|
Post by onionman on Feb 18, 2013 17:33:06 GMT
The problem is once you go with three at the back you dismantle the positives of what we already have. It would be back to square one, except instead of complaining about our lack of creativity, we'd be complaining about our inability to defend. Why not build on our strengths by keeping the organised back four and restructuring the rest of the team to bring a bit more creativity and balance? The best example I can think of is Wenger taking over from the Pulis of the 1990s, George Graham. He kept the back four, including the dour full-backs, and added flair, with brilliant results. It only went wrong for Wenger when he had to replace the old guard because he just doesn't know how to build a solid foundation. Maybe my memory is off here but I thought Dixon and Winterburn got forward quite well? I'm too young to remember Dixon here but in the mid to late nineties as a kid I don't remember him being "dour". Our full backs need sodding off and replacing asap. In their younger days maybe but, by the late 90s, Winterburn and Dixon were safety-first full-backs. That Arsenal team was renowned for being boring and grinding out 1-0 wins, relying on Ian Wright scoring goals out of nothing, and the big defenders scoring from set-pieces. Wenger's success was marrying that solid but boring foundation with mainly continental flair.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 18, 2013 17:35:02 GMT
Maybe my memory is off here but I thought Dixon and Winterburn got forward quite well? I'm too young to remember Dixon here but in the mid to late nineties as a kid I don't remember him being "dour". Our full backs need sodding off and replacing asap. In their younger days maybe but, by the late 90s, Winterburn and Dixon were safety-first full-backs. That Arsenal team was renowned for being boring and grinding out 1-0 wins, relying on Ian Wright scoring goals out of nothing, and the big defenders scoring from set-pieces. Wenger's success was marrying that solid but boring foundation with mainly continental flair. The late 90's was Wenger's time there, weren't one nil to the Arserrrrnal days the early 90's?
|
|
|
Post by mosquito on Feb 18, 2013 17:38:55 GMT
The problem is once you go with three at the back you dismantle the positives of what we already have. It would be back to square one, except instead of complaining about our lack of creativity, we'd be complaining about our inability to defend. Why not build on our strengths by keeping the organised back four and restructuring the rest of the team to bring a bit more creativity and balance? The best example I can think of is Wenger taking over from the Pulis of the 1990s, George Graham. He kept the back four, including the dour full-backs, and added flair, with brilliant results. It only went wrong for Wenger when he had to replace the old guard because he just doesn't know how to build a solid foundation. Maybe my memory is off here but I thought Dixon and Winterburn got forward quite well? I'm too young to remember Dixon here but in the mid to late nineties as a kid I don't remember him being "dour". Our full backs need sodding off and replacing asap. FULL BACKS, what full backs, we don't have any
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 18, 2013 17:41:48 GMT
Mcarthur,Mcarthy, Maloney
What do they have in common? They all came from Scotland. There are some fine players up here, and not just the usual few names at Celtic. What's more, you can get them at a decent price. Russell at Dundee United for example.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Feb 18, 2013 17:43:41 GMT
In their younger days maybe but, by the late 90s, Winterburn and Dixon were safety-first full-backs. That Arsenal team was renowned for being boring and grinding out 1-0 wins, relying on Ian Wright scoring goals out of nothing, and the big defenders scoring from set-pieces. Wenger's success was marrying that solid but boring foundation with mainly continental flair. The late 90's was Wenger's time there, weren't one nil to the Arserrrrnal days the early 90's? Yeh - he surprised everyone by resisting the urge to break up the ageing back four of the one-nil team, and added the likes of Bergkamp and Overmars. They defended solidly and attacked with flair. I recall Dixon and Adams saying Wenger also taught them a new footballing philosophy, and encouraged them to use the ball more creatively. But the foundation of old was still there. My point is I wouldn't want Pulis's replacement to get rid of our current defenders to find room for a couple of Carl Hoefkens types.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 18, 2013 17:45:02 GMT
Maybe my memory is off here but I thought Dixon and Winterburn got forward quite well? I'm too young to remember Dixon here but in the mid to late nineties as a kid I don't remember him being "dour". Our full backs need sodding off and replacing asap. FULL BACKS, what full backs, we don't have any ;D Sorry I mean wide defenders. I forgot about Maloney. He's everything our side aren't in an attacking sense, movement, pace, energy.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 18, 2013 17:47:21 GMT
