Gardiner-Hickman

[bexhill reds]

17 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Not a club in the bag, not for me anyway. To me that's an insulting term for someone who can't really play but has something they can trouble the opposition with that you can take advantage of now and again. That type of player hoarding has long disappeared out of the club thankfully.

It was not meant to be an insulting description, merely to emphasise the benefits of this type of player in a squad of our size. If you look at most of our defensive minded players, bar Dickie they are all interchangeable, with a small squad and a 50+ game season that is invaluable.

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, mozo said:

I'd say that's a fair assessment, but I still have this suspician (bias?) That he's a midfielder instinctively. I've got a good feeling about him, and Nige was glowing when he talked about the signing so there could be more impressive performances ahead.

Me & my mate who supports the Baggies, both think so, too.

Think that Tanner has just struggled a little bit of late so it was a good opportunity to give TGH a start ahead of the international break & of course because he then isn’t available at all for the next one.

If we do intend persevering with Naismith as a CB he’s also probably first in line to cover all 3 of the midfielders who started yesterday.

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, ciderwithtommy said:

What I found interesting was his drop off in fitness, visible even in the first half. It’s interesting because he was in the team at WBA prior to moving to us, so you would expect him to be match fit - evidently our pre season and fitness regime does seem to create fitter players then our rivals. That will become more important as the season matures of course, but hats off as we do look full of energy 

Pretty much every game this season I’ve seen opposition players cramping up against us.  Unfortunately our quality hasn’t always matched our fitness levels…but we do look very fit.

Agree, I messaged @petehinton about two mins before his sub and said Tanner for TGH he’s blowing.  Not exactly claiming tactical genius, but clear he was struggling, especially with a fresh Ginnelly directly up against him

4 hours ago, mozo said:

I'd say that's a fair assessment, but I still have this suspician (bias?) That he's a midfielder instinctively. I've got a good feeling about him, and Nige was glowing when he talked about the signing so there could be more impressive performances ahead.

I’m sure he is, but…

4 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Decent but not a rb for me. 

…what do you want from your RB?

Need to forget old fashioned positions and look at need for the team.  It’s just a blob on a whiteboard team sheet.  What he does is more about capability and role required.  Look at Alexander-Arnold.

From very limited minutes he’s pretty much (imho) what we need “OUR right back” to be…a technical, ball-playing, passing outlet.  And he takes a wicked set-piece.

There will be times when we need a more defensive minded Tanner to play, because of tactical reasons, e.g. a skilful Left Winger or flying wingback.

Lets not close our minds after 82 minutes of football!

[Sir Geoff]

I watched him pretty closely, yesterday. Being the new boy making his debut. Pre game I liked the way he went round most of the team gave them all a 'good luck' hug. Showed a bit of confidence at the start rather than keeping his head down and shuffling off to RB. One mistake aside he looked assured, technically and positionally good. Tall and strong with a great touch. A 'proper' footballer and one after 82 minutes I hope we keep long term. A great addition and a definite upgrade on what we've got now.

[Shauntaylor85]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Pretty much every game this season I’ve seen opposition players cramping up against us.  Unfortunately our quality hasn’t always matched our fitness levels…but we do look very fit.

Agree, I messaged @petehinton about two mins before his sub and said Tanner for TGH he’s blowing.  Not exactly claiming tactical genius, but clear he was struggling, especially with a fresh Ginnelly directly up against him

I’m sure he is, but…

…what do you want from your RB?

Need to forget old fashioned positions and look at need for the team.  It’s just a blob on a whiteboard team sheet.  What he does is more about capability and role required.  Look at Alexander-Arnold.

From very limited minutes he’s pretty much (imho) what we need “OUR right back” to be…a technical, ball-playing, passing outlet.  And he takes a wicked set-piece.

There will be times when we need a more defensive minded Tanner to play, because of tactical reasons, e.g. a skilful Left Winger or flying wingback.

Lets not close our minds after 82 minutes of football!

Don’t get the set piece thing, thought they were poor deliveries like James. Naismith has to be on them. 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

11 hours ago, Davefevs said:

This will likely be the “trade-off”…defensive minded Tanner versus attacking minded TGH.  The 70/20 split was perfect yesterday.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what's a 70/20 split?

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Don’t get the set piece thing, thought they were poor deliveries like James. Naismith has to be on them. 

He took 8 corners and 2 attacking free-kicks.

Attacking free-kicks - one skim headed away by the Swans defender, the other into a great area that Knight scores from but disallowed.

Corners - pretty much everyone into the right area.

Knight heads wide at the far post, one free-kick given for foul on the keeper (Langford missing the tugs on Sykes), another whistles through the 6 yard box begging for a touch, the other first half corner headed away by Wood under challenge from Naismith.

Second half, Vyner heads over from 8 yds, another gets headed away at near post under pressure from our player for another corner. Resultant corner sees Sykes bundled over, should’ve been a pen.  Final one from other side into keepers hands.

I’d say that was pretty decent.  If you think that’s poor, fair enough.

9 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

Sorry for my ignorance, but what's a 70/20 split?

90 min game.  70 mins vs 20 mins.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

He took 8 corners and 2 attacking free-kicks.

Attacking free-kicks - one skim headed away by the Swans defender, the other into a great area that Knight scores from but disallowed.

Corners - pretty much everyone into the right area.

Knight heads wide at the far post, one free-kick given for foul on the keeper (Langford missing the tugs on Sykes), another whistles through the 6 yard box begging for a touch, the other first half corner headed away by Wood under challenge from Naismith.

Second half, Vyner heads over from 8 yds, another gets headed away at near post under pressure from our player for another corner. Resultant corner sees Sykes bundled over, should’ve been a pen.  Final one from other side into keepers hands.

I’d say that was pretty decent.  If you think that’s poor, fair enough.

90 min game.  70 mins vs 20 mins.

Sorry in what context ?

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

Sorry in what context ?

70 mins TGH / 20 mins Tanner.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

46 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

70 mins TGH / 20 mins Tanner.

Thank you painting out the obvious Dave

[Never to the dark side]

chinapig

are you going to elaborate on your image?

I'll give the City fans a clue

"open the bay doors hal"