|
|
Post by luke45 on Feb 3, 2013 0:21:08 GMT
Just got back now, and I can't quite believe some of the criticism I am reading towards Peter Crouch's performance today. How many people who are slating his performance today actually bothered going to the game out of interest? What exactly do people expect from him? He was dominant in the air from start to finish today, and his hold up play and use of the ball was excellent. Is it Crouch's fault we were playing a 4-5-1 and he was left isolated? Is it Crouch's fault he was winning countless headers and weren't winning any of the second balls? No, it isn't. He did exactly what was required of him today and he was easily one of our better performers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Feb 3, 2013 0:25:13 GMT
Think he only lost the ball once or twice in 90 minutes (not that he had it that many times, but still).
Trouble is it'll be time for Crouch to retire by the time Pulis works out a team and formation to get the best out of him.
Waste of a signing in a Pulis team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 0:26:05 GMT
Spot on with this post, although before the game, I believe that Jones should have started, Crouch did very well under the circumstances. He was desperate for further support up top.
|
|
|
|
Post by petebal03 on Feb 3, 2013 0:31:12 GMT
Were you watching the same match as I was - he was slightly better than previous matches - but still nowhere near what Kenwynne offers to the team - ie winning headers, holding the ball up - then laying it off to a teamate, Why did Pulis change things to include this long streak of piss
|
|
|
|
Post by luke45 on Feb 3, 2013 0:47:22 GMT
Were you watching the same match as I was - he was slightly better than previous matches - but still nowhere near what Kenwynne offers to the team - ie winning headers, holding the ball up - then laying it off to a teamate, Why did Pulis change things to include this long streak of piss You are seriously suggesting that Crouch doesn't offer hold up play and winning of headers to our team? If you believe that then you obviously don't want to see it. He was terrific today and had a thankless task throughout. Our game plan is largely based around winning the second balls and today we didn't do that often enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 0:59:03 GMT
He always does well if there are options available too him, must be pretty disheartening being up there all on your own though..
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 3, 2013 1:04:38 GMT
The criticism of Crouch is just agenda driven fuckwittery by a rabid mob of imbeciles.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokemanusa on Feb 3, 2013 1:09:15 GMT
Crouch was quite good linking up but nobody was that third part of the attacking triangle, can't move forwards with your face at the sideline and no runners past.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 3, 2013 3:11:12 GMT
Think he only lost the ball once or twice in 90 minutes (not that he had it that many times, but still). Trouble is it'll be time for Crouch to retire by the time Pulis works out a team and formation to get the best out of him. Waste of a signing in a Pulis team. Exactly. Crouch did nothing wrong today but he is completely unsuited to how we play. Is it Crouch's fault we were playing a 4-5-1 and he was left isolated? Luke of course it isn't Peter's fault that he's left isolated but that's how it is for a man leading the line in a 4-4-1-1/4-5-1 system, you're essentially making the people your arguing with's point for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Cropper on Feb 3, 2013 3:30:11 GMT
Like Paul says, he did as much as anyone could expect of him today, but the system just does not suit him. I just don't see any reason for not starting KJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Feb 3, 2013 9:02:31 GMT
Think he only lost the ball once or twice in 90 minutes (not that he had it that many times, but still). Trouble is it'll be time for Crouch to retire by the time Pulis works out a team and formation to get the best out of him. Waste of a signing in a Pulis team. Exactly. Crouch did nothing wrong today but he is completely unsuited to how we play. Is it Crouch's fault we were playing a 4-5-1 and he was left isolated? Luke of course it isn't Peter's fault that he's left isolated but that's how it is for a man leading the line in a 4-4-1-1/4-5-1 system, you're essentially making the people your arguing with's point for them. Hallelujah !!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by luke45 on Feb 3, 2013 9:15:21 GMT
Think he only lost the ball once or twice in 90 minutes (not that he had it that many times, but still). Trouble is it'll be time for Crouch to retire by the time Pulis works out a team and formation to get the best out of him. Waste of a signing in a Pulis team. Exactly. Crouch did nothing wrong today but he is completely unsuited to how we play. Is it Crouch's fault we were playing a 4-5-1 and he was left isolated? Luke of course it isn't Peter's fault that he's left isolated but that's how it is for a man leading the line in a 4-4-1-1/4-5-1 system, you're essentially making the people your arguing with's point for them. Not really Paul, because I haven't disagreed with anyone who has said a 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 formation is leaving the front man isolated, I've highlighted that myself, the point I'm making is that people shouldn't be criticising Crouch just because he's left isolated, they should be criticising the manager for using that formation. Crouch did nothing at all wrong yesterday, he won headers, he held the ball up and used it well, it doesn't make it a bad performance on his behalf just because nobody is playing near enough to him and we aren't winning any second balls. |
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Feb 3, 2013 9:30:53 GMT
Just got back now, and I can't quite believe some of the criticism I am reading towards Peter Crouch's performance today. How many people who are slating his performance today actually bothered going to the game out of interest? What exactly do people expect from him? He was dominant in the air from start to finish today, and his hold up play and use of the ball was excellent. Is it Crouch's fault we were playing a 4-5-1 and he was left isolated? Is it Crouch's fault he was winning countless headers and weren't winning any of the second balls? No, it isn't. He did exactly what was required of him today and he was easily one of our better performers. It's not a criticism of Crouch from me, but the way to play if Crouch is preferred! As long as we are staying back with almost the whole team the only chances we might get will be on quick counter attacks, and Crouch has no pace to challenge their defenders! If we put out an attacking side that will make a lot of crosses into the box then fine (even if KJ is more suited to this as well), but away with no players to link up with it's simply a waste! |
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Feb 3, 2013 9:36:55 GMT
Crouch did all he could of done yesterday. When he did hold the ball all he had 'on' was a 25 yard pass back. There was zero support in and around him.
