|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 22, 2012 12:42:22 GMT
Same starting team as last night will do me - Walters, CJ and Crouch to start. If we sit back we'll get pummelled. Yep, just the centre mids to change depending on fitness and injuries.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 22, 2012 12:47:31 GMT
Walters will start. I imagine TP will want him stopping Barry/Yaya Toure from feeding the likes of Silva, Tevez etc. He ain't good enough to do it and good passers will pass it round him. Headless chicken comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Mar 22, 2012 13:17:01 GMT
He has definately lost his edge and doesn't get as close as he used to. Against Citeh, If we do lose, I'd rather that we at least have go than trying to defend a nil-nil.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 22, 2012 14:32:07 GMT
Paul Spencer in wanting Crouch dropped on Saturday shock Sheikhmomo not even understanding what's being discussed in the the thread shock ...
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 22, 2012 21:43:46 GMT
I see there are still people who think Jerome and Walters play the same position.
I really do despair!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by stokecitydom on Mar 22, 2012 21:54:08 GMT
I see there are still people who think Jerome and Walters play the same position. I really do despair!!!!!!!! Surely you can see that Walters really is struggling. He may be working hard, but he's always a yard off the pace. Last night there were quite a few occasions where we were breaking, Walters gets the ball, slows us right down and ends up losing it. A prime example was in the 2nd half when Walters could have played Whitehead in, he was so slow in possession and lost the ball, they then went up the other end and Bale hit the bar. Infront of goal Walters is having a mare, where as Jerome is scoring for fun. Regardless of whether they will play the same role, it is surely better for Jerome to play a differnt role well, than Walters play his very poorly.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 22, 2012 21:59:05 GMT
I see there are still people who think Jerome and Walters play the same position. I really do despair!!!!!!!! Surely you can see that Walters really is struggling. He may be working hard, but he's always a yard off the pace. Last night there were quite a few occasions where we were breaking, Walters gets the ball, slows us right down and ends up losing it. A prime example was in the 2nd half when Walters could have played Whitehead in, he was so slow in possession and lost the ball, they then went up the other end and Bale hit the bar. Infront of goal Walters is having a mare, where as Jerome is scoring for fun. Regardless of whether they will play the same role, it is surely better for Jerome to play a differnt role well, than Walters play his very poorly. Sorro's a good player as well. Perhaps he should replace Walters. Seriously, the issue for TP is that we currently have no one who can play the withdrawn role. We have a plethora of players who can do a job in the lone striker position. If Jerome is to come into the team in his natural position, it will be for Crouch. Until Mama returns from injury, there is no alternative to Walters, no matter how knackered he is. I suspect this is why we had a good look at Tim Cahill last summer.
|
|
|
Post by stokecitydom on Mar 22, 2012 22:07:39 GMT
March - so why is Marc Wilson playing at left back then surely by your logic only left backs can play there. Why let Collins and higgy go?
Same about shotton, he's playing out of position but that's ok.
So why can't jerome play there? He has more of an eye for goal, better in the air and has PACE which we are crying out for.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Mar 22, 2012 22:14:20 GMT
True jamo, and probably against man city it might be better stick with whelan and whitehead. But the most important thing is we at our two wingers and crouch and jerome. Im convinced we will turn them over saturday Me, too. 2-1 to Stoke, Huth first goal. We'll fucking batter them!