The late 90's was Wenger's time there, weren't one nil to the Arserrrrnal days the early 90's? Yeh - he surprised everyone by resisting the urge to break up the ageing back four of the one-nil team, and added the likes of Bergkamp and Overmars. They defended solidly and attacked with flair. I recall Dixon and Adams saying Wenger also taught them a new footballing philosophy, and encouraged them to use the ball more creatively. But the foundation of old was still there. My point is I wouldn't want Pulis's replacement to get rid of our current defenders to find room for a couple of Carl Hoefkens types. Hoefkens was orate at right back tbh. Our flanks are the area that is killing us and as much as I like Wilko and Wilson at full back we need better. Both are solid enough defensively but full back is much more than that. We've needed new full backs sice TP came back.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2013 17:58:25 GMT
Yes it goes entirely on that. They're terrific at what they do and Martinez asking them to do that would be as daft as the things we've expected the likes of Adam to do. Like I say though Rob, regardless of whether its Martinez, Holloway or whatever...what would you take...15th and entertaining, unpredictable football. 11th and absolutely awful football? I think I know which one Agreed though, it would be nice to find some middle ground. Realistically though its pretty hard to find a manager who will keep you mid table for the entirity of the season and playing better football. Laudrup wouldnt come here so thats not an option. Moyes is on to bigger things apparently. Clarke has a lot to do yet before he can consider himself a midtable manager. In fact the only one i'd take out of the managers who play better football, but not consistantly entertaining like a Holloway, would be Houghton. I think he'd be a decent option. Not sure someone like Bruce is the answer either (although the football would be slightly improved). In saying that, you only live once so why dont we just go wild in the summer and bring in Holloway. Wonder if QPR went down we could tempt 'Arry? Probably not. Is Holloway THAT good a manager? If we were finishing 15th with what's been spent on the team that'd be an underachievement even if we were knocking it about like Brazil 1970.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2013 18:03:52 GMT
Maybe my memory is off here but I thought Dixon and Winterburn got forward quite well? I'm too young to remember Dixon here but in the mid to late nineties as a kid I don't remember him being "dour". Our full backs need sodding off and replacing asap. In their younger days maybe but, by the late 90s, Winterburn and Dixon were safety-first full-backs. That Arsenal team was renowned for being boring and grinding out 1-0 wins, relying on Ian Wright scoring goals out of nothing, and the big defenders scoring from set-pieces. Wenger's success was marrying that solid but boring foundation with mainly continental flair. To be fair, while Graham's Arsenal could be dour, the seasons they won the title under him they were second top and top scorers in the division, respectively.
|
|
|
Post by fortressbritannia on Feb 18, 2013 18:10:52 GMT
The problem I have with Martinez is that for the 3 and a bit seasons he's been at Wigan twice they've finished 16th and under Martinez there highest League position is 15th, which suggests Wigan have become stagnant under him and ain't progressed. Those who think that Wigan score more goals (I found this surprising) since Martinez appointment in the summer of 09 they've only scored 3 more goals the same period (league only) whilst conceding a shit load more than us. Which brings me on ti my next point. It doesn't take a genius to work out Wigan concede to many goals (202 in the league under Martinez) and has been their problem for years, so why hasn't Martinez fixed it? Does he not think its a problem? or Can't he spot a good defender? It's alright saying we've got Huth, Wilko, Shawcross and Wilson tied up to long term deals but what if Man United come calling for Ryan or Wilson picks up another long term injury or Huth decides to retire or Wilko gets suspended, I wonder rather like TP with a goal scorer can spot a defender. Plus as pointed out above would the crowd turn on Martinez if he has a losing run like he has done at Wigan, I think TP's longest losing streak in the PL is 4 (even then people are calling for his head) last season they went on an 8 match losing run would we put up with that. Some fair points. Although It goes without saying he hasnt had anything close to what we've had in terms of financial backing. Hes often been forced to search out cheaper alternatives. I think your last point is fair. Every fan will percieve things differently and whilst one might be perfectly happy to see 8 defeats in a row providing the team stuck to their principles and continued to play an entertaining brand of football, another might be angry at the results and call for the managers head. One thing I dont believe we should do and that is keeping Tony Pulis just for the sake of it. Or rather..just for the SKY money. Lets be honest..we could give him 200 million to spend this summer and its hardly going to change his philosophy on football. I think its fair to say as well that the vast majority of fans who now want him gone, dont want him gone simply based