Ratings from today

[Brooko]

59 minutes ago, SODS_LAW said:

Wow

This really shows a lack of understanding of the game. You can’t just have players who attack in a team. Nagy is always available for the ball which is essential for the CBs And he keeps everything ticking in the middle of the park. He’s also there to break down the oppositions attacks. 

I understand the game. I've played it enough at a decent standard FWIW. We just see it differently SODS.  I am not saying Nagy offers nothing. He is a no frills engine in the mid, a little lightweight, and rarely takes us forward  when we need it - like yesterday against 10 men. I watched him for Hungary the other night. He was abject and lucky not to get hooked at half time. Time will tell, I'm just not in 'The Midfield Messiah' camp yet! Happy to be proved wrong 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Not to contradict your last paragraph Dave but yesterday I though Fam had his best game in ages. He was clearly ‘up’ for it and covered acres of ground.

He cleared one off the line, created problems  the Forest defenders all game. He just doesn’t have quick feet which is surprisingly unusual in a professional footballer.......

Ive watched the first half of the Boro game against Hull and Assambalonga could be showing Fam what more Fam could do....

Yes, agree, he had a good game yesterday. Ignoring his defensive stuff (I know you can’t ignore it, it was v.good), he put himself about when the ball is in his vicinity.  That is what I expect from him.  It’s the one-dimensional element of it in the patterns of play that make us (as a team) less cohesive down “his’ side of the pitch.

I just think how much better he could be for the team if he offered us an option down the sides too, if only to mix it up and be less predictable for his marker.  He did it once yesterday, first half.

If I take yesterday and 30 mins v Charlton, I saw a better Fam than I’ve seen for a while.  That needs to be the minimum for me.

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Brooko said:

I understand the game. I've played it enough at a decent standard FWIW. We just see it differently SODS.  I am not saying Nagy offers nothing. He is a no frills engine in the mid, a little lightweight, and rarely takes us forward  when we need it - like yesterday against 10 men. I watched him for Hungary the other night. He was abject and lucky not to get hooked at half time. Time will tell, I'm just not in 'The Midfield Messiah' camp yet! Happy to be proved wrong 

Still getting back up to full-speed, the Nagy of those opening two and a half games was more all-action...think he’s just easing himself back into full-form.  The one thing I really like is that he is always looking to find those little angles, the 30-45 degree forward angle - unfortunately yesterday Brownhill couldn’t get the balls because he was so well marked.  Against Cardiff he got Brownhill freed up to do what he does best.  Forest were excellent in their shape yesterday.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

A lot to cover, and I’ve moved from iPhone to iPad, so lost the posts I was gonna quote.

@1960maaan, @BTRFTG and @JonDolman were the posts I was gonna quote.  Might’ve been one or two others too, so I’m responding to lots of you.

From my perspective, we played down the right once they went down to 10-men.  Forget whether Rowe was effective or not, we never played the ball down that side to see whether he could.  Who was the midfielder in front of him?  Palmer, who isn’t a LW/LM (that’s not a criticism of Palmer either).  Every ball got cycled right.  In fact Baker, with more tempo passes to Rowe in second half, enabled us to go over the half way line quicker, at which point Rowe then goes square, and we cycle right or back and right and forward.  It’s a standard pattern of played enabled by Baker getting it to Rowe quickly.  The ball eventually ends up at Eliasson....usually in the final third.  That’s good implementation of that tactic.

However, when the ball goes down the right (in the second half), it NEVER cycles left.

Read my pre-match thread, in particular the copy and paste from the Forest fan.  Forest wanted us to play on one side of the pitch, and with 10 men they dragged us into doing it, making them have to cover less ground.  Eliasson might’ve looked dangerous with his “oohs and aahs” crosses, but against 10 men you have to make the pitch as wide as possible (you mentioned this @1960maaan....we made it smaller.  We played into Forest’s hands.  It got the crowd going, but we didn’t actually create the space to create the 1on1s or overloads, because we predictably went down the right each time.  We aren’t Man City, but look how many times they sometimes go from side to side, probing for that opportunity to expose.  We went right side, cross it, end of move.  That’s not a criticism of Eliasson either.