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Mar 22, 2012 22:18:04 GMT
Surely you can see that Walters really is struggling. He may be working hard, but he's always a yard off the pace. Last night there were quite a few occasions where we were breaking, Walters gets the ball, slows us right down and ends up losing it. A prime example was in the 2nd half when Walters could have played Whitehead in, he was so slow in possession and lost the ball, they then went up the other end and Bale hit the bar. Infront of goal Walters is having a mare, where as Jerome is scoring for fun. Regardless of whether they will play the same role, it is surely better for Jerome to play a differnt role well, than Walters play his very poorly. Sorro's a good player as well. Perhaps he should replace Walters. Seriously, the issue for TP is that we currently have no one who can play the withdrawn role. We have a plethora of players who can do a job in the lone striker position. If Jerome is to come into the team in his natural position, it will be for Crouch. Until Mama returns from injury, there is no alternative to Walters, no matter how knackered he is. I suspect this is why we had a good look at Tim Cahill last summer. Will you fuck off with this "withdrawn role" bullshit! How about forwards scoring and defenders preventing goals? Jerome has looked lively, hard working and potent. I like Walters, but Jerome deserves a run.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 22, 2012 22:20:37 GMT
March - so why is Marc Wilson playing at left back then surely by your logic only left backs can play there. Why let Collins and higgy go? Same about shotton, he's playing out of position but that's ok. So why can't jerome play there? He has more of an eye for goal, better in the air and has PACE which we are crying out for. Because you're missing the principal reason for having a man in the hole ... To act as the first line of defence, closing down the opppostions 'playmaker', running around like a blue arsed fly, showing incredible levels of stamina as you attempt to stop teams who build up from the back, building up from the back. If that player chips in with a few goals each season - then that is simply a bonus. Ordinarily the player who plays that role for Stoke does not score many goals in a season - the exception to the rule is Jon Walters last season.Jerome's pace and movement should ideally be used on the shoulder of the defender as he leads the line for us but if you except that that simply isn't going to happen because Crouchy leads the line for us, then the second best place for him, is going to be on the flank where at least he can stretch the fullback with his pace.
|
|
|
Post by jstoke7 on Mar 22, 2012 22:23:24 GMT
Sorro's a good player as well. Perhaps he should replace Walters. Seriously, the issue for TP is that we currently have no one who can play the withdrawn role. We have a plethora of players who can do a job in the lone striker position. If Jerome is to come into the team in his natural position, it will be for Crouch. Until Mama returns from injury, there is no alternative to Walters, no matter how knackered he is. I suspect this is why we had a good look at Tim Cahill last summer. Will you fuck off with this "withdrawn role" bullshit! How about forwards scoring and defenders preventing goals? Jerome has looked lively, hard working and potent. I like Walters, but Jerome deserves a run. Don't blame march for the "withdrawn" role, it's the way Pulis sets up and he clearly see's no viable alternative to him.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 22, 2012 22:30:12 GMT
This withdrawn bullshit shows up Pulis's lack of tactical nous and imagination. He only knows one way - to destroy. Anyone with a blue peter badge (aka Uefa pro license) can coach it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2012 22:50:16 GMT
I think Jerome is wasted on the flank. We need the pace up top. +1 Dito pace is what we lack all over the park especially up front.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 22, 2012 23:25:25 GMT
I actually quite liked the look of CJ on the left wing...hes always unmarked when we hoof it, and it gives Crouch 2 options as opposed to 1 when hes going up for flick ons. The amount of times Jerome was unmarked (same in Valencia), a better flick on and hes through on goal.
I'm not going to complain if hes played as a striker mind, particularly if he replaces a hopelessly out of form Walters.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 22, 2012 23:30:52 GMT
I actually quite liked the look of CJ on the left wing...hes always unmarked when we hoof it, and it gives Crouch 2 options as opposed to 1 when hes going up for flick ons. The amount of times Jerome was unmarked (same in Valencia), a better flick on and hes through on goal. I'm not going to complain if hes played as a striker mind, particularly if he replaces a hopelessly out of form Walters. Like I've said before, it made a huge difference last night that we had a player on the left wing who wanted the ball and who wanted to run with it. The quality wasn't always there, but it made a change from Etherington hiding. It made everything click just a little bit more and made us look threatening.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 22, 2012 23:34:30 GMT
I actually quite liked the look of CJ on the left wing...hes always unmarked when we hoof it, and it gives Crouch 2 options as opposed to 1 when hes going up for flick ons. The amount of times Jerome was unmarked (same in Valencia), a better flick on and hes through on goal. I'm not going to complain if hes played as a striker mind, particularly if he replaces a hopelessly out of form Walters. Like I've said before, it made a huge difference last night that we had a player on the left wing who wanted the ball and who wanted to run with it. The quality wasn't always there, but it made a change from Etherington hiding. It made everything click just a little bit more and made us look threatening. Indeed. I think Etherington may well have had it. As you say, he just hides these days...hides infield and as absurd as it sounds, he DOES NOT want the ball. We have to look at a getting in another winger come the summer. Jarvis should unquestionably be a target, even if Wolves stay up.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 22, 2012 23:41:10 GMT