on results (hence the frustration even after the victory against Reading). Its the philosophy of the manager, the approach to games, and the all round boring experience that goes with our performances that is really getting to fans. Coates has a really big decision to make this summer. Is anything going to change next season if we keep TP? Of course it isnt...in 30 years of management he hasnt changed his style. Its not going to change now. I cant for the life of me see the logic behind keeping him just on the basis that he will keep us up. Like I say..life is way too short for that. It's a tough one to call especially with regards to financial backing inevitably Martinez has probably had less to spend compared to Martinez since 2009 but equally you could argue that TP has brought more money into the club through higher league positions (I the each place is worth £750,000) and through cup runs which leads to more merchandise sales (possibly?) Also TP has managed to keep hold of all our diamonds (Huth, Shawcross, Begovic, N'Zonzi) who between the 4 if them could easily fetch £40m. Equally I don't think we should sack TP for the sake of it I believe if you sack TP you have to bring in someone that's improves us in terms of league position or win us the FA cup. As Rob said above we don't want to sacrifice results for entertainment would people be happy with finishing no higher than 15th but playing entertaining football? I think a lot of fans frustration boils over from last season because we didn't progress in a way we went backwards, I reckon if we finish in the top 10 a lot of fans will be happy.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 18, 2013 18:13:16 GMT
Some fair points. Although It goes without saying he hasnt had anything close to what we've had in terms of financial backing. Hes often been forced to search out cheaper alternatives. I think your last point is fair. Every fan will percieve things differently and whilst one might be perfectly happy to see 8 defeats in a row providing the team stuck to their principles and continued to play an entertaining brand of football, another might be angry at the results and call for the managers head. One thing I dont believe we should do and that is keeping Tony Pulis just for the sake of it. Or rather..just for the SKY money. Lets be honest..we could give him 200 million to spend this summer and its hardly going to change his philosophy on football. I think its fair to say as well that the vast majority of fans who now want him gone, dont want him gone simply based on results (hence the frustration even after the victory against Reading). Its the philosophy of the manager, the approach to games, and the all round boring experience that goes with our performances that is really getting to fans. Coates has a really big decision to make this summer. Is anything going to change next season if we keep TP? Of course it isnt...in 30 years of management he hasnt changed his style. Its not going to change now. I cant for the life of me see the logic behind keeping him just on the basis that he will keep us up. Like I say..life is way too short for that. It's a tough one to call especially with regards to financial backing inevitably Martinez has probably had less to spend compared to Martinez since 2009 but equally you could argue that TP has brought more money into the club through higher league positions (I the each place is worth £750,000) and through cup runs which leads to more merchandise sales (possibly?) Also TP has managed to keep hold of all our diamonds (Huth, Shawcross, Begovic, N'Zonzi) who between the 4 if them could easily fetch £40m. Equally I don't think we should sack TP for the sake of it I believe if you sack TP you have to bring in someone that's improves us in terms of league position or win us the FA cup. As Rob said above we don't want to sacrifice results for entertainment would people be happy with finishing no higher than 15th but playing entertaining football? I think a lot of fans frustration boils over from last season because we didn't progress in a way we went backwards, I reckon if we finish in the top 10 a lot of fans will be happy. Even though top 10 was my aim for this season I don't think I will be happy. In fact I know I won't. The football has been beyond shit and we show no signs of getting any better. I don't care where we finish, I want him gone.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Feb 18, 2013 18:20:34 GMT
In their younger days maybe but, by the late 90s, Winterburn and Dixon were safety-first full-backs. That Arsenal team was renowned for being boring and grinding out 1-0 wins, relying on Ian Wright scoring goals out of nothing, and the big defenders scoring from set-pieces. Wenger's success was marrying that solid but boring foundation with mainly continental flair. To be fair, while Graham's Arsenal could be dour, the seasons they won the title under him they were second top and top scorers in the division, respectively. Yes, in the earlier part of his tenure. But for some reason they became dour around 92/93 - despite doing very well in the cup competitions. Maybe he figured grinding out results was the only was to get success with players like Ian Selley, Steve Morrow and David Hillier in his midfield.
