Why do we play with wingbacks if we don’t have any

[Better Red]

Not brought this topic about for about 2 years.

But sadly Nothing has changed.

JD - Can’t beat a man, can’t cross.

Sykes - Can beat a man but chooses to come inside not even his position.

Both are useless and offer nothing going forward or at the back.

We would be better going 4 at the back and getting an extra man in midfield.

Vyner can play RB and Pring at LB and just let them overlap when it’s right to do so.

Both have pace both better defenders. Height wise they are better for defending.

2 from 3 in the middle - Kalas, Klose or Atkinson.

Naismith should be pushed into midfield he is the best passer in the team and can also defend not sure why that won’t work.

Play him with Williams or James 

Play Seymenyo and Wiemann wide in a 4 and they can take turns to join Wellls.

Scott in the whole

Wells upfront.

And Bentley in goal - I am an anti - Maxer.

If we had decent wingbacks then fair enough but we don’t so why do we play with wingbacks if we don’t have them….

[Silvio Dante]

I think I’ve got broad agreement here, but I’d focus on Sykes. He’s not a natural defender so the base calculation is does he give you enough going forward to compensate for that. And he doesn’t. His crossing isn’t fantastic, he doesn’t hugely work openings and he’s just ‘there’. 
 

He’s not doing badly but to use the phrase - he’s not influenced games.

If Kane Wilson was fit I’d have him straight in under the current system. For me, with Sykes, we have the worst of both worlds currently - not a defender and doesn’t influence attack. That’s not saying he’s a bad player, just that I don’t know what he brings to this system

 

[GrahamC]

We went to this system last season because we were leaking goals & for a while we improved doing so.

Certainly an argument for saying it isn’t working now, though.

[YorkshireSection]

Why not just revert back to the exciting team that scored goals with an actual strike partnership that is proven, change for changes sake.

[Sir Geoff]

39 minutes ago, Better Red said:

Not brought this topic about for about 2 years.

But sadly Nothing has changed.

JD - Can’t beat a man, can’t cross.

Sykes - Can beat a man but chooses to come inside not even his position.

Both are useless and offer nothing going forward or at the back.

We would be better going 4 at the back and getting an extra man in midfield.

Vyner can play RB and Pring at LB and just let them overlap when it’s right to do so.

Both have pace both better defenders. Height wise they are better for defending.

2 from 3 in the middle - Kalas, Klose or Atkinson.

Naismith should be pushed into midfield he is the best passer in the team and can also defend not sure why that won’t work.

Play him with Williams or James 

Play Seymenyo and Wiemann wide in a 4 and they can take turns to join Wellls.

Scott in the whole

Wells upfront.

And Bentley in goal - I am an anti - Maxer.

If we had decent wingbacks then fair enough but we don’t so why do we play with wingbacks if we don’t have them….

Why would you play Vyner at right back. Been there seen that done that...He was poor at right back (remember the start of last season). Why not play George Tanner who is a natural right back 

[firstdivision]

1 hour ago, Better Red said:

Not brought this topic about for about 2 years.

But sadly Nothing has changed.

JD - Can’t beat a man, can’t cross.

Sykes - Can beat a man but chooses to come inside not even his position.

Both are useless and offer nothing going forward or at the back.

We would be better going 4 at the back and getting an extra man in midfield.

Vyner can play RB and Pring at LB and just let them overlap when it’s right to do so.

Both have pace both better defenders. Height wise they are better for defending.

2 from 3 in the middle - Kalas, Klose or Atkinson.

Naismith should be pushed into midfield he is the best passer in the team and can also defend not sure why that won’t work.

Play him with Williams or James 

Play Seymenyo and Wiemann wide in a 4 and they can take turns to join Wellls.

Scott in the whole

Wells upfront.

And Bentley in goal - I am an anti - Maxer.

If we had decent wingbacks then fair enough but we don’t so why do we play with wingbacks if we don’t have them….

You make a good general point about our lack of wing backs. 

Mark Sykes is starting to look an emperor's new clothes player to me. Silvio Dante's description of him being 'just there' is an excellent way of expressing something that's been rattling around in my head for a few weeks. Let's hope he can change that growing impression. 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

1 hour ago, Better Red said:

Not brought this topic about for about 2 years.

