|
|
Post by whelansrightfoot on Oct 16, 2009 22:25:46 GMT
What would you lot make of it if tony dropped Ethers for tommorows game n whacked Tuncay on the left? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by luke45 on Oct 16, 2009 22:27:22 GMT
Personally, I hope he doesn't. I think Etherington is showing good form at the moment, and was definitely a contender for MOTM at Everton, I would like to see Fuller partner Kitson up-front aswell. I will annoyed to say the least if Delap starts on right-midfield, and Beattie up-front though, if they do start I would prefer Tuncay to either of them in those positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 16, 2009 22:32:03 GMT
Tuncay left back tomorrow.
That is left back in the dressing room. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Inverness Stokie on Oct 16, 2009 22:32:43 GMT
I think Matty has been playing well of late so to drop him would be harsh. Tuncay may have played wide left for Boro but his best position is CAM. We should play with 1 striker and a DM in Abdoulaye Faye.
Huth and Collins as full backs are not the answer either. He is an international CB for one reason and one only, because he plays at Centre Back and not frigging Right Back. !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by luke45 on Oct 16, 2009 22:37:35 GMT
Huth and Collins as full backs are not the answer either. He is an international CB for one reason and one only, because he plays at Centre Back and not frigging Right Back. !!! I think Collins definitely uses the ball better than Higgy if nothing else, and he seems to give Etherington more support than Higgy does. I think Higgy is a better overall defender, but credit where it's due I think Everton last-week was Collins's best performance in Stoke colours so far. And the same can be said of Huth really in comparison to Wilko, Huth distributes the ball far better, and wins more in the air, but Wilko is probably a better overall full-back. I think most people would like to see a back-four of: Wilko---------------Shawcross-----------Ab. Faye----------Huth If Huth is to be continued to be played at full-back, you would think left-back is more logical with the left foot being his more predominant. Only time will tell how he sets up tomorrow...... |
|
|
|
Post by griffoisalegend on Oct 16, 2009 22:37:45 GMT
I'd personally play him in left mid in place of Etherington who is totally ineffective. Whatever Pulis does with him he's proven that he knows far better than us! It would be mad to think this Stoke side could play with an out and out DM like Faye, when we already have 2 defensive mids and the other four generally bomb on.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevoyork on Oct 16, 2009 22:38:25 GMT
I just want two up front- don't care who, so long as one of them's Fuller :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 16, 2009 22:45:42 GMT
Huth and Collins as full backs are not the answer either. He is an international CB for one reason and one only, because he plays at Centre Back and not frigging Right Back. !!! I think Collins definitely uses the ball better than Higgy if nothing else, and he seems to give Etherington more support than Higgy does. I think Higgy is a better overall defender, but credit where it's due I think Everton last-week was Collins's best performance in Stoke colours so far. And the same can be said of Huth really in comparison to Wilko, Huth distributes the ball far better, and wins more in the air, but Wilko is probably a better overall full-back. I think most people would like to see a back-four of: Wilko---------------Shawcross-----------Ab. Faye----------Huth If Huth is to be continued to be played at full-back, you would think left-back is more logical with the left foot being his more predominant. Only time will tell how he sets up tomorrow...... I thought we had cleared this up months ago. Our team shape contains no fullbacks. Our wide midfielders are expected to patrol the touch line from front to back. We play with 4 centre backs who defend the goal. It is an unusual tactic, but one which is extremely hard to break down. In training, you will hear TP shouting at the defenders 'the goal doesn't move'. In other words, let the attackers do what they want, but your job is to defend our goal. Apart from games against the top 4, we have looked exceptionally solid at the back. Huth is outstanding, although I prefer Higgy to Collins. |
|
|
|
Post by expectedtoulouse on Oct 16, 2009 23:02:58 GMT
Huth is a shite fullback. We might aswell play Griffin at RB. Huth is a very good centre half. His positional sense at fullback is shocking. Watch him tomorrow. When the ball is on the other side, or in the middle, he will be in a centre halves position and Ryan will have to go out and cover for him. Play him at centre half or not at all.
The same goes for Collins. Either at centre half or not at all. Get Higgy in at fullback.