|
|
|
Post by fortressbritannia on Feb 18, 2013 18:24:30 GMT
It's a tough one to call especially with regards to financial backing inevitably Martinez has probably had less to spend compared to Martinez since 2009 but equally you could argue that TP has brought more money into the club through higher league positions (I the each place is worth £750,000) and through cup runs which leads to more merchandise sales (possibly?) Also TP has managed to keep hold of all our diamonds (Huth, Shawcross, Begovic, N'Zonzi) who between the 4 if them could easily fetch £40m. Equally I don't think we should sack TP for the sake of it I believe if you sack TP you have to bring in someone that's improves us in terms of league position or win us the FA cup. As Rob said above we don't want to sacrifice results for entertainment would people be happy with finishing no higher than 15th but playing entertaining football? I think a lot of fans frustration boils over from last season because we didn't progress in a way we went backwards, I reckon if we finish in the top 10 a lot of fans will be happy. Even though top 10 was my aim for this season I don't think I will be happy. In fact I know I won't. The football has been beyond shit and we show no signs of getting any better. I don't care where we finish, I want him gone. I didn't say all and you don't count tor never happy unless your un happy you miserable fucker ;D To be honest TP messed up massively 18 months ago by making massive changes to the best team we've had since the 70's that only needed a little bit of tinkering. Our best team is still the team that featured in the cup final minus Delap and plus N'Zonzi (admittedly Pennant has burned all his bridges)
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 18, 2013 18:27:21 GMT
Even though top 10 was my aim for this season I don't think I will be happy. In fact I know I won't. The football has been beyond shit and we show no signs of getting any better. I don't care where we finish, I want him gone. I didn't say all and you don't count tor never happy unless your un happy you miserable fucker ;D To be honest TP messed up massively 18 months ago by making massive changes to the best team we've had since the 70's that only needed a little bit of tinkering. Our best team is still the team that featured in the cup final minus Delap and plus N'Zonzi (admittedly Pennant has burned all his bridges) ;D I know, just thought I'd put my positive spin on it! And I agree with that, it's a sad state of affairs when everything (money spent and how crap this league is) are taken into account.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Feb 18, 2013 20:14:11 GMT
Some fair points. Although It goes without saying he hasnt had anything close to what we've had in terms of financial backing. Hes often been forced to search out cheaper alternatives. I think your last point is fair. Every fan will percieve things differently and whilst one might be perfectly happy to see 8 defeats in a row providing the team stuck to their principles and continued to play an entertaining brand of football, another might be angry at the results and call for the managers head. One thing I dont believe we should do and that is keeping Tony Pulis just for the sake of it. Or rather..just for the SKY money. Lets be honest..we could give him 200 million to spend this summer and its hardly going to change his philosophy on football. I think its fair to say as well that the vast majority of fans who now want him gone, dont want him gone simply based on results (hence the frustration even after the victory against Reading). Its the philosophy of the manager, the approach to games, and the all round boring experience that goes with our performances that is really getting to fans. Coates has a really big decision to make this summer. Is anything going to change next season if we keep TP? Of course it isnt...in 30 years of management he hasnt changed his style. Its not going to change now. I cant for the life of me see the logic behind keeping him just on the basis that he will keep us up. Like I say..life is way too short for that. It's a tough one to call especially with regards to financial backing inevitably Martinez has probably had less to spend compared to Martinez since 2009 but equally you could argue that TP has brought more money into the club through higher league positions (I the each place is worth £750,000) and through cup runs which leads to more merchandise sales (possibly?) Also TP has managed to keep hold of all our diamonds (Huth, Shawcross, Begovic, N'Zonzi) who between the 4 if them could easily fetch £40m. Equally I don't think we should sack TP for the sake of it I believe if you sack TP you have to bring in someone that's improves us in terms of league position or win us the FA cup. As Rob said above we don't want to sacrifice results for entertainment would people be happy with finishing no higher than 15th but playing entertaining football? I think a lot of fans frustration boils over from last season because we didn't progress in a way we went backwards, I reckon if we finish in the top 10 a lot of fans will be happy. As far as I can see though, and I only base those on Stoke fans I know and Stoke fans on here, the issue is with our approach and not results. It would incredibly harsh to sack the manager on the basis of not winning a cup or not winning enough games. The fact that after spending 100 million we still cant create chances from open play, still cant score goals, still dont approach and away game to win it and we still struggle pass the ball to another guy in red and white..thats justification for sacking him. I also think you're very mistaken if you think Shawcross, Huth etc would fetch 40 million. Not a chance. The reported fee for Begovic is only around £9 million isnt it? Shawcross, despite what many stokies think, is nothing close to 15-20 million. I'd say if we were to sell him we'd be very lucky to get 10 million for him...very lucky, particularly when you consider Huth who was equally as good, and at the same age was worth just 6 million. Huth