|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 18, 2013 19:20:47 GMT
Three goals of that final four were in extra time against a tiring championship second string Rob, after we had effectively drawn the match. Southampton are horrendous at the back, the Liverpool game however stands out like a beacon in terms of potency and if we could play even half like that most week I would be a happy man. Beyond that game though and perhaps the final half hour against Southampton, its business as usual in terms of how threatening we look. I think four blanks in seven tells its own story. Jones is in very decent form and only a fool would want him dropped or sold (his season at least) but we remain a shot shy outfit and his reintroduction hasn't done a great deal to improve that. We may look a little more threatening as we move forward but our continued general working of all opposition keepers remains a dismal spectacle. That's not Kenwyne's fault but neither has he massively improved things as much as people make out. I can buy that the differences aren't significant and that maybe I'm imagining us looking more threatening and positive with Jones in the team. As Paul says, the way we play isn't conducive to many creating many chances. What seems fairly indisputable at this stage though is there's at least the potential to create and score more with an in-form Jones in the team than with Crouch. If you look at all the times we've put three or more past a team since promotion (ignoring the feared Parkin/Pericard combo that put the mighty Cheltenham to the sword) the vast vast majority involve the fabled 'mobility up front' in the side, be it either Ric or KJ. I'm just wondering, if the mobility thing is horseshit and it makes no difference whatsoever, why we haven't managed it as much with Crouchy? Yes he suits us better but it doesn't necessarily equate to more goals or points though mate. Smashing a team every half dozen games or so and the odd 'three three er' thrown in may make us a bit easier on the eye but unless there is a dramatic overall in personnel or tactics we are always going to go on runs like one win in seven with four blanks drawn.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 18, 2013 19:21:42 GMT
Three goals. Three goals. Four goals. Why don't we manage that pretty much ever with Crouchy starting Sheiky? What's your theory? Three goals of that final four were in extra time against a tiring championship second string Rob, after we had effectively drawn the match. Southampton are horrendous at the back, the Liverpool game however stands out like a beacon in terms of potency and if we could play even half like that most week I would be a happy man. Beyond that game though and perhaps the final half hour against Southampton, its business as usual in terms of how threatening we look. I think four blanks in seven tells its own story. Jones is in very decent form and only a fool would want him dropped or sold (his season at least) but we remain a shot shy outfit and his reintroduction hasn't done a great deal to improve that. We may look a little more threatening as we move forward but our continued general working of all opposition keepers remains a dismal spectacle. That's not Kenwyne's fault but neither has he massively improved things as much as people make out. Think you're over playing the not scoring in those four games mate. It's no disgrace not to score against Chelsea, most managers would be delighted with a 0-0 at Spurs, Pulis himself admitted that Citeh away was a bonus game and made no attempt to win it whatsoever. Villa I'll just give you but after securing the three points at the Baggies (where KJ chased down a lost cause that Crouch would never have done) it really did look like Tone was more than happy to make sure he took the one point at Villa Park and at the end of the day it was the hopeless Adam playing behind Jones that day not Walters. By far the weakest opposition we've played is Crystal Palace and we were utterly, utterly terrible going forward in that game both at their place and until Jones came on at the Brit. As I said to Bayern earlier, with Pulisball there's never going to be massive margins but anybody who argues that Walters isn't a better player when partnered with Jones rather than Crouch is an idiot or has got an agenda. Not saying you're suggesting that mate but we certainly look more threatening as unit as a whole (especially at home) and if it hadn't been for our inadequacies in the full back positions then our league position would reflect that.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 18, 2013 19:31:12 GMT
Three goals of that final four were in extra time against a tiring championship second string Rob, after we had effectively drawn the match. Southampton are horrendous at the back, the Liverpool game however stands out like a beacon in terms of potency and if we could play even half like that most week I would be a happy man. Beyond that game though and perhaps the final half hour against Southampton, its business as usual in terms of how threatening we look. I think four blanks in seven tells its own story. Jones is in very decent form and only a fool would want him dropped or sold (his season at least) but we remain a shot shy outfit and his reintroduction hasn't done a great deal to improve that. We may look a little more threatening as we move forward but our continued general working of all opposition keepers remains a dismal spectacle. That's not Kenwyne's fault but neither has he massively improved things as much as people make out. Think you're over playing the not scoring in those four games mate. It's no disgrace not to score against Chelsea, most managers would be delighted with a 0-0 at Spurs, Pulis himself admitted that Citeh away was a bonus game and made no attempt to win it whatsoever. Villa I'll just give you but after securing the three points at the Baggies (where KJ chased down a lost cause that Crouch would never have done) it really did look like Tone was more than happy to make sure he took the one point at Villa Park and at the end of the day it was the hopeless Adam playing behind Jones that day not Walters. By far the weakest opposition we've played is Crystal Palace and we were utterly, utterly terrible going forward in that game both at their place and until Jones came on at the Brit. As I said to Bayern earlier, with Pulisball there's never going to be massive margins but anybody who argues that Walters isn't a better player when partnered with Jones rather than Crouch is an idiot or has got an agenda. Not saying you're suggesting that mate but we certainly look more threatening as unit as a whole (especially at home) and if it hadn't been for our inadequacies in the full back positions then our league position would reflect that. I agree the margins are fine Paul and Walters with Jones is better than any other combo. The Liverpool game is testament to that and although Kightly got stick as usual that night, the balance of the team two wingers with Walters behind was superb. However, Jones with anyone else may as well be Crouch with anyone else (He wont partner Jones with Jerome in the Prem). I think Crouch gets a very bad rap from lots of supporters (not necessarily you or Rob) but his goal record from last season was very good and will be hard to match by any striker in any Pulis lineup.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 18, 2013 19:42:07 GMT
