|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 19, 2014 11:42:11 GMT
Maybe they think he's lacking a bit of fitness and needs the extra work out. Looking at the squad, he must have realised that if he wants to hold down a place, even on the bench, he has to finally get to grips with this issue. A fit and focussed Adam would be like a new signing. I'm desperate to see Charlie in the deep playmaker role, we shouldn't be relying on Glen carrying everything out of defence. That's not his strength. Can't say I'm desperate to be honest, I just think the cons out way the pros with Adam quite a bit for him to be in the starting 11, maybe even the bench tbh.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Aug 19, 2014 12:20:49 GMT
Maybe they think he's lacking a bit of fitness and needs the extra work out. Looking at the squad, he must have realised that if he wants to hold down a place, even on the bench, he has to finally get to grips with this issue. A fit and focussed Adam would be like a new signing. I'm desperate to see Charlie in the deep playmaker role, we shouldn't be relying on Glen carrying everything out of defence. That's not his strength. If he can get fit and focused plus control his tendencies to commit a foul almost every tackle he makes, Adam should be a nailed for a regular start, as far as I am concerned. When he replaced Whelan on Saturday we looked way more effective in attack. His addition made a bigger difference than Crouch's as far as I could see.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 19, 2014 12:29:18 GMT
Looking at the squad, he must have realised that if he wants to hold down a place, even on the bench, he has to finally get to grips with this issue. A fit and focussed Adam would be like a new signing. I'm desperate to see Charlie in the deep playmaker role, we shouldn't be relying on Glen carrying everything out of defence. That's not his strength. If he can get fit and focused plus control his tendencies to commit a foul almost every tackle he makes, Adam should be a nailed for a regular start, as far as I am concerned. When he replaced Whelan on Saturday we looked way more effective in attack. His addition made a bigger difference than Crouch's as far as I could see. And his passing, decision making, roll and moan when he's ran out of ideas as well as his snide little digs at people when he thinks the ref isn't looking then I'd agree
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 19, 2014 12:30:31 GMT
Not sure where you've been the last ten years but you're allowed so many overage players That's not how you spell average. Lawrie has got a point though. Regardless of what the rules actually are, if you're going to have age-restricted teams then shouldn't they actually be within that age bracket. We had THREE over-aged players out of 11. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering why they bother to age-restrict the team at all when more than a quarter of them don't need to comply.
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Aug 19, 2014 12:31:28 GMT
Looking at the squad, he must have realised that if he wants to hold down a place, even on the bench, he has to finally get to grips with this issue. A fit and focussed Adam would be like a new signing. I'm desperate to see Charlie in the deep playmaker role, we shouldn't be relying on Glen carrying everything out of defence. That's not his strength. If he can get fit and focused plus control his tendencies to commit a foul almost every tackle he makes, Adam should be a nailed for a regular start, as far as I am concerned. When he replaced Whelan on Saturday we looked way more effective in attack. His addition made a bigger difference than Crouch's as far as I could see. I'm not sure I'd agree with that Ig. One of his misplaced passes gave them a break which they really should have scored from.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Aug 19, 2014 12:40:57 GMT
If he can get fit and focused plus control his tendencies to commit a foul almost every tackle he makes, Adam should be a nailed for a regular start, as far as I am concerned. When he replaced Whelan on Saturday we looked way more effective in attack. His addition made a bigger difference than Crouch's as far as I could see. I'm not sure I'd agree with that Ig. One of his misplaced passes gave them a break which they really should have scored from. It's very possible to point the finger at pretty much any of the players regarding misplaced passes on Saturday though...Nzonzi, Whelan both come to mind on that. I still thought the passes he made which did come off made us much more dangerous towards the end of the match. For me Whelans lack of ability to pick a decent attacking pass is seriously hampering our build-up play.