hasnt really detoriorated has he? He was a good defender then and he is now. Huth's value would have gone up slightly on the basis that we are a mid table outfit i'd have thought but again if we got 7 or 8 million we would be doing well. We paid 2 million for Nzonzi (if that?) and as far as i'm concerned hes not improved at all. The issues that Blackburn fans had with him are the same issues we have. He's reluctant to press forward and take the game to the opposition...always opting for the easy pass backwards or sidewards. He really isnt (despite the horseshit that comes out the managers mouth) worth anything more than 4 million. Thus, i'd imagine we would get around 25-30 million at a push. Also worth noting that Huth and Shawcross (Nzonzi really isnt as good as many are making out) are the reason we arent in the relegation zone right now, and the reason we werent relegated last season...they are massive massive players to him and his success as a manager over the past couple of seasons is primarily down to those guys. When you are the lowest scorers in English football, if you dont have a decent defence, you're going to get absolutely crucified. Huth and Shawcross are keeping him in a job right now as far as i'm concerned...that along with Jerome's cameo apperances that seem to change the course of a game with frightening regularity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2013 20:27:19 GMT
It's a tough one to call especially with regards to financial backing inevitably Martinez has probably had less to spend compared to Martinez since 2009 but equally you could argue that TP has brought more money into the club through higher league positions (I the each place is worth £750,000) and through cup runs which leads to more merchandise sales (possibly?) Also TP has managed to keep hold of all our diamonds (Huth, Shawcross, Begovic, N'Zonzi) who between the 4 if them could easily fetch £40m. Equally I don't think we should sack TP for the sake of it I believe if you sack TP you have to bring in someone that's improves us in terms of league position or win us the FA cup. As Rob said above we don't want to sacrifice results for entertainment would people be happy with finishing no higher than 15th but playing entertaining football? I think a lot of fans frustration boils over from last season because we didn't progress in a way we went backwards, I reckon if we finish in the top 10 a lot of fans will be happy. As far as I can see though, and I only base those on Stoke fans I know and Stoke fans on here, the issue is with our approach and not results. It would incredibly harsh to sack the manager on the basis of not winning a cup or not winning enough games. The fact that after spending 100 million we still cant create chances from open play, still cant score goals, still dont approach and away game to win it and we still struggle pass the ball to another guy in red and white..thats justification for sacking him. I also think you're very mistaken if you think Shawcross, Huth etc would fetch 40 million. Not a chance. The reported fee for Begovic is only around £9 million isnt it? Shawcross, despite what many stokies think, is nothing close to 15-20 million. I'd say if we were to sell him we'd be very lucky to get 10 million for him...very lucky, particularly when you consider Huth who was equally as good, and at the same age was worth just 6 million. Huth hasnt really detoriorated has he? He was a good defender then and he is now. Huth's value would have gone up slightly on the basis that we are a mid table outfit i'd have thought but again if we got 7 or 8 million we would be doing well. We paid 2 million for Nzonzi (if that?) and as far as i'm concerned hes not improved at all. The issues that Blackburn fans had with him are the same issues we have. He's reluctant to press forward and take the game to the opposition...always opting for the easy pass backwards or sidewards. He really isnt (despite the horseshit that comes out the managers mouth) worth anything more than 4 million. Thus, i'd imagine we would get around 25-30 million at a push. Also worth noting that Huth and Shawcross (Nzonzi really isnt as good as many are making out) are the reason we arent in the relegation zone right now, and the reason we werent relegated last season...they are massive massive players to him and his success as a manager over the past couple of seasons is primarily down to those guys. When you are the lowest scorers in English football, if you dont have a decent defence, you're going to get absolutely crucified. Huth and Shawcross are keeping him in a job right now as far as i'm concerned...that along with Jerome's cameo apperances that seem to change the course of a game with frightening regularity. Our defending doesn't start and end with Huth and Shawcross to be fair - it's a team effort involving pretty much everyone. Our defending is often something to be proud of, but unfortunately it's also the reason why we don't score or create enough - we just don't prioritise that side of the game enough in my opinion. Out of interest Nick, who would you rank as 'good' when it comes to defensive midfielders?
|
|
|
Post by johnsollom on Feb 18, 2013 20:45:13 GMT
They struggle every year no brainer
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Feb 18, 2013 20:56:38 GMT
