| The elephant in the room 08:12 - Nov 24 with 2823 views | The_Romford_Blue |
Bailey Clements.. he just shouldn’t be anywhere near a first team spot at this level.
Yes he’s young and an academy player so the fanbase will push him to play and perhaps be unduly lenient if not up to the level (Kenlock, Hyam, Emmanuel being three examples in recent years) but he’s just not good enough yet at all.
Nothing in the three games suggests he’s anywhere near the level right now to be starting. I don’t think Penney did much when coming on but he’s still a better option for me.
Don’t mean to pick on Clements because they were all sh*te last night but I just don’t see much mention of Clements on here in the three games he’s played and wonder why because it looks obvious to me he was scared sh**less to have the ball last night. And his positioning defensively is not good enough. Early doors yesterday you could see a conscious effort from Rotherham to attack down that side. And they were getting a lot of joy from it too. |  |
| |  |
| The elephant in the room on 11:04 - Nov 24 with 412 views | management |
Bailey Clements was on loan at Dagenham for a reasonable period of time and never got a look in, which probably sums the situation up.
On a previous point someone mentioned unregistering players ie Norwood/Jackson to allow Kenlock to be registered, i don't think this can be done until January. I actually think Nolan has been registered and in hindsight surely the cub should have seen how he came through a few U23 games first. |  | | |
| The elephant in the room on 11:10 - Nov 24 with 394 views | Romeo4 |
I would expect a new LB will be high on Cook’s wish list in January. If Coulson can’t get/stay fit then send him back. |  | | |
| The elephant in the room on 11:11 - Nov 24 with 390 views | wkj |
It is vital that we draw a line between Including Clements as a start is a bad move vs Clements is bad.
He's had a taster, now he needs to work on his development. |  |
| |
| The elephant in the room on 11:48 - Nov 24 with 349 views | clive_baker |
| The elephant in the room on 10:02 - Nov 24 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Was amazed to see we’d had 61% possession in the first half. Presumably 95% of that was Clements/Morsy/Edmundson, Rotherham were happy to sit off with them on the ball and then as soon as it came across to Toto/Janoi on the right pressed in the knowledge they wouldn’t be able to play and the ball would either be lumped up or rushed back to Walton to do the same. And as you say it was bread and butter at that point
Absolutely baffled at how Cook could watch 45 minutes of that and then send us out again for more of the same |
Absolutely right |  |
| |
| The elephant in the room on 11:51 - Nov 24 with 336 views | SomethingBlue |
I can say nice things about all of the defenders who played last night individually — but how on earth, after all this investment, are we starting with that back four? | |
| |
| The elephant in the room on 11:54 - Nov 24 with 322 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| The elephant in the room on 11:51 - Nov 24 by SomethingBlue |
I can say nice things about all of the defenders who played last night individually — but how on earth, after all this investment, are we starting with that back four? |
Yep, posted similar in another thread earlier but 3 of last nights back 4 are players that Cook obviously doesn’t really fancy. Clements probably won’t be seen again under Cook outside of cups, Toto was kept as 4th choice in the Summer and I am convinced a RB will arrive in Jan (assuming Cook is still here)
But who could possibly have seen that coming when we were loading up on attacking players in the Summer? |  |
| |
| The elephant in the room on 12:20 - Nov 24 with 289 views | Eireannach_gorm |
| The elephant in the room on 08:47 - Nov 24 by norfsufblue |
It was not Bailey Clements that allowed their player to run straight at our midfield and shoot for goal that resulted in the first goal... it was Bailey Clements that produced the only threatening ball behind their full back I think for Chaplin in the first half.
He was not the reason we were outclassed ... there was more than enough experience in that team to protect him.... it was just the awful system we played (AGAIN)
We are not anywhere near the competence of Chelsea to pull it off...
Imo we should find an 11 to play a consistent and successful 442 and adapt from there when we have nailed it! |
Unfortunately the Cook formation is not going to change it seems despite the evidence of its failure. If we are going to use wingbacks we should go 3 at the back. If we are being forced to kick long we need to adjust our formation to take that into account also. |  | | |
| The elephant in the room on 12:43 - Nov 24 with 264 views | Swansea_Blue |
Well I thought he did absolutely fine and Penney was a downgrade when he came on. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The elephant in the room on 12:46 - Nov 24 with 259 views | tractorshark |
Absolutely agree 100% with the OP here.
It was quite clear after ten minutes of that No11 running at him that both Clements and Fraser were going to have a tough night.
Which makes it all the more baffling that it took until 60 minutes for one of them to be replaced.
I thought at half time he'd change Clements for Penney or Edwards for Fraser. Then at 55 mins, I thought he'd do it. But, no, Cook waits until the inevitable second goal happens to make a substitution that was blindingly obvious to most people in the stands.
In fairness to Clements, he started the game dreadfully but did improve defensively but, although Penney didn't fair much better, he is the better option.
It was clear that Rotherham had been instructed to target both full-backs and press them into mistakes.
Unfortunately, we were awful throughout the game with the exception of Edmundsson. Celina was probably the only one who made any attempt at any movement, although I felt sorry for Bonne with the complete lack of service.
I haven't called for Cook's head but nor am I convinced by him. And I am certainly not convinced by his backroom staff who just smack of jobs-for-the-boys appointments.
But he has to start working out what team he wants to play and stick to it. Last night Fraser was incredibly lucky to get 90 minutes, as were many others.
I appreciate we have a few injuries and absences but players need to step up and the manager has to adapt his tactics if the game-plan is not working.
Rotherham were not world beaters last night, in my opinion Plymouth looked a better side.
But they worked bloody hard, put us under pressure and moved the ball quicker. More damning is the fact it was quite clear they wanted it more. Ipswich showed absolutely no desire last night. Even Morsy played like a man trying desperately to avoid a fifth booking.
When I left, I heard a fan saying we've got the best team in the league and the formation is the problem.
I'm not sure that is correct on both counts. The players are good and would attract interest from top six clubs if they were available but maybe they are not as effective or as good as we believe.
As for the formation it's worked away from home and you have to accept teams will come to Portman Road, defend deep and try to catch us on the break.
Maybe it could be tweaked here and there but we didn't lose the game because of our formation last night. We lost it because one team was just better than the other and they wanted it more. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