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Aug 19, 2014 12:46:10 GMT
I'm not sure I'd agree with that Ig. One of his misplaced passes gave them a break which they really should have scored from. It's very possible to point the finger at pretty much any of the players regarding misplaced passes on Saturday though...Nzonzi, Whelan both come to mind on that. I still thought the passes he made which did come off made us much more dangerous towards the end of the match. For me Whelans lack of ability to pick a decent attacking pass is seriously hampering our build-up play. I agree with most of that as no-one stood out. Crouch gave us someone to pass to which we'd not really had all game.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Aug 19, 2014 12:53:28 GMT
It's very possible to point the finger at pretty much any of the players regarding misplaced passes on Saturday though...Nzonzi, Whelan both come to mind on that. I still thought the passes he made which did come off made us much more dangerous towards the end of the match. For me Whelans lack of ability to pick a decent attacking pass is seriously hampering our build-up play. I agree with most of that as no-one stood out. Crouch gave us someone to pass to which we'd not really had all game. It's a difficult one regarding Crouch. For me we definitely need to keep him, but, just because he looked better for us on Saturday doesn't mean that Diouf is not right either. Two things come to mind re. this 1. is that any familiar and worn track is easy to drop into as a matter of habit and given our style of play a hold up man has been essential up to now. However 2. By no means do all teams play with this style, in fact many of the better teams do not, so if we want to utilise the potential of Diouf more effectively maybe a change in habits is required. I would be interested to see if Adam had a role with something like that.
|
|
|
Post by ************** on Aug 19, 2014 14:45:59 GMT
If he can get fit and focused plus control his tendencies to commit a foul almost every tackle he makes, Adam should be a nailed for a regular start, as far as I am concerned. When he replaced Whelan on Saturday we looked way more effective in attack. His addition made a bigger difference than Crouch's as far as I could see. And his passing, decision making, roll and moan when he's ran out of ideas as well as his snide little digs at people when he thinks the ref isn't looking then I'd agree Werrington nailed this on another thread. He reckoned Charlie Adam brings an urgency into our play, and I have to agree with that. But I also agree with BF that he does bring a sackful of other not so smart ingredients into the mix as well. Maybe the new signings will see him attempt to eradicate these things from his game. He's still got the sweetest left foot i've ever seen at Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 19, 2014 16:27:49 GMT
And his passing, decision making, roll and moan when he's ran out of ideas as well as his snide little digs at people when he thinks the ref isn't looking then I'd agree Werrington nailed this on another thread. He reckoned Charlie Adam brings an urgency into our play, and I have to agree with that. But I also agree with BF that he does bring a sackful of other not so smart ingredients into the mix as well. Maybe the new signings will see him attempt to eradicate these things from his game. He's still got the sweetest left foot i've ever seen at Stoke. Yeh, you're right, that is one good thing he does seem to bring when he comes on, I suppose thats down to him always looking for a forward pass when he gets the ball rather than always looking for the safe option back or sideways.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2014 16:44:34 GMT
Looking at the squad, he must have realised that if he wants to hold down a place, even on the bench, he has to finally get to grips with this issue. A fit and focussed Adam would be like a new signing. I'm desperate to see Charlie in the deep playmaker role, we shouldn't be relying on Glen carrying everything out of defence. That's not his strength. If he can get fit and focused plus control his tendencies to commit a foul almost every tackle he makes, Adam should be a nailed for a regular start, as far as I am concerned. When he replaced Whelan on Saturday we looked way more effective in attack. His addition made a bigger difference than Crouch's as far as I could see. Totally agree, we always seem to have far more purpose to our game when he is on
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Aug 19, 2014 17:03:03 GMT
Werrington nailed this on another thread. He reckoned Charlie Adam brings an urgency into our play, and I have to agree with that. But I also agree with BF that he does bring a sackful of other not so smart ingredients into the mix as well. Maybe the new signings will see him attempt to eradicate these things from his game. He's still got the sweetest left foot i've ever seen at Stoke. Yeh, you're right, that is one good thing he does seem to bring when he comes on, I suppose thats down to him always looking for a forward pass when he gets the ball rather than always looking for the safe option back or sideways. That'd be Glen, you're referring to then................................tbh I can see why TP bought in Palacios, he should've offered an upgrade on Whelan defensively plus, as I've noticed on the odd occasion that he plays, he has an eye for a well-placed through ball in attack....something Whelan just doesn't offer. I wonder if there are any thoughts on this from the transfer team or whether Hughes is happy with just a solid man in defence and no more?