As far as I can see though, and I only base those on Stoke fans I know and Stoke fans on here, the issue is with our approach and not results. It would incredibly harsh to sack the manager on the basis of not winning a cup or not winning enough games. The fact that after spending 100 million we still cant create chances from open play, still cant score goals, still dont approach and away game to win it and we still struggle pass the ball to another guy in red and white..thats justification for sacking him. I also think you're very mistaken if you think Shawcross, Huth etc would fetch 40 million. Not a chance. The reported fee for Begovic is only around £9 million isnt it? Shawcross, despite what many stokies think, is nothing close to 15-20 million. I'd say if we were to sell him we'd be very lucky to get 10 million for him...very lucky, particularly when you consider Huth who was equally as good, and at the same age was worth just 6 million. Huth hasnt really detoriorated has he? He was a good defender then and he is now. Huth's value would have gone up slightly on the basis that we are a mid table outfit i'd have thought but again if we got 7 or 8 million we would be doing well. We paid 2 million for Nzonzi (if that?) and as far as i'm concerned hes not improved at all. The issues that Blackburn fans had with him are the same issues we have. He's reluctant to press forward and take the game to the opposition...always opting for the easy pass backwards or sidewards. He really isnt (despite the horseshit that comes out the managers mouth) worth anything more than 4 million. Thus, i'd imagine we would get around 25-30 million at a push. Also worth noting that Huth and Shawcross (Nzonzi really isnt as good as many are making out) are the reason we arent in the relegation zone right now, and the reason we werent relegated last season...they are massive massive players to him and his success as a manager over the past couple of seasons is primarily down to those guys. When you are the lowest scorers in English football, if you dont have a decent defence, you're going to get absolutely crucified. Huth and Shawcross are keeping him in a job right now as far as i'm concerned...that along with Jerome's cameo apperances that seem to change the course of a game with frightening regularity. Our defending doesn't start and end with Huth and Shawcross to be fair - it's a team effort involving pretty much everyone. Our defending is often something to be proud of, but unfortunately it's also the reason why we don't score or create enough - we just don't prioritise that side of the game enough in my opinion. Out of interest Nick, who would you rank as 'good' when it comes to defensive midfielders? For a start as you probably guessed i'm not a fan of your traditional defensive mid...ie someone who defends and offers nothing in an attacking sense. If a manager plays a defensive mid, they should be played alongside an attacking mid...2 defensive mids is extremely unncessary, hence very few teams use this ancient tradition. Aside from your obvious Toure's and Scholes' etc, in terms of premier league holding midfielders i'd be looking at players such as Diame, Macarthur of Wigan, Mulumbu to name a few. Players who do the defensive work adequately, but also offer something going forward and use their positive instinct to initiate or be involved in attacks. These are attributes severely lacking in our midfield. Admitedly they dont have mobility to work with, and they are under instructions, generally speaking, to get it out wide at every opportunity. That doesnt take away from the fact that they have never offered anything in attack. Even at the peak of our game during the Cup final season when we had pace and mobility up front, we would never see Whelan or Whitehead or Delap look comfortable on the ball and all three have always been reluctant to take risks and make things happen. They havent done it throughout their career let alone at Stoke. Delap's been the best of a bad bunch but thats not saying a lot. They are players who have some pretty big limitations. Whelan rarely wants the ball at his feet Rob...thats just totally unnacceptable at this level. I'm not blaming the players though, its the manager who plays them. Nzonzi isnt a bad player in that hes just about ok defensively, and is slightly more comfortable on the ball than the others. He just isnt anything close to what some people think he is.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2013 21:53:04 GMT
Our defending doesn't start and end with Huth and Shawcross to be fair - it's a team effort involving pretty much everyone. Our defending is often something to be proud of, but unfortunately it's also the reason why we don't score or create enough - we just don't prioritise that side of the game enough in my opinion. Out of interest Nick, who would you rank as 'good' when it comes to defensive midfielders? For a start as you probably guessed i'm not a fan of your traditional defensive mid...ie someone who defends and offers nothing in an attacking sense. If a manager plays a defensive mid, they should be played alongside an attacking mid...2 defensive mids is extremely unncessary, hence very few teams use this ancient tradition. Aside from your obvious Toure's and Scholes' etc, in terms of premier league holding midfielders i'd be looking at players such as Diame, Macarthur of Wigan, Mulumbu to name a few. Players who do the defensive work adequately, but also offer something going forward and use their positive instinct to initiate or be involved in attacks. These are attributes severely lacking in our midfield. Admitedly they dont have mobility to work with, and they are under instructions, generally speaking, to get it out wide at every opportunity. That doesnt take away from the fact that they have never offered anything in attack. Even at the peak of our game during the Cup final season when we had pace and mobility up front, we would never see Whelan or Whitehead or Delap look comfortable on the ball and all three have always been reluctant to take risks and make things happen. They havent done it throughout their career let alone at Stoke. Delap's been the best of a bad bunch but thats not saying a lot. They are players who have some pretty big limitations. Whelan rarely wants the ball at his feet Rob...thats just totally unnacceptable at this level. I'm not blaming the players though, its the manager who plays them. Nzonzi isnt a bad player in that hes just about ok defensively, and is slightly more comfortable on the ball than the others. He just isnt anything close to what some people think he is. Totally disagree with a lot of that Nick. For starters I'm not sure any team could get away with playing a two man midfield in which only one player was tasked with doing the defensive work? I agree the cage could be opened and our midfielders more box to box but I don't think you could have, say, a Modric type there. Second, midfielders who keep it simple and break up the play have become very important over the last 20 years and have been a vital part of many successful sides. Third. Scholes? Holding midfielder? He's been deeper in recent years but when has he ever been a holding player? Also, what does Mulumbu do that Nzonzi doesn't? From what I've seen both are first and foremost combative defensive midfielders who do sometimes manage to get forward and have a shot. Finally, Whelan's form was one of the key factors in our run to the cup final and he was one of our top performers in that great run.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Feb 18, 2013 23:52:10 GMT
