Please log in to use all the site's facilities
|Some of you lot|
at 15:26 16 Sep 2018
Would have been great in 1940. New bloke in charge, string of defeats, all looking rather a shambles, our material not as good as the opposition's, facing seemingly insurmountable odds.
Where is your fight-them-on-the-beaches grit? Raising the white flag now does no good in any case. Defeatism or congratulating oneself on gloomy prognostications will not help save us. Only unified struggle.
At least until Christmas
|Problem with Edwards|
at 19:09 2 Sep 2018
Love the way he runs the ball forwards at pace. But we need to do something to give him a bit of assistance or an outlet when he arrives in the opposition left back area, surrounded by three of their players. Too often he was stuck in a dead end with no options and, as a result, dispossessed.
He gets the ball to useful places, we should be making more of that.
|Radio 5 Football Social|
at 09:33 25 Aug 2018
Quite a good one I happened to listen to while driving last night, Rotherham manager Paul Warne talking at length about his experiences. Says nice things about our recent performance against them.
(Warning: Contains references to Norwich)
From the 1 hour 6 minute mark: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bg20nx
|Nothing much wrong with the personnel out there last night|
at 10:44 22 Aug 2018
It's just the tactical system needs a bit of tweaking.
IMO primarily getting central midfield to attack further forwards, so the striker is not having to do so much work on his own and having more bodies in the box for the wide-men to aim at. Or using a second striker. Nolan evidently has skill, but his efforts were all long range. Chalobah was having to cover the full length of the pitch, so, having started a move was not always where he was needed at the finish.
The team defended well, but while we are having difficulty scoring, will always be vulnerable to one or two unfortunate goals (e.g. deflected shot goes in) turning the game.
Thought the play in the middle of the park was really quite good. We've obviously invested in some of those boots the ball actually sticks to. Also the players seem to have a much better idea of where each other are, for the flicks and quick passes.
Once we can fix the scoring problem, this team will be quite effective.
|Is this a negative impact of T20 on English Test cricket?|
at 11:38 20 Aug 2018
Players having become too keen on hitting out, rather than patiently defending in tricky conditions (or even being able to do so effectively)? Especially given the time left in the match.
[Post edited 20 Aug 11:38]
|I was busy this afternoon|
at 19:37 18 Aug 2018
Couldn't even listen to the game. But I'm immensely pleased with what I'm reading.
|Those saying we changed too much too quickly.|
at 11:18 15 Aug 2018
There really wasn't a lot of choice.
Firstly, having the owner suddenly splash many millions in transfer fees was not an option. He said specifically he wouldn't. Whatever his notional wealth (which is mostly the value of his company), I doubt Evans actually has a lot more in the way of spare funds to put in. He did stump up for Bialkowski's new contract. Also, I don't think an FFP transfer embargo would really help matters.
Top quality Championship players are pretty unaffordable nowadays anyway, frequently going for eight-figure sums.
So in order to spend, we have to sell. Who were the most marketable members of our squad? Waghorn and Bialkowski. You want to hang on to the 'keeper, because 1) he has been critical to our defence for several seasons; and 2) they don't command such high fees as strikers. Waghorn was also attracting serious interest from a number of clubs willing to make pretty unrefuseable offers. So he's going anyway.
Webster similarly. A very generous bid came in for a player who had missed a lot of time due to injury anyway. The offer for Garner was pretty unrefuseable, too, plus he wanted to move. McGoldrick only wanted to stay for a good contract which, given he's injured for about half of every season, isn't worth it to the club. Bru was always on the way out, Smith wanted to go to America to reboot his career. The loans obviously went back to their parent clubs. This left us with a major rebuilding job whether we wanted it or not.
So to replacements. Keeping Waghorn in the teeth of Derby and Boro would have left us in the familiar position of rooting around for freebies and loans. One or two of them might have been very successful, but remember we no longer had a manager with extensive contacts in the Championship to possibly swing those uregarded gems. They would have had plenty of second-tier experience, sure, but may not have been very good or patricularly fit.
Plus our own Youths, whom everybody thinks are marvellous with the rosy-tinted spectacles of a new parent. But might not be all that hot really, especially over a long and gruelling season in the Championship. Remember, they all broke down pretty quickly last time. And they're still all in their late teens or only just into their twenties.
The alternative is to buy some of the best young prospects in the lower divisions of the League, players who have done well in teams pushing for promotion. We have a manager who knows these lads well, having played for or against him in recent seasons. This takes money, so Waghorn and Webster have to go. But it gives the chance of an injection of fresh energy and talent. It also means in a lot of areas having to get up to speed for the new level. Some of those players may not make the grade. But at least it is taking a positive approach, rather than struggling on with the same old same old.
To summarise: We were left with a pretty extensive rebuilding job whether we wanted it or not. The choice was then between trying to keep one good player and filling up on freebies and loans, or losing that man and buying young talent from lower down. We went for the latter.
|Forum Votes: ||3659|
|Comment Votes: ||982|
|Prediction League: ||0|