So, then ask yourself why we can play down the right but not the left?  Forest’s press is capable of working either side as we saw first half when 11v11.  Look further forward.  I’m gonna generalise here, but one of our two strikers moves around to either receive the ball short or down the sides or create space for his teammates by coming short or going long, and the other doesn't.  The first one is Weimann the second one is Diedhiou.  Now the real quiz question....who plays right as who plays left?

Weimann - goes central, right central and right, goes long, goes short.  Makes runs to receive the ball, makes runs to drag his marker away from where he wants the ball to go.

Diedhiou - stays central, occasionally slightly left of centre, when Weimann is central.  Never runs a channel.  Only ever offers a pass into feet option (I’m not referring to aerial challenges from keeper kicks).  Yesterday he did that reasonably well.  But it was so one dimensional.

Now go back and think why Rowe and Palmer didn’t see the ball in the final third in the last 25 minutes.  Because they get the ball 40-50 yards from goal, and have no progressive option in front of them down the left channel.  It has to come right.  Rowe, as he’s proved many times, wants to get forward, he’s incredibly keen to hit the box (twice yesterday, once when Baker took one off his head and another when he missed a v.good chance).  Why was O’Dowda’s only moment of excellence yesterday (from a LCM position) something he created himself?

Lets go back further, to Barnsley and Cardiff.  Where did our first goal at Oakwell come from?  Watkins running the left channel and getting fouled as he broke into the box.  Where did our goal come from at Cardiff.  A good bit of pass and move down the left side between O’Dowda, Rowe and Palmer, before finding Brownhill.  In fact Baker makes a run beyond Palmer to drag someone away to give Palmer space to get it into feet.  In fact Rowe got forward several v Cardiff because we had movement that created space for us to cycle left.  We didn’t always get it to him, or when we did he didn’t always create (one O’Dowda shot and a couple of blocked crosses), but it was a more balanced pitch.

The game isn’t rocket science, but it’s not a simple 11 individuals v 11 individuals and if you win 6 battles you’re gonna win.  It’s more intricate than that, as they are lots of combinations expanding the permutations.  You can’t just rate player performance on their actions alone. And sometimes a player having an average game might be tactical for the greater good of the team or because others are doing their bit.

I’m not making Diedhiou my scapegoat, but I do feel his decent goals record hides a level of performance and lack of team cohesiveness, that impact on others.  So next time we watch Rowe or O’Dowda trying to attack down the left just have a look up-top and see what Fam is doing.  I think he could do a lot more...and if he did he would be a much bigger handful than he is, and I think we might be more attractive to watch.

 

I think Eliasson was wing back when Watkins won that free kick before the goal against Barnsley. Rowe had been moved into central midfield.

I think that game is actually an example of our play all coming down our right until Eliasson had moved to left wing back, and then most of our play seemed to come down our left once Eliasson had moved there.

I actually thought Eliasson did a really good job at wing back. It's something I have always wondered, suggested it a few times on here but always said I imagine it might be a bit dodgy. From that one game I thought he looked okay defensively, though clearly would have to learn role.

[Charlie BCFC]

20 hours ago, old_eastender said:

Bentley - 7 - Another solid performance, couple of decent (if expected) saves.

Pedro - 6 - Defended OK and did much better getting forward, but his crosses at times were poor, need Hunt back in the side for me.

Baker - 6 - Largely steady, with some sloppy passes.

Wright - 6 - Largely steady, with a few trademark silly fouls esp. when he went up into their box.

Williams - 8 - Pick of the 3 CBs, quality defending.

Rowe - 5 - Didn't have much to do defensively and was poor going forward.