For a start as you probably guessed i'm not a fan of your traditional defensive mid...ie someone who defends and offers nothing in an attacking sense. If a manager plays a defensive mid, they should be played alongside an attacking mid...2 defensive mids is extremely unncessary, hence very few teams use this ancient tradition. Aside from your obvious Toure's and Scholes' etc, in terms of premier league holding midfielders i'd be looking at players such as Diame, Macarthur of Wigan, Mulumbu to name a few. Players who do the defensive work adequately, but also offer something going forward and use their positive instinct to initiate or be involved in attacks. These are attributes severely lacking in our midfield. Admitedly they dont have mobility to work with, and they are under instructions, generally speaking, to get it out wide at every opportunity. That doesnt take away from the fact that they have never offered anything in attack. Even at the peak of our game during the Cup final season when we had pace and mobility up front, we would never see Whelan or Whitehead or Delap look comfortable on the ball and all three have always been reluctant to take risks and make things happen. They havent done it throughout their career let alone at Stoke. Delap's been the best of a bad bunch but thats not saying a lot. They are players who have some pretty big limitations. Whelan rarely wants the ball at his feet Rob...thats just totally unnacceptable at this level. I'm not blaming the players though, its the manager who plays them. Nzonzi isnt a bad player in that hes just about ok defensively, and is slightly more comfortable on the ball than the others. He just isnt anything close to what some people think he is. Totally disagree with a lot of that Nick. For starters I'm not sure any team could get away with playing a two man midfield in which only one player was tasked with doing the defensive work? I agree the cage could be opened and our midfielders more box to box but I don't think you could have, say, a Modric type there. Second, midfielders who keep it simple and break up the play have become very important over the last 20 years and have been a vital part of many successful sides. Third. Scholes? Holding midfielder? He's been deeper in recent years but when has he ever been a holding player? Also, what does Mulumbu do that Nzonzi doesn't? From what I've seen both are first and foremost combative defensive midfielders who do sometimes manage to get forward and have a shot. Finally, Whelan's form was one of the key factors in our run to the cup final and he was one of our top performers in that great run. Rob come off it mate. You've been harping on about how "Whelan was pivotal to our cup run etc" ever since. Surely you cant justify his ability based on 2 months of a career spanning 8 years of football in the top 2 tiers of English football. Because there isnt a lot else to suggest hes anything close to what is required of a premier league midfielder. Mulumbu pushes forward, passes forward and is generally a more positive version of Nzonzi. In comparison with Nzonzi and Whelan he is also prolific as fuck in front of goal I dont know how you can disagree with the fact that barely any teams play with 2 defensive midfielders. Almost all teams DO play with an attacking/creative midfielder alongside a DM. Sure Modric is an attacking mid but I take Lampard, Gerrard etc as examples too. Even in a 4-3-3...teams rarely play two genuine defensive mids who offer nothing in an attacking sense. Do they? Rob tell me 3 top class defensive mids who offer sod all going forward? I've not said Nzonzi is a bad player...i've not said hes a good player, in fact, Stoke is his level..hes average, will do a job, wont do a lot going forward, isnt as good as most are making out. I dont see why you disagree with me here ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2013 8:11:32 GMT
Totally disagree with a lot of that Nick. For starters I'm not sure any team could get away with playing a two man midfield in which only one player was tasked with doing the defensive work? I agree the cage could be opened and our midfielders more box to box but I don't think you could have, say, a Modric type there. Second, midfielders who keep it simple and break up the play have become very important over the last 20 years and have been a vital part of many successful sides. Third. Scholes? Holding midfielder? He's been deeper in recent years but when has he ever been a holding player? Also, what does Mulumbu do that Nzonzi doesn't? From what I've seen both are first and foremost combative defensive midfielders who do sometimes manage to get forward and have a shot. Finally, Whelan's form was one of the key factors in our run to the cup final and he was one of our top performers in that great run. Rob come off it mate. You've been harping on about how "Whelan was pivotal to our cup run etc" ever since. Surely you cant justify his ability based on 2 months of a career spanning 8 years of football in the top 2 tiers of English football. Because there isnt a lot else to suggest hes anything close to what is required of a premier league midfielder. Mulumbu pushes forward, passes forward and is generally a more positive version of Nzonzi. In comparison with Nzonzi and Whelan he is also prolific as fuck in front of goal I dont know how you can disagree with