Think you're over playing the not scoring in those four games mate. It's no disgrace not to score against Chelsea, most managers would be delighted with a 0-0 at Spurs, Pulis himself admitted that Citeh away was a bonus game and made no attempt to win it whatsoever. Villa I'll just give you but after securing the three points at the Baggies (where KJ chased down a lost cause that Crouch would never have done) it really did look like Tone was more than happy to make sure he took the one point at Villa Park and at the end of the day it was the hopeless Adam playing behind Jones that day not Walters. By far the weakest opposition we've played is Crystal Palace and we were utterly, utterly terrible going forward in that game both at their place and until Jones came on at the Brit. As I said to Bayern earlier, with Pulisball there's never going to be massive margins but anybody who argues that Walters isn't a better player when partnered with Jones rather than Crouch is an idiot or has got an agenda. Not saying you're suggesting that mate but we certainly look more threatening as unit as a whole (especially at home) and if it hadn't been for our inadequacies in the full back positions then our league position would reflect that. I agree the margins are fine Paul and Walters with Jones is better than any other combo. The Liverpool game is testament to that and although Kightly got stick as usual that night, the balance of the team two wingers with Walters behind was superb. However, Jones with anyone else may as well be Crouch with anyone else (He wont partner Jones with Jerome in the Prem). I think Crouch gets a very bad rap from lots of supporters (not necessarily you or Rob) but his goal record from last season was very good and will be hard to match by any striker in any Pulis lineup. I wouldn't disagree with any of that at all, the only caveat being, that obviously we want the team collectively to score as many as possible and not just one individual. And I acknowledge that you've essentially just said that when referring to the Walters/Jones partnership.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 19:43:24 GMT
I can buy that the differences aren't significant and that maybe I'm imagining us looking more threatening and positive with Jones in the team. As Paul says, the way we play isn't conducive to many creating many chances. What seems fairly indisputable at this stage though is there's at least the potential to create and score more with an in-form Jones in the team than with Crouch. If you look at all the times we've put three or more past a team since promotion (ignoring the feared Parkin/Pericard combo that put the mighty Cheltenham to the sword) the vast vast majority involve the fabled 'mobility up front' in the side, be it either Ric or KJ. I'm just wondering, if the mobility thing is horseshit and it makes no difference whatsoever, why we haven't managed it as much with Crouchy? Yes he suits us better but it doesn't necessarily equate to more goals or points though mate. Smashing a team every half dozen games or so and the odd 'three three er' thrown in may make us a bit easier on the eye but unless there is a dramatic overall in personnel or tactics we are always going to go on runs like one win in seven with four blanks drawn. The same as we've got now only easier on the eye is all I want really Sheiky. I think it does equate to more goals if not more points (although we shouldn't forget our horrendous start to 2012 and the latter half of last season) but any team outside the top 5 or so is going to have good runs and bad runs whoever they've got up top.
|
|
|
Post by fentonstokie1 on Jan 18, 2013 19:45:17 GMT
Three goals of that final four were in extra time against a tiring championship second string Rob, after we had effectively drawn the match. Southampton are horrendous at the back, the Liverpool game however stands out like a beacon in terms of potency and if we could play even half like that most week I would be a happy man. Beyond that game though and perhaps the final half hour against Southampton, its business as usual in terms of how threatening we look. I think four blanks in seven tells its own story. Jones is in very decent form and only a fool would want him dropped or sold (his season at least) but we remain a shot shy outfit and his reintroduction hasn't done a great deal to improve that. We may look a little more threatening as we move forward but our continued general working of all opposition keepers remains a dismal spectacle. That's not Kenwyne's fault but neither has he massively improved things as much as people make out. Think you're over playing the not scoring in those four games mate. It's no disgrace not to score against Chelsea, most managers would be delighted with a 0-0 at Spurs, Pulis himself admitted that Citeh away was a bonus game and made no attempt to win it whatsoever. Villa I'll just give you but after securing the three points at the Baggies (where KJ chased down a lost cause that Crouch would never have done) it really did look like Tone was more than happy to make sure he took the one point at Villa Park and at the end of the day it was the hopeless Adam playing behind Jones that day not Walters. By far the weakest opposition we've played is Crystal Palace and we were utterly, utterly terrible going forward in that game both at their place and until Jones came on at the Brit. As I said to Bayern earlier, with Pulisball there's never going to be massive margins but anybody who argues that Walters isn't a better player when partnered with Jones rather than Crouch is an idiot or has got an agenda. Not saying you're suggesting that mate but we certainly look more threatening as unit as a whole (especially at home) and if it hadn't been for our inadequacies in the full back positions then our league position would reflect that. In the Palace game we were playing balls forward for PC as we had become re-accustomed to do with the re-emergence of KJ but PC was just not fast enough to get on to the return ball, then KJ came on his increased mobility and strength made the difference. So for me it's KJ or CJ in front of Walters every time. Our full back situation is an absolute embarrassment, I personally don't think any of the players we play on either side are anywhere good enough and it shows when they are up against a decent attacking team where we have to play the wide men so deep we're effectively playing with four fullbacks and they can't get forward enough to fulfill the role they're on the pitch to do which probably explains why they look so knackered they just don't even try to beat their man.
|
|