But sadly Nothing has changed.

JD - Can’t beat a man, can’t cross.

Sykes - Can beat a man but chooses to come inside not even his position.

Both are useless and offer nothing going forward or at the back.

We would be better going 4 at the back and getting an extra man in midfield.

Vyner can play RB and Pring at LB and just let them overlap when it’s right to do so.

Both have pace both better defenders. Height wise they are better for defending.

2 from 3 in the middle - Kalas, Klose or Atkinson.

Naismith should be pushed into midfield he is the best passer in the team and can also defend not sure why that won’t work.

Play him with Williams or James 

Play Seymenyo and Wiemann wide in a 4 and they can take turns to join Wellls.

Scott in the whole

Wells upfront.

And Bentley in goal - I am an anti - Maxer.

If we had decent wingbacks then fair enough but we don’t so why do we play with wingbacks if we don’t have them….

So much wrong with this post.

JD - can beat a man, can cross, seen him do both many times this season

Sykes - usually goes outside, but does sometimes come inside.  Nothing wrong with that.  I went to today’s match with a friend who doesn’t usually watch City and he thought Sykes was by some distance our best player in the first half.

The suggestion that both are ‘useless’ and offer ‘nothing going forward or at the back’ is remarkable given how good both have been in other games this season.

Going four at the back reduces the number in midfield.  Three at the back allows you to play five in midfield.  That’s why so many managers like it.

I’d love to hear your justification for Naismith being ‘the best passer in the team’, especially given how many passes he has had intercepted this season.

Max had a great game on Wednesday, Bentley was awful at Birmingham.

The issue today was not the quality of the players.  They are the same players who have played some excellent football this season.  The problem today was - for whatever reason - their resilience, their ability to pick themselves up when they go behind, and their attitude, and possibly motivation.  Their heads dropped, and no one was able to lift them.  There was a significant lack of leadership on the field and off it.  To add to that, Pearson’s substitutions we’re awful. The match was crying out for an extra presence in midfield but Pearson does his usual thing of throwing on more strikers, while taking off Sykes (who had a decent first half) and moving the most out of form player in the side (Weimann) to wing back.  After that there was no shape and no creativity.

Amazing how one (or possibly two) bad performances can turn a player from hero to zero.  The real question for me is why Pearson cannot explain today’s performance.  Why are they not doing what he wants them to?  Why has he not identified the problems and put them right?  The one thing I don’t feel I’ve yet seen Pearson do is to lift a team which is misfiring during the course of 90 minutes.

[Fuber]

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

So much wrong with this post.

JD - can beat a man, can cross, seen him do both many times this season

Sykes - usually goes outside, but does sometimes come inside.  Nothing wrong with that.  I went to today’s match with a friend who doesn’t usually watch City and he thought Sykes was by some distance our best player in the first half.

The suggestion that both are ‘useless’ and offer ‘nothing going forward or at the back’ is remarkable given how good both have been in other games this season.

Going four at the back reduces the number in midfield.  Three at the back allows you to play five in midfield.  That’s why so many managers like it.

I’d love to hear your justification for Naismith being ‘the best passer in the team’, especially given how many passes he has had intercepted this season.

Max had a great game on Wednesday, Bentley was awful at Birmingham.

The issue today was not the quality of the players.  They are the same players who have played some excellent football this season.  The problem today was - for whatever reason - their resilience, their ability to pick themselves up when they go behind, and their attitude, and possibly motivation.  Their heads dropped, and no one was able to lift them.  There was a significant lack of leadership on the field and off it.  To add to that, Pearson’s substitutions we’re awful. The match was crying out for an extra presence in midfield but Pearson does his usual thing of throwing on more strikers, while taking off Sykes (who had a decent first half) and moving the most out of form player in the side (Weimann) to wing back.  After that there was no shape and no creativity.

Amazing how one (or possibly two) bad performances can turn a player from hero to zero.  The real question for me is why Pearson cannot explain today’s performance.  Why are they not doing what he wants them to?  Why has he not identified the problems and put them right?  The one thing I don’t feel I’ve yet seen Pearson do is to lift a team which is misfiring during the course of 90 minutes.

