Frankie 8,367 Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 That's a change from when I voted and a surprise I'd put it down to a reaction to Saturday's result and it's arguable such votes are situation dependent. Interesting nonetheless though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I thought at the time Gilks looked poor at the 3rd goal but I am not sure if the ball took a deflection or not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waltersgotstyle 297 Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 We seem to have written off Clint HIll pretty quickly... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 10,019 Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) The rankings seems to be reflecting Saturdays result. I dislike blaming individuals; for me there are usually a series of mistakes in defensive lapses. Sometimes it is just one players fault, but generally it's a series. On Saturday the midfield shield was non-existent: 3/4 times Burnley had a free run at our defense. This forces Hill et al to push out, causing them to get caught in no-mans land. Better covering from Kiernan may have helped, but it was already a dangerous situation. I'm surprised at the 'keeper ranking. I'm not sure what Gilks has really done, as he's not played much or had much to do; same goes with Wes. Perhaps we are judging on previous faults? I think they each have differing strengths. Gilks is more commanding in the air, but poor with his feet; Wes is the opposite. From there it comes down to personal preference. I prefer Wes for now. I think we have a man-oriented pressing system in midfield that doesn't suit Kranjcar or Barton; they are just not mobile enough. If we have those two in the starting-11 there has to be a more zonal set-up. For me, we are in a muddle with regards to defensive set-up rather than any individual failings. Edited August 2, 2016 by Rousseau 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 We seem to have written off Clint HIll pretty quickly... He plays way too deep and anyone with any pace will run him ragged as happened on Saturday. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 (edited) The rankings seems to be reflecting Saturdays result. I dislike blaming individuals; for me there are usually a series of mistakes in defensive lapses. Sometimes it is just one players fault, but generally it's a series. On Saturday the midfield shield was non-existent: 3/4 times Burnley had a free run at our defense. This forces Hill et al to push out, causing them to get caught in no-mans land. Better covering from Kiernan may have helped, but it was already a dangerous situation. I'm surprised at the 'keeper ranking. I'm not sure what Gilks has really done, as he's not played much or had much to do; same goes with Wes. Perhaps we are judging on previous faults? I think they each have differing strengths. Gilks is more commanding in the air, but poor with his feet; Wes is the opposite. From there it comes down to personal preference. I prefer Wes for now. I think we have a man-oriented pressing system in midfield that doesn't suit Kranjcar or Barton; they are just not mobile enough. If we have those two in the starting-11 there has to be a more zonal set-up. For me, we are in a muddle with regards to defensive set-up rather than any individual failings. We are not set up to play a pressing game and I didn't see our MF press anyone on Saturday. Barton sat deep and covered in front of our defence as much as possible but was overrun on numerous occasions. Kranjcar is an attacker out and out and Halliday can play either role but was pushed forward as is likely to be his role this season. In stark contrast, Burnley playing 4-4-2, pressed us with 6 men high up the pitch, disrupting our normal easy play it out of defence mode but quickly fell back into two lines of 4 on the rare occasions it proved necessary. I thought the tall Boyd was outstanding in that role on the right in the first half and the left in the second. I would really like us to try out a 4-4-2 with Rossiter (or perhaps Crooks when fit) alongside Barton but I can't see any change of Plan B on the horizon. If we stick with 4-3-3 and Kranjcar and another attacking MF then we will score goals but we will continue to get overrun in MF. As we saw numerous times towards the end of last season and in the cup final Kiernan is simply not good enough even at our modest level and Hill might have been good enough at one time in his career but now his experience will not cover his lack of pace and turning ability against any fast/tricky forward. Kiernan seems to get a lot of support on here and amongst my neighbours and Wilson frequently gets his character; so I am interested to see that he is 221 ahead of Kiernan in this poll. If we had been able to keep Ball then Ball and Wilson would have been my selection, as it is it's well seen that Mr A N Other gets a higher rating than any of the incumbents; so I hope he arrives soon and lives up to his billing. I think folk fancy Gilks because he just looks (and sounds, you can here him in the stand) a more commanding goalkeeper than Fotheringham. As a rule, G'Ks are not selected for their kicking ability. Similarly defenders are here to defend first and foremost which is why Hodson is so far ahead of Tavernier, that it's a no contest. Edited August 3, 2016 by BrahimHemdani typo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,368 Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 It say a lot when any old un-named defender is polling higher than Wilson/Kiernan/Hill. This is fast becoming our manager's achilees heel if we get to 1 September without additions to centre back. If he is happy to play this season with Wilson/Kiernan after watching them getting rag-dolled by second tier teams all year, then he is not the manager many believe him to be. I am willing to give him the time he has asked for in this market to enable him to get the right targets, but quite clearly the fact he has struggled to improve in this area other than Hill (who was surely for cover) means that both he and his recruitment team have failed (to date) in the area needing the most work. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Are you going to select A N Other; better still are you going to reveal his identity? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.