|
|
|
Post by ************** on Aug 19, 2014 17:10:24 GMT
Yeh, you're right, that is one good thing he does seem to bring when he comes on, I suppose thats down to him always looking for a forward pass when he gets the ball rather than always looking for the safe option back or sideways. That'd be Glen, you're referring to then................................tbh I can see why TP bought in Palacios, he should've offered an upgrade on Whelan defensively plus, as I've noticed on the odd occasion that he plays, he has an eye for a well-placed through ball in attack....something Whelan just doesn't offer. I wonder if there are any thoughts on this from the transfer team or whether Hughes is happy with just a solid man in defence and no more? Thats why the Palacios saga was so drawn out and so painful for most of us. I was always far more excited at the prospect of Palacios doing his midfield destroyer/playmaker thing than I ever was about having Peter Crouch in the side, and that's no disrespect to Peter Crouch in any way. I just had Palacios down as the answer. I still think about it.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Aug 19, 2014 17:17:59 GMT
That'd be Glen, you're referring to then................................tbh I can see why TP bought in Palacios, he should've offered an upgrade on Whelan defensively plus, as I've noticed on the odd occasion that he plays, he has an eye for a well-placed through ball in attack....something Whelan just doesn't offer. I wonder if there are any thoughts on this from the transfer team or whether Hughes is happy with just a solid man in defence and no more? Thats why the Palacios saga was so drawn out and so painful for most of us. I was always far more excited at the prospect of Palacios doing his midfield destroyer/playmaker thing than I ever was about having Peter Crouch in the side, and that's no disrespect to Peter Crouch in any way. I just had Palacios down as the answer. I still think about it. It seems to have gone onto the back-burner as Glen does just enough to keep starting, but I cannot help but think that we need to upgrade our DMF. I think he gives his absolute best and he cannot be faulted for his attitude but if we could just get that play-maker I am sure it would make a big big difference to our attacking. No doubt all clubs are looking for this type of player but one can but dream
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 19, 2014 18:03:17 GMT
Yeh, you're right, that is one good thing he does seem to bring when he comes on, I suppose thats down to him always looking for a forward pass when he gets the ball rather than always looking for the safe option back or sideways. That'd be Glen, you're referring to then................................tbh I can see why TP bought in Palacios, he should've offered an upgrade on Whelan defensively plus, as I've noticed on the odd occasion that he plays, he has an eye for a well-placed through ball in attack....something Whelan just doesn't offer. I wonder if there are any thoughts on this from the transfer team or whether Hughes is happy with just a solid man in defence and no more? Going off Saturday, all of them , like Ive said before, I think Whelan is asked to keep it safe, and pass it to the players with a bit more creativity, Adam certainly shouldn't be played in his position, ever.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Aug 19, 2014 18:08:28 GMT
That'd be Glen, you're referring to then................................tbh I can see why TP bought in Palacios, he should've offered an upgrade on Whelan defensively plus, as I've noticed on the odd occasion that he plays, he has an eye for a well-placed through ball in attack....something Whelan just doesn't offer. I wonder if there are any thoughts on this from the transfer team or whether Hughes is happy with just a solid man in defence and no more? Going off Saturday, all of them , like Ive said before, I think Whelan is asked to keep it safe, and pass it to the players with a bit more creativity, Adam certainly shouldn't be played in his position, ever. I am not saying Adam should be, but quite clearly the intention of the Palacios signing was to improve on the defence only type player. I think Glen stepped up last season but he still does not offer enough in the passing dept. Sure he's solid but we need an upgrade at some point I would say.
|
|
|
Post by stokiet90 on Aug 20, 2014 7:51:19 GMT
People go on about the 1 or 2 misplaced passes Adam does but I think that's only because he's trying to create something. Any one can do what Whelan does and keep it simple . Obviously always looking for the forward pass isn't going to work I'm a big fan of Charlie Adam.