Like I've said before, it made a huge difference last night that we had a player on the left wing who wanted the ball and who wanted to run with it. The quality wasn't always there, but it made a change from Etherington hiding. It made everything click just a little bit more and made us look threatening. Indeed. I think Etherington may well have had it. As you say, he just hides these days...hides infield and as absurd as it sounds, he DOES NOT want the ball. We have to look at a getting in another winger come the summer. Jarvis should unquestionably be a target, even if Wolves stay up. I could go for Jarvis. Dyer would be another one I'd be looking at. If Pennant is on his way out, it's three new wingers as a minimum for me. Etherington can stay as cover, but I think he just looks like he burnt himself out last season. You know how when Mama came back from his injury, he wasn't even half the player that he was before the injury and frequently looked utterly exhausted? It seems pretty similar to me. We rushed him back from his injury (like we did with Mama) and it's just taken it out of him and he hasn't recovered. He seems to have lost a ton of pace too and looks scared of taking on his man. When he has the opportunity to get down the line, he just plays it inside and hides. It's part of why so much of our play comes down the right. Shotton gets the ball and runs forwards with it, as does Wilkinson. Etherington gets the ball and plays it sideways, while Wilson holds up the play and plays an angled ball towards the box, no matter where he is on the pitch. So yes, an extended run on the flank for Jerome is in order and to be honest, I'm disappointed that we haven't tried it out as an option sooner. I was expecting us to do so when we signed him - I thought he'd be cover for the Walters position on the basis of his reputation as a hard worker (not certain he'll be a fit there) and cover for the wings.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 22, 2012 23:56:15 GMT
Indeed. I think Etherington may well have had it. As you say, he just hides these days...hides infield and as absurd as it sounds, he DOES NOT want the ball. We have to look at a getting in another winger come the summer. Jarvis should unquestionably be a target, even if Wolves stay up. I could go for Jarvis. Dyer would be another one I'd be looking at. If Pennant is on his way out, it's three new wingers as a minimum for me. Etherington can stay as cover, but I think he just looks like he burnt himself out last season. You know how when Mama came back from his injury, he wasn't even half the player that he was before the injury and frequently looked utterly exhausted? It seems pretty similar to me. We rushed him back from his injury (like we did with Mama) and it's just taken it out of him and he hasn't recovered. He seems to have lost a ton of pace too and looks scared of taking on his man. When he has the opportunity to get down the line, he just plays it inside and hides. It's part of why so much of our play comes down the right. Shotton gets the ball and runs forwards with it, as does Wilkinson. Etherington gets the ball and plays it sideways, while Wilson holds up the play and plays an angled ball towards the box, no matter where he is on the pitch. So yes, an extended run on the flank for Jerome is in order and to be honest, I'm disappointed that we haven't tried it out as an option sooner. I was expecting us to do so when we signed him - I thought he'd be cover for the Walters position on the basis of his reputation as a hard worker (not certain he'll be a fit there) and cover for the wings. Yep, definitely with you there. Dyer, is indeed a very fine footballer. As you say, really thought we were going to see Jerome used out wide fairly regularly when we signed him. His ability in an attacking sense aside, he offers a lot defensively, works very hard and his pace is always going to be useful going both when tracking back and going forward. I'm genuinly nervous about the team selection Saturday. TP needs to get it right. Playing Jerome and Pennant is just going to be so important. Shotton really isnt the answer and and Etherington isnt doing anything positive as we've discussed. Fingers crossed he keeps it pretty much the same as what we had at Spurs.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 23, 2012 0:02:19 GMT
I actually quite liked the look of CJ on the left wing...hes always unmarked when we hoof it, and it gives Crouch 2 options as opposed to 1 when hes going up for flick ons. The amount of times Jerome was unmarked (same in Valencia), a better flick on and hes through on goal. I'm not going to complain if hes played as a striker mind, particularly if he replaces a hopelessly out of form Walters. Valencia is a good example Rossi. Jerome's fitness and work rate meant that he was able to cove a huge arc, from the toes of the full back, right round to the opposition penalty spot. He's never in a month of Sunday's going to be a traditional chalk on your boots out and out winger but if he's not going to lead the line for us, then he's certainly earned the right to be given a go as a wing-back/wide man/inside forward all rolled into one. The remainder of this season is exactly the time to continue the experiment, if it works then maybe we won't even need a replacement for Matty in the summer and if it doesn't work, then what have we actually lost trying it out?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 0:07:39 GMT