Unless you are an out and out defender or a willing headless chicken (Walters) then playing football for this manager must be soul destroying.
|
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Feb 3, 2013 9:38:17 GMT
Its pointless having somebody who can hold it up if we are not getting forward to capatilise on it or help out.
You need someone who can actually turn and run at people if they are up front on their own otherwise it all breaks down and the ball comes straight back.
Its neither Crouch or Kenwynes fault as they are both good players but Kenwyne offers more imo
The fault is the system and tactics and not the personel
I just wish people would see it
|
|
|
|
Post by alexk on Feb 3, 2013 10:11:51 GMT
Playing on the break with the slowest striker in Europe alone up front is barking mad.
The End.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Feb 3, 2013 10:15:24 GMT
Playing on the break with the slowest striker in Europe alone up front is barking mad. The End. Indeed. Playing a defensive strategy away at Arsenal is very sensible but having no pace on the break if only to give the back four a breather, is mental. We all know that Crouch's link up play is excellent but the "link up" bit is the problem as we rarely have anyone within 20 yards of the poor bloke. |
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Feb 3, 2013 11:40:39 GMT
Playing on the break with the slowest striker in Europe alone up front is barking mad. The End. True. |
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Feb 3, 2013 11:45:54 GMT
It's tough to judge him on a game where he was always thirty yards from our nearest player and had no options whatsoever when he djd get the ball.
If you're going to ay like that, you really need a Fuller type leading the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 3, 2013 14:13:10 GMT
Exactly. Crouch did nothing wrong today but he is completely unsuited to how we play. Luke of course it isn't Peter's fault that he's left isolated but that's how it is for a man leading the line in a 4-4-1-1/4-5-1 system, you're essentially making the people your arguing with's point for them. Not really Paul, because I haven't disagreed with anyone who has said a 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 formation is leaving the front man isolated, I've highlighted that myself, the point I'm making is that people shouldn't be criticising Crouch just because he's left isolated, they should be criticising the manager for using that formation. Crouch did nothing at all wrong yesterday, he won headers, he held the ball up and used it well, it doesn't make it a bad performance on his behalf just because nobody is playing near enough to him and we aren't winning any second balls. Yes really (look at all the other posts on this thread) Luke. Everybody knows the issue, is that the manager bought a striker who is patently unsuited to his system, it's not Crouchy's fault, he does the best he can. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 14:24:08 GMT
It's the age old problem. Crouch's individual performances are totally mutually exclusive to the team's performance and efficiency. That will never change under Pulis. He plays poorly, it doesn't really affect the team - likewise good performances.
A mobile striker who is big, strong and aggressive would help the team when only at 50% performance over a Crouch on top of his game - simply because of how we line up and what are expected of our forwards to make the system tick.
It's the biggest frustration I have with this manager. There are bundles of forwards all over the world that can lead the line in a Pulis team and also play the deeper role yet we choose not to take a chance on them, if we even know they exist. then to add insult to injury we fill the two forward roles with bigger name players who are just not suited at all.
Sporting Braga have a forward called Eder. They signed him this season from Academica Coimbra for small beer! He tore Man Utd apart at Old Trafford this season and he looked like he could have done a job in BOTH roles in our team.
Bordeaux in France have a forward called Cheick Diabate. 6'4" Malian who is only 24. Seen him a few times on TV. Again, a strong, aggressive pacey front man who would fill both roles.
you could get both for the money we paid for Crouch and still have change left over for Geoff Cameron and Brek Shea.
Nearly every team in France has a striker that we could use and a midfielder we could use.
|
|
|
|
Post by y2j on Feb 3, 2013 20:38:13 GMT
Crouch needs someone alongside him who can play off him. Someone quick, and a goal scorer. Defoe is an ideal partner as evidenced at Spurs and Pompey. But for that to work, the system needs to change and not just for 1 game. Jones struggles when we play the way we did yesterday, the issue is no-one is within 30 yrds of them, so even if they win the header it just goes straight back to the opposing team.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 3, 2013 20:52:17 GMT
We are no better with Jones up front...........fact.
This is not just a cunt saying 'fact' (well maybe) but any measurement or temperature check of performance concludes that it is a FACT.
We score no more goals, we create no more chances, we accumulate no more points. If you analyse our games closely, the only conclusion you can draw is that we concede more goals when Crouch is out of the side. That's not a reason for picking him but it is the only....fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by padders01 on Feb 3, 2013 20:59:00 GMT
We are no better with Jones up front...........fact. This is not just a cunt saying 'fact' (well maybe) but any measurement or temperature check of performance concludes that it is a FACT. We score no more goals, we create no more chances, we accumulate no more points. If you analyse our games closely, the only conclusion you can draw is that we concede more goals when Crouch is out of the side. That's not a reason for picking him but it is the only....fact. I would really be interested to see the stats behind this? |
|
|
|
Post by padders01 on Feb 3, 2013 21:01:14 GMT
The 10 game unbeaten run, Crouch started 4 of them, one of them was Newcastle when Jones and Jerome changed the game so can't factor Crouch starting helped that performance
Jones started the other 6
|
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Feb 3, 2013 21:07:07 GMT
Playing on the break with the slowest striker in Europe alone up front is barking mad. The End. That explains the Crouch dilemma in a nutshell. |
|
|
|
Post by y2j on Feb 4, 2013 9:20:46 GMT
As above. You could play Van Persie, Aguero, Adebyaor, Rooney in that position, they still wouldn't score anymore goals, because they don't get much of the ball and have no support.
It isn't Crouch or Jones fault, it's the system.
|
|