|
|
|
Post by jimmygscfc on Aug 20, 2014 9:28:06 GMT
Charlie can't do what he did on Saturday in his cameo for 90 minutes though IMHO. And you can't ignore his lack of pace, poor tackling, questionable temperament and rush of blood passing to opponents when discussing his merits. I'd sell him and spend it on a Whelan upgrade. You then have Sidwell as a more combative, goal-scoring midfield option.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 20, 2014 10:02:33 GMT
People go on about the 1 or 2 misplaced passes Adam does but I think that's only because he's trying to create something. Any one can do what Whelan does and keep it simple . Obviously always looking for the forward pass isn't going to work I'm a big fan of Charlie Adam. One of his misplaced passes went side ways straight to the opposition, and he's lucky they didn't score from it.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 20, 2014 10:21:58 GMT
That's not how you spell average. Lawrie has got a point though. Regardless of what the rules actually are, if you're going to have age-restricted teams then shouldn't they actually be within that age bracket. We had THREE over-aged players out of 11. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering why they bother to age-restrict the team at all when more than a quarter of them don't need to comply. As there is no reserve league anymore, how would you keep your first team squad match fit with no games to play them in? How would you get a player match fit who was coming back from injury? Allowing 3 over age players un the development team seems a reasonable compromise and has the added benefit that the players who are under 21 get the chance to play against and alongside a few older, experienced players. Its a win win as far I can see.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Aug 20, 2014 10:41:10 GMT
People go on about the 1 or 2 misplaced passes Adam does but I think that's only because he's trying to create something. Any one can do what Whelan does and keep it simple . Obviously always looking for the forward pass isn't going to work I'm a big fan of Charlie Adam. One of his misplaced passes went side ways straight to the opposition, and he's lucky they didn't score from it. On the face of it you are of course correct, it is an unfortunate aspect to Charlie's 'risk taking' approach to the game, an approach which I applaud. I can excuse the wanky pass on Saturday, it wasn't down to poor decision making, but poor execution, he simply under-hit the ball. Charlie had only been on for a matter of minutes, and for the first time during the second half, he sought to spread the ball away from the congested left, to pick out one of Bardsley's forays up the wing. {it was about 86 mins}. The ball was intercepted at the edge of THEIR penalty area not ours. It set them up on a run, but hardly a goal scoring opportunity. {A bit like saying a goal kick is a goal scoring opp. Oh wait! Bego.} I'm not convinced by the call for Adam to play deeper in a more defensive role. It's true that he can pick out passes with players in front of him, but his well documented foibles mean he needs to ply his trade further up field. Too much 'box to boxing' and he'd be shagged. I'd start with Adam for the majority of games, he wears his heart on his sleeve: you generally get an early idea of which Charlie has turned up, and there are usually warning signs of when he's getting fractious. Swap him for Ireland/Sidwell at that point. The biggest frustration for me re Adam is his woeful set piece delivery in the red & white. Previously a major selling point, his free kick {and corners as far as I recall} technique has seemingly abandoned him. I can't figure that out. I wouldn't play him instead of Whelan, not as Glenn is expected to play at least. Maybe Tex could be groomed to be our very own YaYa, and I havn't given up on Muniesa being tried there. Viva Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 20, 2014 11:00:25 GMT
One of his misplaced passes went side ways straight to the opposition, and he's lucky they didn't score from it. On the face of it you are of course correct, it is an unfortunate aspect to Charlie's 'risk taking' approach to the game, an approach which I applaud. I can excuse the wanky pass on Saturday, it wasn't down to poor decision making, but poor execution, he simply under-hit the ball. Charlie had only been on for a matter of minutes, and for the first time during the second half, he sought to spread the ball away from the congested left, to pick out one of Bardsley's forays up the wing. {it was about 86 mins}. The ball was intercepted at the edge of THEIR penalty area not ours. It set them up on a run, but hardly a goal scoring opportunity. {A bit like saying a goal kick is a goal scoring opp. Oh wait! Bego.} I'm not convinced by the call for Adam to play deeper in a more defensive role. It's true that he can pick out passes with players in front of him, but his well documented foibles mean he needs to ply his trade further up field. Too much 'box to boxing' and he'd be shagged. I'd start with Adam for the majority of games, he wears his heart on his sleeve: you generally get an early idea of which Charlie has turned up, and there are usually warning signs of when he's getting fractious. Swap him for Ireland/Sidwell at that point. The biggest frustration for me re Adam is his woeful set piece delivery in the red & white. Previously a major selling point, his free kick {and corners as far as I recall} technique has seemingly abandoned him. I can't figure that out. I wouldn't play him instead of Whelan, not as Glenn is expected to play at least. Maybe Tex could be groomed to be our very own YaYa, and I havn't given up on Muniesa being tried there. Viva Charlie. The one I was thinking of was near the half way line and they very nearly scored from it, maybe I'm miss remembering, I'll have to go back and have a look. Not sure I want a CB in the midfield, not sure why, but ever since Pulis left (not to bring up a TP discussion) and all the round pegs square holes stuff, a lot of posters on here suddenly seem to want to do just that.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Aug 20, 2014 11:41:56 GMT