I actually quite liked the look of CJ on the left wing...hes always unmarked when we hoof it, and it gives Crouch 2 options as opposed to 1 when hes going up for flick ons. The amount of times Jerome was unmarked (same in Valencia), a better flick on and hes through on goal. I'm not going to complain if hes played as a striker mind, particularly if he replaces a hopelessly out of form Walters. Valencia is a good example Rossi. Jerome's fitness and work rate meant that he was able to cove a huge arc, from the toes of the full back, right round to the opposition penalty spot. He's never in a month of Sunday's going to be a traditional chalk on your boats out and out winger but if he's not going to lead the line for us, then he's certainly earned the right to be given a go as a wing-back/wide man/inside forward all rolled into one. The remainder of this season is exactly the time to continue the experiment, if it works then maybe we won't even need a replacement for Matty in the summer and if it doesn't work, then what have we actually lost trying it out? I'm a bit wary of players being played out of position or in a secondary position. I've always thought they can shine for a short period, but then their limitations start to show themselves. This then leads to a fans backlash (Marc Wilson). It'd be a shame if Jerome fell into this kind of bracket.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 23, 2012 0:26:40 GMT
Valencia is a good example Rossi. Jerome's fitness and work rate meant that he was able to cove a huge arc, from the toes of the full back, right round to the opposition penalty spot. He's never in a month of Sunday's going to be a traditional chalk on your boats out and out winger but if he's not going to lead the line for us, then he's certainly earned the right to be given a go as a wing-back/wide man/inside forward all rolled into one. The remainder of this season is exactly the time to continue the experiment, if it works then maybe we won't even need a replacement for Matty in the summer and if it doesn't work, then what have we actually lost trying it out? I'm a bit wary of players being played out of position or in a secondary position. I've always thought they can shine for a short period, but then their limitations start to show themselves. This then leads to a fans backlash (Marc Wilson). It'd be a shame if Jerome fell into this kind of bracket. I agree but Crouch leads the line for us. So shall we just leave him on the bench then, even when he's proved he can use his pace elsewhere on the pitch?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 23, 2012 0:34:25 GMT
I actually quite liked the look of CJ on the left wing...hes always unmarked when we hoof it, and it gives Crouch 2 options as opposed to 1 when hes going up for flick ons. The amount of times Jerome was unmarked (same in Valencia), a better flick on and hes through on goal. I'm not going to complain if hes played as a striker mind, particularly if he replaces a hopelessly out of form Walters. Valencia is a good example Rossi. Jerome's fitness and work rate meant that he was able to cove a huge arc, from the toes of the full back, right round to the opposition penalty spot. He's never in a month of Sunday's going to be a traditional chalk on your boots out and out winger but if he's not going to lead the line for us, then he's certainly earned the right to be given a go as a wing-back/wide man/inside forward all rolled into one. The remainder of this season is exactly the time to continue the experiment, if it works then maybe we won't even need a replacement for Matty in the summer and if it doesn't work, then what have we actually lost trying it out? Indeed. Absolutely nothing to lose by giving Jerome a prolonged spell on the left. We all know (unfortunately) that Walters will not got dropped. Only hope we have is that we bring in a player with more quality who TP sees as capable of doing the withdrawn role (although I dont even believe we need such a ridiculously defensive, negative role at the club full stop). Jerome needs to start games, no better time than now, no pressure, we are safe, just go out and express yourself! At least thats what i'd be saying.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 23, 2012 0:38:02 GMT
Valencia is a good example Rossi. Jerome's fitness and work rate meant that he was able to cove a huge arc, from the toes of the full back, right round to the opposition penalty spot. He's never in a month of Sunday's going to be a traditional chalk on your boats out and out winger but if he's not going to lead the line for us, then he's certainly earned the right to be given a go as a wing-back/wide man/inside forward all rolled into one. The remainder of this season is exactly the time to continue the experiment, if it works then maybe we won't even need a replacement for Matty in the summer and if it doesn't work, then what have we actually lost trying it out? I'm a bit wary of players being played out of position or in a secondary position. I've always thought they can shine for a short period, but then their limitations start to show themselves. This then leads to a fans backlash (Marc Wilson). It'd be a shame if Jerome fell into this kind of bracket. Very decent point raised. But unfortunately TP will not drop Walters until he brings in a player who genuinly feels is a better option in this baffling "withdrawn role" we seem to have developed, where defensive duties are more important than attacking. And I totally agree re Wilson. Feel for the guy...hes a talented centre mid, very talented, in comparison with the rest of our crap in this area, and deserves a shot there next season. Its not fair to keep playing him out of position when its evident hes not 100% comfortable. Plus his ability on the ball is totally wasted at left back. I like to think Jerome can be equally as effective as on the left as he can up top. Its as good as we can hope for now, unless Walters gets injured.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 0:40:41 GMT
I'm a bit wary of players being played out of position or in a secondary position. I've always thought they can shine for a short period, but then their limitations start to show themselves. This then leads to a fans backlash (Marc Wilson). It'd be a shame if Jerome fell into this kind of bracket. I agree but Crouch leads the line for us. So shall we just leave him on the bench then, even when he's proved he can use his pace elsewhere on the pitch? No, at the moment I think we should play him, but he's played fleetingly on the wing already this season without pulling up any trees. I'm just saying that because it's worked in one game, we shouldn't assume we've found the answer to an out-of-form Matty.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 23, 2012 0:46:48 GMT
To fair FCF I don't think anybody is assuming that we've found the answer to an out of form Matty.
