Shauntaylor85 Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 Not convinced him or Twine are the answer. Need better 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted April 13 Author Report Share Posted April 13 Really poor today. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuffle Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 Our right side was dreadful today with Sykes & McCrorie having shockers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocking Red Cyril Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 (edited) Thought he again looked sluggish today . A he has over past few performances. Carrying an injury would be a reason. Do we have no one to cover for him? And I felt Max looked a bit sore towards the end of the second half too . He did not seem to be moving well, well that what thought anyway Edited April 13 by Rocking Red Cyril Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 2 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said: Thought he again looked sluggish today . A he has over past few performances. Carrying an injury would be a reason. Do we have no one to cover for him? And I felt Max looked a bit sore towards the end of the second half too . He did not seem to be moving well, well that what thought anyway We have a thin squad. The answer would be no probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC RISK77 Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 Yep I thought Sykes was very poor today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back of the Dolman Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 17 minutes ago, Super said: Really poor today. Lacked any positivity with the ball first half from the wing back position but I thought he showed improvement in the second half in his more usual advanced position. Certainly rather see him in the side than not though. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 I'd rather he wasn't at wingback. I appreciate injuries have perhaps forced it a bit. As in he should be higher up (still prefer a back 4 and Sykes high on the right). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLRed Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 Sykes has been shocking. Poor first touch, poor decision making, too slow. Should have been taken off when mehmeti came on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted April 13 Author Report Share Posted April 13 6 minutes ago, BLRed said: Sykes has been shocking. Poor first touch, poor decision making, too slow. Should have been taken off when mehmeti came on I was amazed he wasn't hooked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Balls Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I'd rather he wasn't at wingback. I appreciate injuries have perhaps forced it a bit. As in he should be higher up (still prefer a back 4 and Sykes high on the right). Can anyone explain why we were playing Sykes behind Knight/ Knight ahead of Sykes on the right side until Williams went off? Made absolutely no sense and really didn’t work. Neither player looked comfortable playing out of position. That one’s on Manning. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 Just now, Dr Balls said: Can anyone explain why we were playing Sykes behind Knight/ Knight ahead of Sykes on the right side until Williams went off? Made absolutely no sense and really didn’t work. Neither player looked comfortable playing out of position. That one’s on Manning. The only possible rationalisation I can offer, hopefully Manning was asked post game I haven't watched post match yet.. *Only realistic CB options being McCrorie, Tanner, Roberts means a back 3 is a must. *To do that you require wingbacks. *Who else on the right but Sykes. Could, perhaps should have gone 3-5-1-1..Knight, James, Williams- Twine behind Conway in a freer role. Maybe?? Certainly not a Plan A, or even a Plan B but trying to think how you get the best with so many CBs injured. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back of the Dolman Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: The only possible rationalisation I can offer, hopefully Manning was asked post game I haven't watched post match yet.. *Only realistic CB options being McCrorie, Tanner, Roberts means a back 3 is a must. *To do that you require wingbacks. *Who else on the right but Sykes. Could, perhaps should have gone 3-5-1-1..Knight, James, Williams- Twine behind Conway in a freer role. Maybe?? Certainly not a Plan A, or even a Plan B but trying to think how you get the best with so many CBs injured. Andy King has done a job at CB and he could have played in the middle of Tanner and Roberts. McCrorie RWB and then Sykes in an advanced position. I’d of had Knight back in the midfield two with one of James or Williams 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 Just now, Back of the Dolman said: Andy King has done a job at CB and he could have played in the middle of Tanner and Roberts. McCrorie RWB and then Sykes in an advanced position. I’d of had Knight back in the midfield two with one of James or Williams He got some flak for it last year, the experiment worked very well v Watford, to a reasonable level v Rotherham. Less so vs Stoke and West Brom! However he could have been an option yes..freeing up Sykes would have helped him and the team. Knight in midfield ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Balls Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 Just now, Back of the Dolman said: Andy King has done a job at CB and he could have played in the middle of Tanner and Roberts. McCrorie RWB and then Sykes in an advanced position. I’d of had Knight back in the midfield two with one of James or Williams Agree either King or Knight-Lebel could have played in the middle of a back three. We had nothing to lose so why not play them. With Tanner and Roberts there we had no height at all against a tall physical centre forward, and it showed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back of the Dolman Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said: He got some flak for it last year, the experiment worked very well v Watford, to a reasonable level v Rotherham. Less so vs Stoke and West Brom! However he could have been an option yes..freeing up Sykes would have helped him and the team. Knight in midfield ditto. Worked very well against Coventry and the highly rated Victor Gyorkeres(spelling might be out) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 Just now, Back of the Dolman said: Worked very well against Coventry and the highly rated Victor Gyorkeres(spelling might be out) Yeah we switched back to a back 4 during the game, unless you mean last season? If so yes it worked..perhaps it would have helped us to resolve 2 other issues and been a net gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickolas Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 3 minutes ago, Dr Balls said: Agree either King or Knight-Lebel could have played in the middle of a back three. We had nothing to lose so why not play them. With Tanner and Roberts there we had no height at all against a tall physical centre forward, and it showed. Perfect opportunity to show the ‘pathway’ and give Knight-Lebel a start. We are going nowhere and need to give these guys a chance. I dont feel Liam is buying into the academy here. Hes not really given any academy time to anyone ( Vyner etc dont count as they were already regulars before Manning came in ). Think he needs to but into the club philosophy or, shit football aside, he wont last. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back of the Dolman Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Yeah we switched back to a back 4 during the game, unless you mean last season? If so yes it worked..perhaps it would have helped us to resolve 2 other issues and been a net gain. Yes that was last season when he played there against Coventry. Thought we showed improvement today when we switched to a back 4 in the second half today 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loosey Boy Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 Not been the same since he returned from injury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuffle Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 20 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said: Andy King has done a job at CB and he could have played in the middle of Tanner and Roberts. McCrorie RWB and then Sykes in an advanced position. I’d of had Knight back in the midfield two with one of James or Williams I thought King would have started in the middle of the 3 & I would have put Sykes on the bench & started Memehti. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: The only possible rationalisation I can offer, hopefully Manning was asked post game I haven't watched post match yet.. *Only realistic CB options being McCrorie, Tanner, Roberts means a back 3 is a must. *To do that you require wingbacks. *Who else on the right but Sykes. Could, perhaps should have gone 3-5-1-1..Knight, James, Williams- Twine behind Conway in a freer role. Maybe?? Certainly not a Plan A, or even a Plan B but trying to think how you get the best with so many CBs injured. The starting line up to me looked like a back 4. Why ? Because Sykes has never really looked comfortable at RWB , Knight has played all his best football in CMF and it seemed obvious. If we were going to play a 3 , in a game that meant nothing why not give Knight - Label a run ? The "Pathway" remember , though that doesn't seem to exist any more. JKL plays and it's a straight swap for Vyner, King would be the same, everyone can stay in the same positions as Wednesday when it all worked so well. But no . To avoid playing a kid ... We move Sykes, Knight , McCrorie, Tanner when one Player in keeps the same shape and system . Everyone around me said it, but it took until Williams came off to drop Knight deeper. Another thing , why Williams off ? He was much better than James and he didn't look tired. Sykes looks much better further forward , he is not a WB and doesn't look comfortable there. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 38 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said: Andy King has done a job at CB and he could have played in the middle of Tanner and Roberts. McCrorie RWB and then Sykes in an advanced position. I’d of had Knight back in the midfield two with one of James or Williams 15 minutes ago, Shuffle said: I thought King would have started in the middle of the 3 & I would have put Sykes on the bench & started Memehti. LM was pretty clear pre match with Ed or Richard when asked about having used Andy King at CB in the past - “that was previous to my time here”. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 13 minutes ago, Davefevs said: LM was pretty clear pre match with Ed or Richard when asked about having used Andy King at CB in the past - “that was previous to my time here”. That doesn't change the fact that 1) He has played the position 2) He did well when playing the position. Roberts playing CB happened before Mannings time , Tanner playing CB happened before Mannings time . He is not doing a lot to prove he is a good fit here , not in my opinion anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 1 hour ago, Back of the Dolman said: Andy King has done a job at CB and he could have played in the middle of Tanner and Roberts. McCrorie RWB and then Sykes in an advanced position. I’d of had Knight back in the midfield two with one of James or Williams I don't think we would have got 90 (or 100) minutes out of him though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back of the Dolman Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 4 minutes ago, RedM said: I don't think we would have got 90 (or 100) minutes out of him though? True but we changed from 3 at the back to a back 4 at half time anyway so that might not have been an issue. The way we set up today was again playing too many people out of position and the selection of King or even Knight-Lebel would of alleviated that problem. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Geoff Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 1 hour ago, Dr Balls said: Agree either King or Knight-Lebel could have played in the middle of a back three. We had nothing to lose so why not play them. With Tanner and Roberts there we had no height at all against a tall physical centre forward, and it showed. Manning was going to play King at CB but Brian wouldn't allow it under any circumstances. Stating it would be blocking the pathway and that Andy had to sit on the bench with JKL and talk him through the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 40 minutes ago, 1960maaan said: The starting line up to me looked like a back 4. Why ? Because Sykes has never really looked comfortable at RWB , Knight has played all his best football in CMF and it seemed obvious. If we were going to play a 3 , in a game that meant nothing why not give Knight - Label a run ? The "Pathway" remember , though that doesn't seem to exist any more. JKL plays and it's a straight swap for Vyner, King would be the same, everyone can stay in the same positions as Wednesday when it all worked so well. But no . To avoid playing a kid ... We move Sykes, Knight , McCrorie, Tanner when one Player in keeps the same shape and system . Everyone around me said it, but it took until Williams came off to drop Knight deeper. Another thing , why Williams off ? He was much better than James and he didn't look tired. Sykes looks much better further forward , he is not a WB and doesn't look comfortable there. Williams was clattered several times. Memetti was about to come on with Wells when Williams was injured so the bench delayed the decision until they decided what was happening with Williams. They gave it a few minutes but then subbed him off. I'm positive Williams was injured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 Just now, Back of the Dolman said: True but we changed from 3 at the back to a back 4 at half time anyway so that might not have been an issue. The way we set up today was again playing too many people out of position and the selection of King or even Knight-Lebel would of alleviated that problem. I agree with you there. No need to move so many players out of position at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back of the Dolman Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 (edited) 6 minutes ago, RedM said: I agree with you there. No need to move so many players out of position at all. I thought LM had started to move away from that recently because it certainly hindered us. I hope he’s not slipping back into these decisions. I know we had CB issues today but that issue could have been resolved without so many positional changes Edited April 13 by Back of the Dolman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.