I'll bite.

Jay is probably my most disappointing player the last handful of games.

He's constantly targeted and does OK, but going forward I cannot remember the last time I saw him actually beat a man.

And his crossing and end product is farcical, never beats the first or second man, any shot from outside the box is a conversion, every time.

The only metric he beats Pring in is passing and ball control. But every other metric (pace, crossing), I'd rather have Cam.

Someone can feel free to correct me, as I may be spouting rubbish, but his end product is rubbish.

Isn't it something like 8 assists in four years?

[Andrew_V1]

6 minutes ago, Fuber said:

I'll bite.

Jay is probably my most disappointing player the last handful of games.

He's constantly targeted and does OK, but going forward I cannot remember the last time I saw him actually beat a man.

And his crossing and end product is farcical, never beats the first or second man, any shot from outside the box is a conversion, every time.

The only metric he beats Pring in is passing and ball control. But every other metric (pace, crossing), I'd rather have Cam.

Someone can feel free to correct me, as I may be spouting rubbish, but his end product is rubbish.

Isn't it something like 8 assists in four years?

Very well put.

For the amount of time in good positions per game jay gets into his output is abysmal.

He will regularly end up in space with time to either shoot at goal or try to pick out a man but I’ve given up even getting up from my seat as you just know it’s going to be a pathetic attempt.

For me he’s had enough time now and under three managers he has not improved. We need to invest time into cam now as I feel he has the greater potential of the two and no doubt less expensive 

[DaveF]

3 hours ago, Better Red said:

Not brought this topic about for about 2 years.

But sadly Nothing has changed.

JD - Can’t beat a man, can’t cross.

Sykes - Can beat a man but chooses to come inside not even his position.

Both are useless and offer nothing going forward or at the back.

We would be better going 4 at the back and getting an extra man in midfield.

Vyner can play RB and Pring at LB and just let them overlap when it’s right to do so.

Both have pace both better defenders. Height wise they are better for defending.

2 from 3 in the middle - Kalas, Klose or Atkinson.

Naismith should be pushed into midfield he is the best passer in the team and can also defend not sure why that won’t work.

Play him with Williams or James 

Play Seymenyo and Wiemann wide in a 4 and they can take turns to join Wellls.

Scott in the whole

Wells upfront.

And Bentley in goal - I am an anti - Maxer.

If we had decent wingbacks then fair enough but we don’t so why do we play with wingbacks if we don’t have them….

Give this man the top job. It is THIS simple.

[DaveF]

3 hours ago, YorkshireSection said:

Why not just revert back to the exciting team that scored goals with an actual strike partnership that is proven, change for changes sake.

Yeah luckily it's nothing to do with the other team so you can simply revert. 

[Better Red]

11 hours ago, DaveF said:

Give this man the top job. It is THIS simple.

Just maybe it is…

And thanks I accept

[Better Red]

13 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

So much wrong with this post.

JD - can beat a man, can cross, seen him do both many times this season

Sykes - usually goes outside, but does sometimes come inside.  Nothing wrong with that.  I went to today’s match with a friend who doesn’t usually watch City and he thought Sykes was by some distance our best player in the first half.

The suggestion that both are ‘useless’ and offer ‘nothing going forward or at the back’ is remarkable given how good both have been in other games this season.

Going four at the back reduces the number in midfield.  Three at the back allows you to play five in midfield.  That’s why so many managers like it.

I’d love to hear your justification for Naismith being ‘the best passer in the team’, especially given how many passes he has had intercepted this season.

Max had a great game on Wednesday, Bentley was awful at Birmingham.

The issue today was not the quality of the players.  They are the same players who have played some excellent football this season.  The problem today was - for whatever reason - their resilience, their ability to pick themselves up when they go behind, and their attitude, and possibly motivation.  Their heads dropped, and no one was able to lift them.  There was a significant lack of leadership on the field and off it.  To add to that, Pearson’s substitutions we’re awful. The match was crying out for an extra presence in midfield but Pearson does his usual thing of throwing on more strikers, while taking off Sykes (who had a decent first half) and moving the most out of form player in the side (Weimann) to wing back.  After that there was no shape and no creativity.