(As has already been said) it's just being suggested that we give him a run and see what comes of it, what is there to lose?
If it doesn't work, he'll probably want to leave anyway because he ain't going to be getting pitch time anywhere else.
And if it does work, then we could save ourself a few million in the summer.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 0:51:14 GMT
To fair FCF I don't think anybody is assuming that we've found the answer to an out of form Matty. (As has already been said) it's just being suggested that we give him a run and see what comes of it, what is there to lose? If it doesn't work, he'll probably want to leave anyway because he ain't going to be getting pitch time anywhere else. And if it does work, then we could save ourself a few million in the summer. Wouldn't argue with any of that, although whether Jerome feels his long-term career (and potential earnings) interests are best served by being played in a position that's not completely natural to him is another matter.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 23, 2012 0:53:55 GMT
To fair FCF I don't think anybody is assuming that we've found the answer to an out of form Matty. (As has already been said) it's just being suggested that we give him a run and see what comes of it, what is there to lose? If it doesn't work, he'll probably want to leave anyway because he ain't going to be getting pitch time anywhere else. And if it does work, then we could save ourself a few million in the summer. Wouldn't argue with any of that, although whether Jerome feels his long-term career (and potential earnings) interests are best served by being played in a position that's not completely natural to him is another matter. If you're playing well out there, you're confident and you're in good form, I don't see that you'd object all that much. If it was a bit of a disaster, as with Huth at right back, you'd expect the player to get fed up and look at moving on.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 23, 2012 1:01:51 GMT
To fair FCF I don't think anybody is assuming that we've found the answer to an out of form Matty. (As has already been said) it's just being suggested that we give him a run and see what comes of it, what is there to lose? If it doesn't work, he'll probably want to leave anyway because he ain't going to be getting pitch time anywhere else. And if it does work, then we could save ourself a few million in the summer. Wouldn't argue with any of that, although whether Jerome feels his long-term career (and potential earnings) interests are best served by being played in a position that's not completely natural to him is another matter. I'm sure he'd prefer to be playing rather than not at all. And anyway I'm not sure he could expect to walk into the main striking role at too many other Premiership clubs. One of the promoted sides maybe? More to the point ... if TP was playing him regularly and he still wasn't happy then I don't think Tone would lose any sleep showing him the door.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 1:04:51 GMT
Wouldn't argue with any of that, although whether Jerome feels his long-term career (and potential earnings) interests are best served by being played in a position that's not completely natural to him is another matter. If you're playing well out there, you're confident and you're in good form, I don't see that you'd object all that much. If it was a bit of a disaster, as with Huth at right back, you'd expect the player to get fed up and look at moving on. So long as you're not there as a permanent sticking plaster as Marc Wilson appears to be. I'm probably chasing my own tail with this one cos I've made the point before to little effect, but I wonder whether the better players will start to avoid Stoke because of the way other players values (and potential earning power) have fallen after they've joined us. You're intelligent enough to know the players I mean without listing them. Players might go to the club who offer them the most money, but if Stoke was the club, you might think twice.
|
|