Wilksi Posted August 7, 2004 Share Posted August 7, 2004 was poor.... Why was lita wide??? Why did Lita stay on and Heffernan go off?? Lita should not of started like I have posted previously.. ANd on todays performance I hope he DOESNT start again for a while.. He is great at coming of the bench.. But nothing else... Now I know he scored it was a good header.. but for 89.9mins of that match he was poor very very very poor.. as was Murray.. Heffernan was the only semi decent looking striker and he gets taken off!?!?! Can someone please explain this to me?? Another thing... Why play long balls to the front men?? They are the shortest people in the city side.. Now I can under stand this from the point that ball played over the top players run on to it etc etc...all very good, BUT Torauay played deep today and kept sweeping the long balls up...You could see this within 25 mins of the game.. Now why didnt we change it then it would of have made more sense to put Miller up front as the holding man?!?!? The back four looked out of sorts today and Woodman could not cross the ball today if his life depended on it..!! I'm quite ###### off at the moment as we SHOULD of walked it... This needs to be sorted out ASAP... 4-4-2 anyone??? And before you all start screaming "IT'S THE FIRST GAME" I know this.. but Torquart WILL be one of the poorer teams City will play this season... Rant over.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Si Posted August 7, 2004 Share Posted August 7, 2004 If you think Lita shouldnt have played and Heffernan looked decent, you obviously werent watching the same game as the rest of us. Murray was totally ineffective, Heffernan didnt get a kick, and didnt make an attempt to win a header and only Lita offered anything different despite playing on the left wing, and scored a good header. Si. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilksi Posted August 7, 2004 Author Share Posted August 7, 2004 If you think Lita shouldnt have played and Heffernan looked decent, you obviously werent watching the same game as the rest of us. Murray was totally ineffective, Heffernan didnt get a kick, and didnt make an attempt to win a header and only Lita offered anything different despite playing on the left wing, and scored a good header. Si. ← I guess I watch watching a differnt game then. If lita knew how to pass a football we would of won that game easily.. Granted Heffernan should of socred, but he was the only one who was trying to make runs and get at thier defence, no one was passing to him though. 4-3-3 doesnt suit us when a team plys as deep as Torquay did today.. Do you think Woodman/Hill/Coles played well?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilksi Posted August 7, 2004 Author Share Posted August 7, 2004 Also if I was watching a differnt game.. so were alot of other city fans on here who also thought Lita had a poor game and shouldnt of started.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grebes Posted August 7, 2004 Share Posted August 7, 2004 I thought I saw quite a few good crosses from Woodman too. I can see why Tinnion wants to sign a target man. Anyone know if Fortune took a knock, as I thought he did well. Would have liked to see Tinnion come off earlier. Looked tiered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Si Posted August 7, 2004 Share Posted August 7, 2004 I guess I watch watching a differnt game then. If lita knew how to pass a football we would of won that game easily.. Granted Heffernan should of socred, but he was the only one who was trying to make runs and get at thier defence, no one was passing to him though. 4-3-3 doesnt suit us when a team plys as deep as Torquay did today.. Do you think Woodman/Hill/Coles played well?? ← In fairness, I agreed with some of the other points, but I thought Leroy was game, and looked the better of the 3 strikers, despite being the least experience (like actually winning headers, and obviously scoring) If we are going to play 433, we need to move the strikers closer together so they can play off each other, and my view is that two of them should be playing off Miller - one to the left, Lita/Heff and one to the right, Murray/ Roberts/ Gillespie. By the way, Woodman was solid enough at the back, but his crossing was poor, and Hill and Coles were very solid, and didnt give anything away, which is pretty much their standard game. Si. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilksi Posted August 7, 2004 Author Share Posted August 7, 2004 In fairness, I agreed with some of the other points, but I thought Leroy was game, and looked the better of the 3 strikers, despite being the least experience (like actually winning headers, and obviously scoring) If we are going to play 433, we need to move the strikers closer together so they can play off each other, and my view is that two of them should be playing off Miller - one to the left, Lita/Heff and one to the right, Murray/ Roberts/ Gillespie. By the way, Woodman was solid enough at the back, but his crossing was poor, and Hill and Coles were very solid, and didnt give anything away, which is pretty much their standard game. Si. ← Your right about the 4-3-3, we need the target man with the other two playing off.. This is what my orginal post was trying to say.. At the back woodman was solid, I agree with that, but going forward he was very poor.. Coles didnt give anything away..tried to clear the ball from the edge of outr box in the first half kicked the ball 5 yards to thier midfielder.. He done this after laying a poor pass to Smith who was already under pressaure.. Second half he wasnt too bad but first he wasnt as solid as he is normally.. Hill.. your right he is solid... but he still needs to learn how to kick a football.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downend2005 Posted August 7, 2004 Share Posted August 7, 2004 i agree that lita is a last twenty minute player stockwoodred. i had a few concerns with 4-3-3, the main one being the lack of width. that being said, the quality of crossing when we did get into positions was terrible. quite a few positives, fortune and orr were outstanding, as was tinman and tommy doc. i haven't been impressed with murray for a long time, and i thought his 'performance' today was absolutely appauling. his overall contribution is poor, from heading, to defending, to crossing, passing, positioning etc, and has been since his return. given the choice i would have much preferred rougier to murray in the squad, especially given this 4-3-3 system. I don't agree that the system is the where murray is concerned, my issue with murray is that he is simply a passenger in a team full of hardworking players such as tinnion, doherty, orr, and gillespie (hopefully). roberts is a similar story, its just that he has all of the above but lacks in motivation. fair play to anyinsah when he came on, he has that 'lita' effect (see above), but he should have scored at least twice. for the second game, id like to see tinman start with (4-3-3) phillips, smith, coles, fortune, hill/woodman, tinnion, doherty, orr, heffernan, gillespie, miller. disappointing, at the end of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.