Nagy - 7 - Saw a lot of the ball and overall neat and tidy with it, faded a bit in last 20 mins.

Brownhill - 6 - Not one of his best, busy but a few overhit passes.

COD - 4 - One good run just before HT than won a corner, aside from that offered very little.

Fammy - 7 - Cleared one of the line, won a lot of defensive balls and did much better holding the ball up.

Wiemann - 6 - Usual endless running, but skied one good chance over and even in the passage of play where we hit the post he should have done better. 

SUBS:

Eliasson - 7 - Series of quality crosses as per usual, we really need to pick a formation to accommodate him starting in home games at least.

Palmer - 5 - Disappointing, hit a couple of poor cross field passes that were cut out and failed to control an Eliasson cross when ball at his feet inside the box.

Rodri - 4 - Looked way off the pace, silly fouls and hopeless attempt near the death to hit over from 8 yards out.

 

 

Harsh on Rowe and O’Dowda. Rowe kept one of the best wingers in this league very quiet although I agree didn’t go forward enough. O’Dowda wasn’t great but made some great runs and great passes but decision making in the final third was poor. 
 

19 hours ago, GILLI said:

I’d struggle to give anyone above a 6 today .. COD would struggle to get a 4 ... Fams 6 would be for his defensive work not his attacking ... not a shot on goal in 90mins and against 10 men for 40 mins is woeful !! 

Completely disagree with this. At the very least Nagy, Diedhiou, Williams and Eliasson were atleast 7’s let alone 6’s

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Still getting back up to full-speed, the Nagy of those opening two and a half games was more all-action...think he’s just easing himself back into full-form.  The one thing I really like is that he is always looking to find those little angles, the 30-45 degree forward angle - unfortunately yesterday Brownhill couldn’t get the balls because he was so well marked.  Against Cardiff he got Brownhill freed up to do what he does best.  Forest were excellent in their shape yesterday.

I think we are approaching the stage when we have to be a little more adventurous at home. Nagy give us the opportunity to play with 2 CB's. I'd tell them (whichever 2 you choose)not to worry about getting forward, and not to be too worried about playing out. That triangle should keep us solid and Nagy can pick the ball off of the CB's. Then further forward, choices. Diamond with Brownhill and HNM MF and Palmer at the point. 4-1-4-1 would give scope for wingers , 4-1-2-3 anything that gets us to carry a bigger threat . 

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I think we are approaching the stage when we have to be a little more adventurous at home.

yes, quite possibly, although I’m not sure gung-ho v Forest is necessarily the right tactic, against other sides though, needs to have a bit more belief that our players will win-through.

Nagy give us the opportunity to play with 2 CB's.

he does indeed, although....

I'd tell them (whichever 2 you choose)not to worry about getting forward, and not to be too worried about playing out.

....if Taylor Moore is RCB, then better option to create the extra man and play through him.  Kalas could play central, and Williams left - he is more than capable on the ball.

That triangle should keep us solid and Nagy can pick the ball off of the CB's. Then further forward, choices. Diamond with Brownhill and HNM MF and Palmer at the point. 4-1-4-1 would give scope for wingers , 4-1-2-3 anything that gets us to carry a bigger threat .

yes, plenty of options with that extra player available

 

[1960maaan]

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

yes, quite possibly, although I’m not sure gung-ho v Forest is necessarily the right tactic, against other sides though, needs to have a bit more belief that our players will win-through.

LJ was never doing that , yesterday specially , the two teams were too closely matched. I just think it may be worth a risk, we have a chance and top 2 isn't beyond us. Even looking at the Playoff's , I don't think draws will get us there. 
Of course, if we keep winning away and drawing at home who cares.
Well strictly speaking many of us do, as we want to see good football at home, but you get my drift.

[BTRFTG]

3 hours ago, Robbored said:

Fam had his best game in ages

He did and his African break appeared somewhat a tonic. Sadly, most of his best work was first half inside his own box.....