying to him but not long after he got taken off. Maybe Millen was asking JCR if he felt fit enough to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 I noticed about 5 mins before he was subbed JCR and Millen had ''an exchange of views''. Obviously no idea what Millen was saying to him but not long after he got taken off. Maybe Millen was asking JCR if he felt fit enough to continue. was he dropping back to help the defence out at all or coming short to collect the ball off of McGiven? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 I noticed about 5 mins before he was subbed JCR and Millen had ''an exchange of views''. Obviously no idea what Millen was saying to him but not long after he got taken off. Maybe Millen was asking JCR if he felt fit enough to continue. It was quite funny when JCR tried to spit on the ground to express his annoyance, but got most of it on his shirt instead. Probably the highlight of the day, along with VivaCity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 was he dropping back to help the defence out at all or coming short to collect the ball off of McGiven? All I can remember is that there was a break in play, the ball out for a throw I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 All I can remember is that there was a break in play, the ball out for a throw I think. thats prolly what it was about, if he wasn't making himself available for a throw or helping enough at the back (it sounded to me McGiven was suffering from a Mcallister ie lack of support infront of him) then thats what the disagreement would of been about, I don't mind a manager even teflon shouting at a player as it shows they at least have a bit of passion somthing he has lacked so if he was having a tiff then you can't hold it against him, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.