the fact that barely any teams play with 2 defensive midfielders. Almost all teams DO play with an attacking/creative midfielder alongside a DM. Sure Modric is an attacking mid but I take Lampard, Gerrard etc as examples too. Even in a 4-3-3...teams rarely play two genuine defensive mids who offer nothing in an attacking sense. Do they? Rob tell me 3 top class defensive mids who offer sod all going forward? I've not said Nzonzi is a bad player...i've not said hes a good player, in fact, Stoke is his level..hes average, will do a job, wont do a lot going forward, isnt as good as most are making out. I dont see why you disagree with me here ;D The Whelan thing was a response to you saying he offered nothing even in the cup run. So don't move the goalposts. Mulumbu isn't renowned for 'pushing forward' on the whole. Are you basing that claim on anything beyond one decent run and shot against Liverpool the other week? Nzonzi got five assists last season, the most Mulumbu has ever managed in a season is four. You're talking about 'almost all teams' but 'almost all teams' play three men in midfield with two who'll sit deeper and one pushing forward. We have Walters or Adam doing the latter role for us, which is another can of worms. Finally, Makelele, Deschamps, Dunga.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Feb 19, 2013 10:44:53 GMT
Rob come off it mate. You've been harping on about how "Whelan was pivotal to our cup run etc" ever since. Surely you cant justify his ability based on 2 months of a career spanning 8 years of football in the top 2 tiers of English football. Because there isnt a lot else to suggest hes anything close to what is required of a premier league midfielder. Mulumbu pushes forward, passes forward and is generally a more positive version of Nzonzi. In comparison with Nzonzi and Whelan he is also prolific as fuck in front of goal I dont know how you can disagree with the fact that barely any teams play with 2 defensive midfielders. Almost all teams DO play with an attacking/creative midfielder alongside a DM. Sure Modric is an attacking mid but I take Lampard, Gerrard etc as examples too. Even in a 4-3-3...teams rarely play two genuine defensive mids who offer nothing in an attacking sense. Do they? Rob tell me 3 top class defensive mids who offer sod all going forward? I've not said Nzonzi is a bad player...i've not said hes a good player, in fact, Stoke is his level..hes average, will do a job, wont do a lot going forward, isnt as good as most are making out. I dont see why you disagree with me here ;D The Whelan thing was a response to you saying he offered nothing even in the cup run. So don't move the goalposts. Mulumbu isn't renowned for 'pushing forward' on the whole. Are you basing that claim on anything beyond one decent run and shot against Liverpool the other week? Nzonzi got five assists last season, the most Mulumbu has ever managed in a season is four. You're talking about 'almost all teams' but 'almost all teams' play three men in midfield with two who'll sit deeper and one pushing forward. We have Walters or Adam doing the latter role for us, which is another can of worms. Finally, Makelele, Deschamps, Dunga. But that in itself is a disagreement, it's not me moving the goalposts at all. The reason for our cup run was primarily down to the inclusion of Pennant in the starting xi. If you remember that season we had some good results with Delap and Whitehead in the side. Also Rob let's not forget our cup run was against predominantely against shite opposition. The 3 you mentioned are history. I'm. Talking about DMs who are out there today simply to defend. Hodgson is the only international manager who uses DMs who offer nothing going forward, hence England are hapless.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Feb 19, 2013 10:46:28 GMT
Sorry for the dodgy English it's my iPhone
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2013 11:08:45 GMT
The Whelan thing was a response to you saying he offered nothing even in the cup run. So don't move the goalposts. Mulumbu isn't renowned for 'pushing forward' on the whole. Are you basing that claim on anything beyond one decent run and shot against Liverpool the other week? Nzonzi got five assists last season, the most Mulumbu has ever managed in a season is four. You're talking about 'almost all teams' but 'almost all teams' play three men in midfield with two who'll sit deeper and one pushing forward. We have Walters or Adam doing the latter role for us, which is another can of worms. Finally, Makelele, Deschamps, Dunga. But that in itself is a disagreement, it's not me moving the goalposts at all. The reason for our cup run was primarily down to the inclusion of Pennant in the starting xi. If you remember that season we had some good results with Delap and Whitehead in the side. Also Rob let's not forget our cup run was against predominantely against shite opposition. The 3 you mentioned are history. I'm. Talking about DMs who are out there today simply to defend. Hodgson is the only international manager who uses DMs who offer nothing going forward, hence England are fire. Hang on, we're talking about the great run of form in the league and cup at the end of 2011, not scraping a win at Cardiff en route. It's simply not true to credit Pennant alone with that form. The front four and Whelan were all equally important. There was light and day between his performances in that run and Deano's prior to it. All of our very best performances since promotion have featured a strong showing from Glenn Whelan. I don't agree that Nzonzi offers nothing going forward anyway - he offers every bit as much as fucking Mulumbu! But our centre mids are clearly instructed to sit deep and keep it simple. All of those three midfielders were primarily 'water carriers' who protected the ball and gave it to the creative players. De Jong and Van Bommel have made careers out of the same, as has Mascherano.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Feb 19, 2013 11:37:18 GMT
Surely an immediate point of action is to fill that 25th position in our squad!!!
|
|