Oh, and never in a million years will Tunny start tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 16, 2009 23:09:47 GMT
Huth is a shite fullback. We might aswell play Griffin at RB. Huth is a very good centre half. His positional sense at fullback is shocking. Watch him tomorrow. When the ball is on the other side, or in the middle, he will be in a centre halves position and Ryan will have to go out and cover for him. Play him at centre half or not at all. The same goes for Collins. Either at centre half or not at all. Get Higgy in at fullback. Oh, and never in a million years will Tunny start tomorrow. Huth is a superb wide centre back. I can see him being our player of the season at this rate. We don't play with full backs, just as Sir Alf didn't have wingers. |
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 16, 2009 23:11:34 GMT
Tuncay left back tomorrow. That is left back in the dressing room. ;D   |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Oct 16, 2009 23:13:00 GMT
I think Matty has been playing well of late so to drop him would be harsh. Tuncay may have played wide left for Boro but his best position is CAM. We should play with 1 striker and a DM in Abdoulaye Faye. Huth and Collins as full backs are not the answer either. He is an international CB for one reason and one only, because he plays at Centre Back and not frigging Right Back. !!! Still don't get this argument really. If we got Messi and played him anywhere other than right side of midfield would you suddenly think he's not up to it? Of course not so why is the only option for Tuncay at CAM and Huth at CB. If you do that then you'll have to shoe-horn others elsewhere instead or shove them on the bench. Having said that, i'm not against Abdy in midfield although i do believe his BEST POSITION (which seems to be the everything apparently) is centre half. I don't care what Bolton fans thought a few seasons ago either he's older now and i'm not sure he's got the mobility or the engine for the midfield anymore, although i'd like to see it tried to be sure.  |
|
|
|
Post by dwr17477 on Oct 16, 2009 23:18:39 GMT
Can someone clear up where Tuncay can play? I am assuming it's anywhere from an attacking midfielder upwards, and on either side or central??? Might seem a daft question but seen little of him |
|
|
|
Post by expectedtoulouse on Oct 16, 2009 23:21:29 GMT
Huth is a shite fullback. We might aswell play Griffin at RB. Huth is a very good centre half. His positional sense at fullback is shocking. Watch him tomorrow. When the ball is on the other side, or in the middle, he will be in a centre halves position and Ryan will have to go out and cover for him. Play him at centre half or not at all. The same goes for Collins. Either at centre half or not at all. Get Higgy in at fullback. Oh, and never in a million years will Tunny start tomorrow. Huth is a superb wide centre back. I can see him being our player of the season at this rate. We don't play with full backs, just as Sir Alf didn't have wingers. No he's not. His positioning is awful. Just watch tomorrow. He will leave someone on the backpost completely unmarked. Huth was at fault for Man Utd's 2nd. He let the ball come across him, he was too far inside and Giggs just had to pull the ball back. When he tries to come forward, he comes inside and looses it. When he tries to come forward, he looks like a goalkeeper in the oppositions penalty box - completlely lost. Wilko's positioning is much better. He tightly marks the winger and gives him no room to run at the defence and get a cross in. Now we have the money in the PL, why are we still playing square pegs in round holes even when we have more than adequate natural players in these positions? |
|
|
|
Post by expectedtoulouse on Oct 16, 2009 23:22:33 GMT
Can someone clear up where Tuncay can play? I am assuming it's anywhere from an attacking midfielder upwards, and on either side or central??? Might seem a daft question but seen little of him Natural position = attacking midfielder (central) Accomplished positions = right & left wing, striker |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 16, 2009 23:23:01 GMT
I think Matty has been playing well of late so to drop him would be harsh. Tuncay may have played wide left for Boro but his best position is CAM. We should play with 1 striker and a DM in Abdoulaye Faye. Huth and Collins as full backs are not the answer either. He is an international CB for one reason and one only, because he plays at Centre Back and not frigging Right Back. !!! Still don't get this argument really. If we got Messi and played him anywhere other than right side of midfield would you suddenly think he's not up to it? Of course not so why is the only option for Tuncay at CAM and Huth at CB. If you do that then you'll have to shoe-horn others elsewhere instead or shove them on the bench. Having said that, i'm not against Abdy in midfield although i do believe his BEST POSITION (which seems to be the everything apparently) is centre half. I don't care what Bolton fans thought a few seasons ago either he's older now and i'm not sure he's got the mobility or the engine for the midfield anymore, although i'd like to see it tried to be sure. Back to the discussion on why did we sign Tuncay. Our team shape is rigid but successful and TP shows little enthusiasm to change the way in which we play. We don't have an AM, but a withdrawn target man who becomes the first line of defence when the opposition have the ball. We play a lone striker who needs to be quick, powerful and full of stamina. Our wide players are expected to get forward to flick ons from the target man and provide a goal threat and yet they become full backs when we are defending. The more I think about it, I can't see Tuncay fitting in anywhere. Left midfield was my initial thought, but will he get up and down the line enough? What about centre midfield, he isn't a natural there and is his tracking back and tackling strong enough? Is he cover for Ric, because he looks very frail and is easily knocked off the ball. He can't play the target man role, no matter how much some posters want him to. At this time of night, I am trying to be sensible about Tuncay but I remain as mystified about his signing as I did when it was first rumoured. Can anyone give me some hope about him fitting in without resorting to a fantasy world where we change our team shape. |