The only reason for re-watching the whole charade would be to see Crouch bending down to shake hands with Bojan again. I thought Crouch was going to pick him up. I can't be arsed to torture mesen with a re-run. The Charlie 'suicide' pass I was referring to was right in front of me. {Pitch level left side Boothen}. I generally look forward to the TV perspective when I've been, but I'll consign this to the 'match day memories' file.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Aug 20, 2014 11:49:07 GMT
On the face of it you are of course correct, it is an unfortunate aspect to Charlie's 'risk taking' approach to the game, an approach which I applaud. I can excuse the wanky pass on Saturday, it wasn't down to poor decision making, but poor execution, he simply under-hit the ball. Charlie had only been on for a matter of minutes, and for the first time during the second half, he sought to spread the ball away from the congested left, to pick out one of Bardsley's forays up the wing. {it was about 86 mins}. The ball was intercepted at the edge of THEIR penalty area not ours. It set them up on a run, but hardly a goal scoring opportunity. {A bit like saying a goal kick is a goal scoring opp. Oh wait! Bego.} I'm not convinced by the call for Adam to play deeper in a more defensive role. It's true that he can pick out passes with players in front of him, but his well documented foibles mean he needs to ply his trade further up field. Too much 'box to boxing' and he'd be shagged. I'd start with Adam for the majority of games, he wears his heart on his sleeve: you generally get an early idea of which Charlie has turned up, and there are usually warning signs of when he's getting fractious. Swap him for Ireland/Sidwell at that point. The biggest frustration for me re Adam is his woeful set piece delivery in the red & white. Previously a major selling point, his free kick {and corners as far as I recall} technique has seemingly abandoned him. I can't figure that out. I wouldn't play him instead of Whelan, not as Glenn is expected to play at least. Maybe Tex could be groomed to be our very own YaYa, and I havn't given up on Muniesa being tried there. Viva Charlie. The one I was thinking of was near the half way line and they very nearly scored from it, maybe I'm miss remembering, I'll have to go back and have a look. Not sure I want a CB in the midfield, not sure why, but ever since Pulis left (not to bring up a TP discussion) and all the round pegs square holes stuff, a lot of posters on here suddenly seem to want to do just that. This discussion is led by frustration regarding the offensive capabilities of Glen Whelan at a guess. I agree about the pointlessness of square pegs in round holes, to be honest, but if a young CB is brought in and he shows the necessary aptitude there is no reason why he cannot develop into a midfielder. Who knows whether Texeira could be that sort of individual, only the coaches will know that for sure I guess. I would be surprised if Hughes brought him in with that thought in mind, though....in fact I wonder if Hughesdis even looking at the DFM role , as his team selection doesn't indicate this to be the case so far.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 20, 2014 13:49:30 GMT
Lawrie has got a point though. Regardless of what the rules actually are, if you're going to have age-restricted teams then shouldn't they actually be within that age bracket. We had THREE over-aged players out of 11. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering why they bother to age-restrict the team at all when more than a quarter of them don't need to comply. As there is no reserve league anymore, how would you keep your first team squad match fit with no games to play them in? How would you get a player match fit who was coming back from injury? Allowing 3 over age players un the development team seems a reasonable compromise and has the added benefit that the players who are under 21 get the chance to play against and alongside a few older, experienced players. Its a win win as far I can see. Maybe from that point of view but the one thing it's NOT is an Under 21 League when you can please yourself who you play in it.
|
|
|
Post by stokiet90 on Aug 20, 2014 19:25:45 GMT
People go on about the 1 or 2 misplaced passes Adam does but I think that's only because he's trying to create something. Any one can do what Whelan does and keep it simple . Obviously always looking for the forward pass isn't going to work I'm a big fan of Charlie Adam. One of his misplaced passes went side ways straight to the opposition, and he's lucky they didn't score from it. but that could of happened to any of the back 4 the amount they were passing it sidewards at least Adam came on and had a go.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 20, 2014 22:25:32 GMT
One of his misplaced passes went side ways straight to the opposition, and he's lucky they didn't score from it. but that could of happened to any of the back 4 the amount they were passing it sidewards at least Adam came on and had a go. It could have happened but it didn't because they were careful about it, unlike Adam who does it on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by stokiet90 on Aug 20, 2014 22:30:31 GMT
but that could of happened to any of the back 4 the amount they were passing it sidewards at least Adam came on and had a go. It could have happened but it didn't because they were careful about it, unlike Adam who does it on a regular basis. so you don't think he came on and was more positive? Surely 1 misplaced pass doesn't make it a bad performance even though he wasn't on the pitch for long.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 20, 2014 22:31:56 GMT
It could have happened but it didn't because they were careful about it, unlike Adam who does it on a regular basis. so you don't think he came on and was more positive? Surely 1 misplaced pass doesn't make it a bad performance even though he wasn't on the pitch for long. More forward thinking yes, doesn't mean he had a good performance, average at best.
|
|
|
Post by Bombus on Aug 21, 2014 0:56:50 GMT
Charlie was an important player for us last season and I still believe he is.
|
|