Amazing how one (or possibly two) bad performances can turn a player from hero to zero.  The real question for me is why Pearson cannot explain today’s performance.  Why are they not doing what he wants them to?  Why has he not identified the problems and put them right?  The one thing I don’t feel I’ve yet seen Pearson do is to lift a team which is misfiring during the course of 90 minutes.

Max - did not have a great game Wednesday he had to pretty much do nothing. Preston barley put a cross or a shoot in and still maned to score.

Yestarday ‘both’ goals he was at fault.

The party for the header was not away from goal and not even headed that hard. He pushed it strait back into trouble rather than pushing wide.

The second if you come that far our you catch it. Miles to far to come off his line.

Max is a poor keeper at this level it’s as simple as that.

[Lew-T]

He’s got to rest Dasilva and Sykes. They’ve been below par since the QPR game. 

[The Bard]

14 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

So much wrong with this post.

JD - can beat a man, can cross, seen him do both many times this season

Sykes - usually goes outside, but does sometimes come inside.  Nothing wrong with that.  I went to today’s match with a friend who doesn’t usually watch City and he thought Sykes was by some distance our best player in the first half.

The suggestion that both are ‘useless’ and offer ‘nothing going forward or at the back’ is remarkable given how good both have been in other games this season.

Going four at the back reduces the number in midfield.  Three at the back allows you to play five in midfield.  That’s why so many managers like it.

I’d love to hear your justification for Naismith being ‘the best passer in the team’, especially given how many passes he has had intercepted this season.

Max had a great game on Wednesday, Bentley was awful at Birmingham.

The issue today was not the quality of the players.  They are the same players who have played some excellent football this season.  The problem today was - for whatever reason - their resilience, their ability to pick themselves up when they go behind, and their attitude, and possibly motivation.  Their heads dropped, and no one was able to lift them.  There was a significant lack of leadership on the field and off it.  To add to that, Pearson’s substitutions we’re awful. The match was crying out for an extra presence in midfield but Pearson does his usual thing of throwing on more strikers, while taking off Sykes (who had a decent first half) and moving the most out of form player in the side (Weimann) to wing back.  After that there was no shape and no creativity.

Amazing how one (or possibly two) bad performances can turn a player from hero to zero.  The real question for me is why Pearson cannot explain today’s performance.  Why are they not doing what he wants them to?  Why has he not identified the problems and put them right?  The one thing I don’t feel I’ve yet seen Pearson do is to lift a team which is misfiring during the course of 90 minutes.

Not sure if there are any stats, but Dasilva's crossing is terrible.  The only consistent thing about it is how he finds the first defender consistently. However, he does have excellent positioning and a good football brain which means the link up play between him and Atkinson is pretty good.

Sykes strikes me as not being the sharpest tool in the box.  Regularly leaves Vyner massively exposed and has the tendency to switch off as witnessed yesterday.  It wouldn't surprise me to see Scott moved back there when James is fit.  He's in a different stratosphere in terms of his football intelligence.

Any safe passer moving it 10 yards sideways can get a high pass completion.  Naismith by definition plays forward as he's at the back.  He also takes risks in order for the team to get rewards.   This means he will have passes intercepted. Not sure who is a better passer, other than Scott?

Edited October 16, 2022 by The Bard

[Baldyman]

16 hours ago, Better Red said:

Not brought this topic about for about 2 years.

But sadly Nothing has changed.

JD - Can’t beat a man, can’t cross.

Sykes - Can beat a man but chooses to come inside not even his position.

Both are useless and offer nothing going forward or at the back.

We would be better going 4 at the back and getting an extra man in midfield.

Vyner can play RB and Pring at LB and just let them overlap when it’s right to do so.

Both have pace both better defenders. Height wise they are better for defending.

2 from 3 in the middle - Kalas, Klose or Atkinson.

Naismith should be pushed into midfield he is the best passer in the team and can also defend not sure why that won’t work.

Play him with Williams or James 

Play Seymenyo and Wiemann wide in a 4 and they can take turns to join Wellls.

Scott in the whole

Wells upfront.

And Bentley in goal - I am an anti - Maxer.

