|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 16, 2009 23:26:30 GMT
march4 I think the point is, is that many people think that we don't HAVE TO play plan A tomorrow.
And the fact that there ISN'T (as YOU say) anybody suitable to play the Mama role, reinforces that belief even further.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 16, 2009 23:32:59 GMT
march4 I think the point is, is that many people think that we don't HAVE TO play plan A tomorrow. And the fact that there ISN'T (as YOU say) anybody suitable to play the Mama role, reinforces that belief even further. Quite right Paul, but if we are realistic, can anyone see us doing anything different tomorrow? This is why I think I have been at a cross purpose with some of you. If you assume it will be Plan A tomorrow then can we agree that Cresswell is the only option in the Mama position? If we go all radical and play two out and out strikers it has to be Beattie and Kitson; again it is the only option. No real point speculating, Plan A is tattooed on the back of every player's hand. We won't change even if we sign Fred, Kaka and Robinho.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 16, 2009 23:36:38 GMT
march4 I think the point is, is that many people think that we don't HAVE TO play plan A tomorrow. And the fact that there ISN'T (as YOU say) anybody suitable to play the Mama role, reinforces that belief even further. Quite right Paul, but if we are realistic, can anyone see us doing anything different tomorrow? This is why I think I have been at a cross purpose with some of you. If you assume it will be Plan A tomorrow then can we agree that Cresswell is the only option in the Mama position? If we go all radical and play two out and out strikers it has to be Beattie and Kitson; again it is the only option. No real point speculating, Plan A is tattooed on the back of every player's hand. We won't change even if we sign Fred, Kaka and Robinho. 'If we go all radical and play two out and out strikers it has to be Beattie and Kitson' I don't accept that playing Beattie and Kitson means that we have to go 'all radical'. 'No real point speculating, Plan A is tattooed on the back of every player's hand. We won't change even if we sign Fred, Kaka and Robinho.' Again I don't agree this is true either, as I demonstrated when I challenged your claim that Kitson was brought in to play the Mama role a few posts back in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Smudge_SCFC on Jan 16, 2009 23:43:51 GMT
We need to play it tight,yes we cant afford to sit back too much but to play 2 out and out strikers in beattie and kitson with lawrence and ethrington is just suicidal!!! Where did I mention Lawrence?
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 16, 2009 23:53:42 GMT
Paul, I used the word radical because I think in TP's mind anything other than Plan A is radical.
Last week I think you were part of the discussion that looked at the merits of Kitson playing the Mama role. I felt he had the physical attributes to do so, but there were so many posts explaining why he couldn't that I was clearly in the wrong.
I still think TP bought Kitson to play the Mama role as he was never going to displace Ric as the lone striker. This isn't a view we share, but football is a game of opinions and we usually agree to differ.
Kitson now has a problem, he is not going to be considered for the Mama role and most people on here agree with that. He is now third in line for the lone striker. I think there will be another signing for this spot that will push him down to fourth.
TP is clearly worried about the Mama spot, hence his attempt to sign Andy Gray. I think this was the new signing to which he referred earlier. If Gray had signed, he would have partnered Beattie tomorrow and all our discussions would be purely academic.
|
|
moortownpotter
Youth Player
Hope is a gun, that you load everyday. As the chamber is spun, you bite down on the steel and pray.
Posts: 365
|
Post by moortownpotter on Jan 16, 2009 23:54:35 GMT
Cole and Bosingwa's weakness? Defending. I'd play ethers and lawrence, to try and pin them back, Kitson and Beattie. Chelsea are looking dodgy at the back, particularly from set pieces which Beatts can exploit. There's no point sitting back.
Before the Liverpool game I was talking about a result that could put us back on the radar again (the last one was Arsenal and before that Villa).