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 16, 2009 23:26:27 GMT
Still don't get this argument really. If we got Messi and played him anywhere other than right side of midfield would you suddenly think he's not up to it? Of course not so why is the only option for Tuncay at CAM and Huth at CB. If you do that then you'll have to shoe-horn others elsewhere instead or shove them on the bench. Having said that, i'm not against Abdy in midfield although i do believe his BEST POSITION (which seems to be the everything apparently) is centre half. I don't care what Bolton fans thought a few seasons ago either he's older now and i'm not sure he's got the mobility or the engine for the midfield anymore, although i'd like to see it tried to be sure. Back to the discussion on why did we sign Tuncay. Our team shape is rigid but successful and TP shows little enthusiasm to change the way in which we play. We don't have an AM, but a withdrawn target man who becomes the first line of defence when the opposition have the ball. We play a lone striker who needs to be quick, powerful and full of stamina. Our wide players are expected to get forward to flick ons from the target man and provide a goal threat and yet they become full backs when we are defending. The more I think about it, I can't see Tuncay fitting in anywhere. Left midfield was my initial thought, but will he get up and down the line enough? What about centre midfield, he isn't a natural there and is his tracking back and tackling strong enough? Is he cover for Ric, because he looks very frail and is easily knocked off the ball. He can't play the target man role, no matter how much some posters want him to. At this time of night, I am trying to be sensible about Tuncay but I remain as mystified about his signing as I did when it was first rumoured. Can anyone give me some hope about him fitting in without resorting to a fantasy world where we change our team shape. I don't see how playing him on the left would upset our shape that much, he'd track back and get behind the ball, he's not as brittle boned as some are making out. |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 16, 2009 23:33:56 GMT
Back to the discussion on why did we sign Tuncay. Our team shape is rigid but successful and TP shows little enthusiasm to change the way in which we play. We don't have an AM, but a withdrawn target man who becomes the first line of defence when the opposition have the ball. We play a lone striker who needs to be quick, powerful and full of stamina. Our wide players are expected to get forward to flick ons from the target man and provide a goal threat and yet they become full backs when we are defending. The more I think about it, I can't see Tuncay fitting in anywhere. Left midfield was my initial thought, but will he get up and down the line enough? What about centre midfield, he isn't a natural there and is his tracking back and tackling strong enough? Is he cover for Ric, because he looks very frail and is easily knocked off the ball. He can't play the target man role, no matter how much some posters want him to. At this time of night, I am trying to be sensible about Tuncay but I remain as mystified about his signing as I did when it was first rumoured. Can anyone give me some hope about him fitting in without resorting to a fantasy world where we change our team shape. I don't see how playing him on the left would upset our shape that much, he'd track back and get behind the ball, he's not as brittle boned as some are making out. I don't think he is brittle boned, he just doesn't have the upper body strength of our other players. I wonder if this is the extra training he has been given since he joined the club. When he first signed, I did think he would be the updated, Prem version of Hendrie and have a high energy role on the left. He certainly got involved at Boro and he must have a good footballing brain. |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Oct 16, 2009 23:34:51 GMT
Huth is a superb wide centre back. I can see him being our player of the season at this rate. We don't play with full backs, just as Sir Alf didn't have wingers. No he's not. His positioning is awful. Just watch tomorrow. He will leave someone on the backpost completely unmarked. Huth was at fault for Man Utd's 2nd. He let the ball come across him, he was too far inside and Giggs just had to pull the ball back. When he tries to come forward, he comes inside and looses it. When he tries to come forward, he looks like a goalkeeper in the oppositions penalty box - completlely lost. Wilko's positioning is much better. He tightly marks the winger and gives him no room to run at the defence and get a cross in. Now we have the money in the PL, why are we still playing square pegs in round holes even when we have more than adequate natural players in these positions? Because we didn't get the players we were after for the full back positions or perhaps then Huth, Collins, Higgy and Wilko would be on the bench with say Canella and Beye on either flank and we'd all no doubt be happy (as if ;D ). That didn't happen though so at the moment (with Huth anyway) it's a straight choice of him or Wilko. Huth may make the odd mistake but when the alternative is Wilko it's a pretty close call surely? Personally (until January when hopefully we can get a full back or two in) i think i'd have Wilko in and Huth at left back. If it was me, at home to any of the lesser teams and i'd be getting Tuncay in. People say it's hard to fit him in but in my eyes that's half the joy of him. He can play in lots of different positions but he just needs a little freedom to express himself wherever he plays. That may be the difficult bit  |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 16, 2009 23:36:30 GMT