If we had decent wingbacks then fair enough but we don’t so why do we play with wingbacks if we don’t have them….

Totally agree . Both are woeful both in attack and in defence . You simply can’t play that system without athletes on either flank ! I honestly believe that those two are the cause of much of our problems , together with poor communication and a lack of understanding between our keepers and centre backs .  They’ve gone from one Keeper who won’t move off his line to one that comes for everything . No wonder they’re confused ! The latter point just needs us to stick with Max and allow that understanding to come but JD and Sykes need pulling now. 

[Baldyman]

13 hours ago, Fuber said:

I'll bite.

Jay is probably my most disappointing player the last handful of games.

He's constantly targeted and does OK, but going forward I cannot remember the last time I saw him actually beat a man.

And his crossing and end product is farcical, never beats the first or second man, any shot from outside the box is a conversion, every time.

The only metric he beats Pring in is passing and ball control. But every other metric (pace, crossing), I'd rather have Cam.

Someone can feel free to correct me, as I may be spouting rubbish, but his end product is rubbish.

Isn't it something like 8 assists in four years?

With you . JD seems to have the strength of a schoolboy unfortunately. His pace is limited and can’t strike a clean ball at all .  Nowhere near good enough unfortunately. Look at our equaliser yesterday . It took Pring about 2 mins to put a ball into the box that got us back in it . 

[JoeAman08]

I would just put Semenyo and Pring as wbs. You’d have to plan for covering Semenyo but possible. Take Weimann out and use 3 actual midfielders in midfield. Wells and Conway can stay as the pairing up front. Pring and Semenyo get to the touchline and cross from there low and hard which is service Wells and Conway would love.
 

I watched Sunderland threaten us every attack with Jack Clarke and Gooch at wb and they are attacking midfield players. Just need to be brave and less stubborn. Is it really going to make us much worse defending? Kalas back and on the right helps cover Semenyo better already. Ideally it would be a change of formation but if going to stick with the 3 cbs might as well get our best forward players on the pitch. 

 

 

[LondonBristolian]

16 hours ago, GrahamC said:

We went to this system last season because we were leaking goals & for a while we improved doing so.

Certainly an argument for saying it isn’t working now, though.

This is fundamentally the issue. We've gone for this formation and system because it suits the players but it only suits the players if:

• Wilson is fit
• Naismith is fit
• James is fit
• Weimann is fresh and on form

Right now, none of those four things are the case yet we're persisting with a formation that suits players that are either off the pitch and out of form. 

I know Pearson has limited options to work with and I don't think there are easy answers but - whilst I absolutely back the work he is doing changing the culture of the club and the way he's built a strong first XI - he simply isn't finding ways to adapt to who is available, rather than who we want available. 

 

 

[LondonBristolian]

2 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I would just put Semenyo and Pring as wbs. You’d have to plan for covering Semenyo but possible. Take Weimann out and use 3 actual midfielders in midfield. Wells and Conway can stay as the pairing up front. Pring and Semenyo get to the touchline and cross from there low and hard which is service Wells and Conway would love.
 

I watched Sunderland threaten us every attack with Jack Clarke and Gooch at wb and they are attacking midfield players. Just need to be brave and less stubborn. Is it really going to make us much worse defending? Kalas back and on the right helps cover Semenyo better already. Ideally it would be a change of formation but if going to stick with the 3 cbs might as well get our best forward players on the pitch. 

 

 

I don't necessarily agree with you because I think we lose Semenyo in areas he is more effective but I do think what you're proposing is going to be a lot easier with Kalas fit again. And I'm stuck for a better option at RWB right now... 

[Davefevs]

13 hours ago, Andrew_V1 said:

Very well put.

For the amount of time in good positions per game jay gets into his output is abysmal.

He will regularly end up in space with time to either shoot at goal or try to pick out a man but I’ve given up even getting up from my seat as you just know it’s going to be a pathetic attempt.

For me he’s had enough time now and under three managers he has not improved. We need to invest time into cam now as I feel he has the greater potential of the two and no doubt less expensive 

Jay’s final ball is not good enough.  However….