I can smell an early goal for us tomorrow and then a Herculean effort.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 16, 2009 23:56:25 GMT
Cole and Bosingwa's weakness? Defending. I'd play ethers and lawrence, to try and pin them back, Kitson and Beattie. Chelsea are looking dodgy at the back, particularly from set pieces which Beatts can exploit. There's no point sitting back. Before the Liverpool game I was talking about a result that could put us back on the radar again (the last one was Arsenal and before that Villa). I can smell an early goal for us tomorrow and then a Herculean effort. Lets hope so. Goal from a setpiece by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Jan 16, 2009 23:59:17 GMT
Oh dear - nobody wants Cresswell and yet lots of people think we have a really good chance of beating Chelsea away .... i predict a very unhappy board tomorrow night then
|
|
|
Post by Akinbadbuy on Jan 17, 2009 0:04:47 GMT
Smudge
Do you not think that if we played a flat 4-4-2 tomorrow that it wouldnt leave holes all over the place for the likes of Joe Cole / Lampard to exploit. We simply dont have the players to play the attacking football you so desperately crave. Yes we got hammered at Man U. They are the best side in the world FFS!! Im not saying we should be scared of anyone, but what I am saying is that we should repsect the quality that certain teams have and if this means adopting a defensive approach then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 17, 2009 0:05:26 GMT
Paul, I used the word radical because I think in TP's mind anything other than Plan A is radical. Last week I think you were part of the discussion that looked at the merits of Kitson playing the Mama role. I felt he had the physical attributes to do so, but there were so many posts explaining why he couldn't that I was clearly in the wrong. I still think TP bought Kitson to play the Mama role as he was never going to displace Ric as the lone striker. This isn't a view we share, but football is a game of opinions and we usually agree to differ. Kitson now has a problem, he is not going to be considered for the Mama role and most people on here agree with that. He is now third in line for the lone striker. I think there will be another signing for this spot that will push him down to fourth. TP is clearly worried about the Mama spot, hence his attempt to sign Andy Gray. I think this was the new signing to which he referred earlier. If Gray had signed, he would have partnered Beattie tomorrow and all our discussions would be purely academic. march4 I don't believe for a moment that Pulis brought Kitson here with the intention to use him in the Mama role. Pulis isn't THAT stupid, he would have targeted somebody else far more suitable for the role, wouldn't he? However once the dust had settled after the last transfer window, and Pulis realised he hadn't managed to bring in the players that he wanted (Pennant and Ledley) to provide Kits the service in an alternative formation to Plan A, the manager then decided that for the time being at least, Kitson would be played in this withdrawn role because he believed that this formation was going to give us the best chance of accumulating points. However he always intended on addressing this issue (Etherington, Calves etc.) in January. I think the fundamental difference between our points of view is that you believe that Pulis either doesn't want to or isn't capable of playing anything but Plan A. I guess we have the remainder of the season to find out if this is true or not.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence7 on Jan 17, 2009 0:07:12 GMT
cressy is a good player and was a big part of us being promoted but we cant really play him over kitson can we, the only way dave will get better is with more games so he can get his fitness back up and maybe that goal then he will have some confidence so come on lads if kitson plays or cresswell who ever does lets get behind them
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 17, 2009 0:12:07 GMT
Smudge Do you not think that if we played a flat 4-4-2 tomorrow that it wouldnt leave holes all over the place for the likes of Joe Cole / Lampard to exploit. We simply dont have the players to play the attacking football you so desperately crave. Yes we got hammered at Man U. They are the best side in the world FFS!! Im not saying we should be scared of anyone, but what I am saying is that we should repsect the quality that certain teams have and if this means adopting a defensive approach then so be it. Akinbadbuy I think that having Kitson in the team tomorrow will offer us far more offensively than Cresswell will defensively. We can keep it tight, by playing Diao, Faye and Delap in the midfield with Etherington as the outlet. We cut our offensive chances down by HALF if we play Cresswell. Chelsea have been really poor with balls into the box of late, surely it's better to exploit that weakness by having both Beattie and Kitson bearing down on their defence than just one.
|
|
|
Post by Akinbadbuy on Jan 17, 2009 0:17:22 GMT
Paul
We both know that is never going to happen though so whats the point of talking about what ifs?? There isnt going to be any bearing down on goal as we will be under the cosh for long spells of the game. Yes I agree that going forward Ktson is by far the better option, but its Chelsea away. How many times are we going to be going forward? Not many!! Cresswell does more donkey work than Kitson so he needs to start. Bring kitsonon for the last half hour maybe?
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jan 17, 2009 0:20:50 GMT
FFS Southend scored at Chelsea, so you would think with Beattie , Etherington and even Kitson we would have a chance. No wonder we have only 3 away points if we are so scared of our opponents that we dare not even think to venture over the half way line.
this idea that we have played gung ho in any our games this season including home games if plain laughable. where did this phrase come from????...championship manager by any chance!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 17, 2009 0:26:02 GMT
Yes I agree that going forward Ktson is by far the better option, but its Chelsea away. How many times are we going to be going forward? Not many!! That's my point entirely. We're not going to get the ball in their box that often so on the rare chance that we do, let's maximise our opportunites to put the bloody ball in the back of the net, they maybe few and far between. I'd rather have this option available to us, rather than adding Cresswell as the fifth member to what we all agree is going to be a pretty defensive midfield anyway.