No he's not. His positioning is awful. Just watch tomorrow. He will leave someone on the backpost completely unmarked. Huth was at fault for Man Utd's 2nd. He let the ball come across him, he was too far inside and Giggs just had to pull the ball back. When he tries to come forward, he comes inside and looses it. When he tries to come forward, he looks like a goalkeeper in the oppositions penalty box - completlely lost. Wilko's positioning is much better. He tightly marks the winger and gives him no room to run at the defence and get a cross in. Now we have the money in the PL, why are we still playing square pegs in round holes even when we have more than adequate natural players in these positions? Because we didn't get the players we were after for the full back positions or perhaps then Huth, Collins, Higgy and Wilko would be on the bench with say Canella and Beye on either flank and we'd all no doubt be happy (as if ;D ). That didn't happen though so at the moment (with Huth anyway) it's a straight choice of him or Wilko. Huth may make the odd mistake but when the alternative is Wilko it's a pretty close call surely? Personally (until January when hopefully we can get a full back or two in) i think i'd have Wilko in and Huth at left back. If it was me, at home to any of the lesser teams and i'd be getting Tuncay in. People say it's hard to fit him in but in my eyes that's half the joy of him. He can play in lots of different positions but he just needs a little freedom to express himself wherever he plays. That may be the difficult bit "Freedom to express himself"  Don't let TP hear you saying that or else you will get a life ban from the Brit ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Oct 16, 2009 23:36:34 GMT
I don't see how playing him on the left would upset our shape that much, he'd track back and get behind the ball, he's not as brittle boned as some are making out. I don't think he is brittle boned, he just doesn't have the upper body strength of our other players. This is Etherington you're comparing him to here. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 16, 2009 23:38:32 GMT
I don't see how playing him on the left would upset our shape that much, he'd track back and get behind the ball, he's not as brittle boned as some are making out. I don't think he is brittle boned, he just doesn't have the upper body strength of our other players. I wonder if this is the extra training he has been given since he joined the club. When he first signed, I did think he would be the updated, Prem version of Hendrie and have a high energy role on the left. He certainly got involved at Boro and he must have a good footballing brain. Oh great, so we've got to wait until his upper body is strong enough   Can we not have any actual footballers ? just one ?  |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 16, 2009 23:41:42 GMT
"Freedom to express himself"
"Actual footballers"
Get a grip lads!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by dwr17477 on Oct 16, 2009 23:42:38 GMT
Can someone clear up where Tuncay can play? I am assuming it's anywhere from an attacking midfielder upwards, and on either side or central??? Might seem a daft question but seen little of him Natural position = attacking midfielder (central) Accomplished positions = right & left wing, striker So why is it so difficult to accommodate him??? |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Oct 16, 2009 23:43:01 GMT
Basically i just wish people would see what he can ADD to the team AS MUCH as what he may lack. I mean if Lenny and Tuncay are on the bench tomorrow and Delap plays right side of midfield it's pretty tame really. Yes Rory tracks back and has a long throw but he gives very little going forward these days. It's a trade-off really and heaven forbid we have a few games that may end up 2-1 either way instead of 0-0 or a scrappy 1-0. It was easier to live with the football being a bit dull when Cresswell was on the bench is all i'm saying i suppose. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 16, 2009 23:44:27 GMT
Natural position = attacking midfielder (central) Accomplished positions = right & left wing, striker So why is it so difficult to accommodate him??? Because we don't play with conventional strikers or left and right wingers. Our requirements of players are very specific and Tuncay doesn't fit any of the profiles. |
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 16, 2009 23:46:05 GMT
"Freedom to express himself" "Actual footballers" Get a grip lads!! ;D yes, when i say actual footballers i mean players with a few tricks up their sleeve who can make things happen when you need it, you do need a mix of players, i think a good example of this is Moyes' Everton, they have plenty of muscle, but also mixed with players with ability . |
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Oct 16, 2009 23:47:33 GMT
How do you think his signing came about then,March?
What was going through Pulis' mind when he put £5-6m and a £2m-a-year contract down for a player who, it seems, he's not willing to accommodate?
Was it just flat out poor scouting a la Tonge, Olofinjana?
It was certainly no secret what Tuncay's strengths were.
|
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 16, 2009 23:47:49 GMT
"Freedom to express himself" "Actual footballers" Get a grip lads!! ;D yes, when i say actual footballers i mean players with a few tricks up their sleeve who can make things happen when you need it, you do need a mix of players, i think a good example of this is Moyes' Everton, they have plenty of muscle, but also mixed with players with ability . We certainly needed a player of that ilk at Brum. That was a game we dominated but we didn't have the guile to break them down and for once the set pieces didn't create a goal. |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Oct 16, 2009 23:48:55 GMT
So why is it so difficult to accommodate him??? Because we don't play with conventional strikers or left and right wingers. Our requirements of players are very specific and Tuncay doesn't fit any of the profiles. So was this a surprise to Tone then? I thought he did his research. Even i knew that and it's already been established many times over that i know fuck all. So the mystery is what did Tone think he was going to do with him apart from try and turn him into Arnie mark II and pray he keeps most of his agility? |
|