28 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Not sure if there are any stats, but Dasilva's crossing is terrible.  The only consistent thing about it is how he finds the first defender consistently. However, he does have excellent positioning and a good football brain which means the link up play between him and Atkinson is pretty good.

Sykes strikes me as not being the sharpest tool in the box.  Regularly leaves Vyner massively exposed and has the tendency to switch off as witnessed yesterday.  It wouldn't surprise me to see Scott moved back there when James is fit.  He's in a different stratosphere in terms of his football intelligence.

Any safe passer moving it 10 yards sideways can get a high pass completion.  Naismith by definition plays forward as he's at the back.  He also takes risks in order for the team to get rewards.   This means he will have passes intercepted. Not sure who is a better passer, other than Scott?

…yes, I do have stats (surprised?). I track every shot and who creates it.  I track some other stuff like crosses, key passes etc, but I haven’t updated for a month.  Who created the shot data is from pre-Millwall.

To explain the chart, every blob is a score of the quality of the chance created based on XG (or xA x expected assists).  If you see darker shades of grey it’s because multiple blobs are laid on top of each other.  A red diamond represents a chance created that ends in a goal.  The green line is the average score.  Hope that makes sense.

….Jay Dasilva has created almost double the shots of any player (24), so there is a decent argument that it’s not our left side of attack that’s an issue.  But…

…the quality of the shots from those created chances is the worst out of all of the attackers and WBs.  Just one has resulted in a goal (Wells header v Huddersfield).

I think it’s probably fair to say there have been lots of crosses that don’t end in a shot, so aren’t in the pic too.

I don’t agree he was targeted yesterday, they hit lots of long balls straight down Rob Atkinson’s throat!  He won 12/13 headers yesterday, his highest number of the season.

 

 

[JoeAman08]

7 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I don't necessarily agree with you because I think we lose Semenyo in areas he is more effective but I do think what you're proposing is going to be a lot easier with Kalas fit again. And I'm stuck for a better option at RWB right now... 

Imo Semenyo only really perks up when he ends up wide. I don’t think he enjoys getting clattered getting balls to feet or trying to flick things on. He does not really have the striker instincts either like Conway does for example. I could not really tell you what that is but Conway just seems to have more of a knack for being in goal scoring positions. Think we lose a lot from a pressing stand point with Semenyo as well but that again is just how I see it. 

[IAmNick]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Jay’s final ball is not good enough.  However….

…yes, I do have stats (surprised?). I track every shot and who creates it.  I track some other stuff like crosses, key passes etc, but I haven’t updated for a month.  Who created the shot data is from pre-Millwall.

To explain the chart, every blob is a score of the quality of the chance created based on XG (or xA x expected assists).  If you see darker shades of grey it’s because multiple blobs are laid on top of each other.  A red diamond represents a chance created that ends in a goal.  The green line is the average score.  Hope that makes sense.

….Jay Dasilva has created almost double the shots of any player (24), so there is a decent argument that it’s not our left side of attack that’s an issue.  But…

…the quality of the shots from those created chances is the worst out of all of the attackers and WBs.  Just one has resulted in a goal (Wells header v Huddersfield).

I think it’s probably fair to say there have been lots of crosses that don’t end in a shot, so aren’t in the pic too.

I don’t agree he was targeted yesterday, they hit lots of long balls straight down Rob Atkinson’s throat!  He won 12/13 headers yesterday, his highest number of the season.

 

 

I guess we'd have to then compare Jay's output (quality and quantity) against other left backs.

As it's xA then in theory 5 chances of .1 quality should give you the same chance of a goal as one 0.5 chance, right? I'm not actually sure that's true... I assume it'd be some kind of bell curve (see edit below) when you're summing xA like that as you have a chance of more than one goal, compared to a single one (given that you obviously can't score part of a goal).

I'd also assume making many poorer chances is a good strategy if you have high quality finishers, as in general they'll out perform the xA of a chance which would take every other striker into account too - of which most would be less likely to score.

Do you know if the xA is split by division, or general?

edit:

Ok, I think this is actually some binomial distribution, so creating 5 0.1 xA chances is actually less chance of scoring than a single 0.5 xA chance.