|
|
|
Post by potterspride88 on Jan 17, 2009 0:28:00 GMT
kitson has been on fire recently hasnt he
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 17, 2009 0:31:39 GMT
kitson has been on fire recently hasnt he With the greatest of respect PP, if you read through this thread, you will find that that point has been discussed at length already chap.
|
|
|
Post by potterspride88 on Jan 17, 2009 0:34:20 GMT
kitson has been on fire recently hasnt he With the greatest of respect PP, if you read through this thread, you will find that that point has been discussed at length already chap. yeah but i havnt been on it all nite
|
|
|
Post by prem4stoke on Jan 17, 2009 0:41:14 GMT
Smudge Do you not think that if we played a flat 4-4-2 tomorrow that it wouldnt leave holes all over the place for the likes of Joe Cole / Lampard to exploit. We simply dont have the players to play the attacking football you so desperately crave. Yes we got hammered at Man U. They are the best side in the world FFS!! Im not saying we should be scared of anyone, but what I am saying is that we should repsect the quality that certain teams have and if this means adopting a defensive approach then so be it. Derby didn't seem to think Man U were the best team in the world and when i watched us play them I couldn't see it either. Also Southend took the lead against Chelsea and nearly took a second! Why can't we beat them?
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 17, 2009 0:43:06 GMT
FFS Southend scored at Chelsea, so you would think with Beattie , Etherington and even Kitson we would have a chance. No wonder we have only 3 away points if we are so scared of our opponents that we dare not even think to venture over the half way line. this idea that we have played gung ho in any our games this season including home games if plain laughable. where did this phrase come from????...championship manager by any chance!!!!! All terms are relative. For Stoke gung ho is when any other player gets within 20 yards of the lone striker
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Jan 17, 2009 0:55:56 GMT
You don't have to be a Cressie-hating wankstain to think Kitson should start tomorrow. He cost £5.5 million let's give him a chance to show his quality, or at least get another game nearer match sharpness.
Equally, if Cressie plays it shouldn't be an excuse for all the bile merchants on here to go ballistic.
He won't be a long-term player for us and by summer he will be gone elsewhere, but while he's in our colours and runs his heart out, I'll be backing him, and he did an ace job on Mascherano last week.
Goaaaaaaaarnnn!
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 17, 2009 14:06:55 GMT
Cresswell confirmed as starting
|
|
|
Post by Lawto on Jan 17, 2009 14:10:11 GMT
Conner belayve eet!!
Cresswell is not good enough for the Prem. In any position! End of!
Pulis needs to take his Cresswell tinted specs off and realise it.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jan 17, 2009 14:11:27 GMT
Pulis probably thinks Cressie can play the Mama role better than Kitson, which is probably true, I don't particularly mind cresswell up front, he works his bollocks off, it's when he's out on the left my heart sinks.
|
|
|
Post by lew86 on Jan 17, 2009 14:14:04 GMT
give the lad a break ffs, i think hes done well when played up front, delivered some decent balls through and looked like scoring himself
|
|
|
Post by Akinbadbuy on Jan 17, 2009 17:25:25 GMT
Thought Cresswell played well today after the slating he got on here last night.
Kitson comes on - we conceed 2 goals.
Thanks Dave
|
|
|
Post by fromafar07 on Jan 17, 2009 17:28:10 GMT
Richard Cresswell DID NOT PLAY WELL TODAY, HE WAS AT HIS WORST!!! i watched and watched, for a forward he spends most of his time defending(well at least in defense) when he moved forward it was like watching a pregnant Yak withthe ball. VERY VERY VERY POOR !!
|
|
|
Post by Mekaneck on Jan 17, 2009 17:29:50 GMT
Kitson comes on - we conceed 2 goals. Thanks Dave As posts go that's just about as pitiful as you can get!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2009 17:30:58 GMT
Bit harsh on Kitson that, as at one point he tracked Lampard back into our own box! He isn't quite right for us just now. Cresswell does the best he can with what he has got, and would not be getting a game if Mama or Riccy were available. The fact he is getting a game ahead of Kitson or others is a testament to his commitment and hard work for the team.
|
|
|
Post by chell_rosey on Jan 17, 2009 17:31:28 GMT
Thought Cresswell played well today after the slating he got on here last night. Kitson comes on - we conceed 2 goals. Thanks Dave Poor post
|
|