I think, that in the situation above you'd have around 60% chance of not scoring, 32% of 1 goal, 7% of 2 goals, 0.8% of 3 goals, 0.05% of 4 goals, and 0.001% of 5 goals - compared to an obvious 50% chance with the single 0.5xA chance.

Edited October 16, 2022 by IAmNick

[Simon bristol]

15 hours ago, Fuber said:

I'll bite.

Jay is probably my most disappointing player the last handful of games.

He's constantly targeted and does OK, but going forward I cannot remember the last time I saw him actually beat a man.

And his crossing and end product is farcical, never beats the first or second man, any shot from outside the box is a conversion, every time.

The only metric he beats Pring in is passing and ball control. But every other metric (pace, crossing), I'd rather have Cam.

Someone can feel free to correct me, as I may be spouting rubbish, but his end product is rubbish.

Isn't it something like 8 assists in four years?

He was supposed to be the bargain of the season when we got him, but he hasnt lived up to expectations,,, to weak defensively, pretty much zero goal threat, or assists and doesnt really influence much. Similar to palmer then.  Seeing as we are so poor defensively, giving pring a go would seem a no brainer

[red colin]

5 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

He was supposed to be the bargain of the season when we got him, but he hasnt lived up to expectations,,, to weak defensively, pretty much zero goal threat, or assists and doesnt really influence much. Similar to palmer then.  Seeing as we are so poor defensively, giving pring a go would seem a no brainer

It would indeed.Nige says he has a small squad and yet seems to have regular fall outs and  basically tries to show who's boss by banishing players from the squad cutting his small squad down further, Pring has not been near squad which is crazy. 

[Red-Robbo]

5 minutes ago, red colin said:

It would indeed.Nige says he has a small squad and yet seems to have regular fall outs and  basically tries to show who's boss by banishing players from the squad cutting his small squad down further, Pring has not been near squad which is crazy. 

 

I don't think there's any evidence of "regular fall outs"? Pearson makes clear that if he thinks a player isn't performing consistently, that player will lose his place and someone else will get his chance to cement a place. 

Players may disagree with his assessments sometimes, but I think Pearson is pretty fair. He doesn't strike me as the sort to have favourites. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

This 3atb has been in place for years now on and off. I think it's a combination of being defensively poor whilst also not having many natural wingers. 

[Fuber]

2 hours ago, Simon bristol said:

He was supposed to be the bargain of the season when we got him, but he hasnt lived up to expectations,,, to weak defensively, pretty much zero goal threat, or assists and doesnt really influence much. Similar to palmer then.  Seeing as we are so poor defensively, giving pring a go would seem a no brainer

Never recovered any form since his injury imo.

[Topper 123]

9 hours ago, The Bard said:

Not sure if there are any stats, but Dasilva's crossing is terrible.  The only consistent thing about it is how he finds the first defender consistently. However, he does have excellent positioning and a good football brain which means the link up play between him and Atkinson is pretty good.

Sykes strikes me as not being the sharpest tool in the box.  Regularly leaves Vyner massively exposed and has the tendency to switch off as witnessed yesterday.  It wouldn't surprise me to see Scott moved back there when James is fit.  He's in a different stratosphere in terms of his football intelligence.

Any safe passer moving it 10 yards sideways can get a high pass completion.  Naismith by definition plays forward as he's at the back.  He also takes risks in order for the team to get rewards.   This means he will have passes intercepted. Not sure who is a better passer, other than Scott?

The stats the other night showed we delivered 45 crosses and not 1 was of sufficient quality for us to score this tells you a lot about our ball in

[Cityboy1954]

On 15/10/2022 at 23:39, Fuber said:

I'll bite.

Jay is probably my most disappointing player the last handful of games.

He's constantly targeted and does OK, but going forward I cannot remember the last time I saw him actually beat a man.

And his crossing and end product is farcical, never beats the first or second man, any shot from outside the box is a conversion, every time.

The only metric he beats Pring in is passing and ball control. But every other metric (pace, crossing), I'd rather have Cam.

Someone can feel free to correct me, as I may be spouting rubbish, but his end product is rubbish.

Isn't it something like 8 assists in four years?

Totally agree pring all day long Dasilva got a job to get ball above head height and is no better than scott golbourne .