Jump to content

Killer - Here we go.....


alpine_saint

Recommended Posts

The only way Lloyd James will ever "make the step up" is if he is given the chance to play: that goes for every young player of course. James is not a teenager any more, and by all accounts has been giving a good account of himself as our right back. Why everyone continues to insist that he is a midfieder, when he has been playing full back all season and doing it well, is a mystery to me. Players do not come with some divine stamp set upon them: midfilder, full back, centreback, striker. As youngsters they tend to play in various positions until their best position emerges, and that best position can change even in the early twenties. The same argument goes for Surman, btw: he is our left back, and seems to be forging a decent partnership in that role with our left winger, Holmes. By all accounts, Surman is not really fast enough to be an out and out left winger, nor robust, creative, and consistent enough to play in central midfield: hence the decision to move him to LB where he seems to be doing well. Until further notice, from the professional coaching staff, he is a left back, end of!

 

As to Ollie Lancashire, the point has been made frequently on the OS and elsewhere that he was on the verge of breaking into the 1st team squad last season before he was injured. Now that he is healthy again, why should he not be counted on as a player capable of filling a spot in the 1st team squad at least? We won't know if he is truly up to it until he gets a few games, so why just write him off as too young? He is not too young at all.

 

And now, after some go on about playing too many kids, we are to hear that the older, more experienced players we have -- Perry, Wotton -- are too old and injury prone (neither has had any injury issue as yet this season) and we need younger players! What?? But you complain when too many younger players are played! You can't have it both ways!

 

And btw, Wotton has extensive experience playing CB, you can look it up, so please don't give us that "converted midfielder" stuff: he is a more than capable back up CB. Probably better (more consistent at least) than Thomas,.

 

 

I stick to every part of the assessment I made. Those conclusions I made are on the basis of my opinion, much as the assessments you made are based on your opinions. It may be that players have historically played in those positions, that the only way that others will gain experience and stature is by playing in the first team, but my point was that the situation is not ideal whereby they are thrust into the cauldron through necessity rather than blooded slowly when completely ready for the step up.

 

As your response was to my post, where did I say that James was a midfielder? So Surman is not robust enough as a midfielder, but apparently is somehow robust enough to play as a defender? You can't have it both ways :rolleyes:

 

As for the younger/older player scenario, naturally I was talking about our players rather than in general. Of our players, Killer is an older one, as is Thomas. Both a bit prone to injury, I'd say. Granted that Perry and Wotton haven't been injured so far, but of course the season is only 5 minutes old at the moment. When we are discussing defensive cover, we are talking about the entire season and if others contend that these older players might have injury spells, it is a distinct possibility.

 

I do know that Wotton has good experience in his career at playing CB. But the problem might be that he is one of the few older, experienced players in the team and whilst he covers for CB, we are going to lack the wiser, steely player in midfield. Also it is important that the CB teaming forge a relationship together to enhance understanding. From that perspective, it is better that we have at least one CB who is a fixture. Which one is to be our fixture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thomas looks to be out for a while, killer..well we just dont know but the very fact he is seeing a specialist in Sweden doesnt bode too well. That leaves us with Perry and kids. Not ideal is it?

 

The OS shows that we have 9 defenders, (perry, thomas, killer, hatch, james, lancashire, davies, cork and mills) with wotton and spiderman that can play there if need be. My argument isnt about what cover we have, more about the age of that cover and how they would cope against the big strikers in this division, yes they are all enthusiastic at the moment but a few more defeats and a cold, wet tuesday night fixture in sheffield for example will see their heads drop, and without the experience on the pitch to hold it together.

 

I hope killer is just out for the one game and am proved wrong

 

Which is, without a doubt, why, despite supposedly being broke, the Board and Management of the club sanctioned a bid for a Centre Half on the last day of the transfer window. Gerrard is not a Lancashire, and is not a Perry, but is someone in between who will learn from the old hands and grow. Perry at his age will not be with us for that long, one maybe two seasons, so bringing in cover who will improve seems to have the situation under control. Andrew Davies was 22/23 when we signed him with limited PL experience, often at FULL BACK, a similar age to Gerrard. Davies has become a "TSW legend" but Gerrard is too young and inexperienced or insignificant because he plays for Walsall.....

 

The LOAN window is still open, it is not all doom and gloom, there is absolutely NO reason why we cannot sign a CB anytime in the next 3/4 weeks with an option to buy.

 

The point of lack of specialist depth is valid but the "near hysteria" or "political hype" over it is nonsense. The club HAVE noticed and hence too much of the opinion on here is actually wrong as it is being posted as if the POSTERS are the only ones who know what is right and wrong and THEY are the only ones who can see a possible problem.

 

Having ENOUGH cover in ANY position is not a new issue at this or any other club. How many PL games did Jason Dodd or Francis Benali play at CB?? Quite a few I recall. Was the world going to end then? No, it wasn't satisfactory but it happens.

 

Our squad is a lot stronger than many others in this league, and a lot weaker than many others. We've been told why often enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is, without a doubt, why, despite supposedly being broke, the Board and Management of the club sanctioned a bid for a Centre Half on the last day of the transfer window. Gerrard is not a Lancashire, and is not a Perry, but is someone in between who will learn from the old hands and grow. Perry at his age will not be with us for that long, one maybe two seasons, so bringing in cover who will improve seems to have the situation under control. Andrew Davies was 22/23 when we signed him with limited PL experience, often at FULL BACK, a similar age to Gerrard. Davies has become a "TSW legend" but Gerrard is too young and inexperienced or insignificant because he plays for Walsall.....

 

The LOAN window is still open, it is not all doom and gloom, there is absolutely NO reason why we cannot sign a CB anytime in the next 3/4 weeks with an option to buy.

 

The point of lack of specialist depth is valid but the "near hysteria" or "political hype" over it is nonsense. The club HAVE noticed and hence too much of the opinion on here is actually wrong as it is being posted as if the POSTERS are the only ones who know what is right and wrong and THEY are the only ones who can see a possible problem.

 

Having ENOUGH cover in ANY position is not a new issue at this or any other club. How many PL games did Jason Dodd or Francis Benali play at CB?? Quite a few I recall. Was the world going to end then? No, it wasn't satisfactory but it happens.

 

Our squad is a lot stronger than many others in this league, and a lot weaker than many others. We've been told why often enough.

 

Good post, as always! Too many scaremongers on here. We all want 3 points for each match for teh rest of the season, but it is often the team, not the individual, that decide who will win. Our team is much more cohesive and united than last year, we have a manager who clearly promotes flowing football, we can all see the quality of some of the youngsters..all they need is time and we have to blood them fully this year to reap the benefits in years to come. Let Ollie play etc...we will benefit in the longer run whatever the result today, next week etc. We will not get relegated with this squad and management!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stick to every part of the assessment I made. Those conclusions I made are on the basis of my opinion, much as the assessments you made are based on your opinions. It may be that players have historically played in those positions, that the only way that others will gain experience and stature is by playing in the first team, but my point was that the situation is not ideal whereby they are thrust into the cauldron through necessity rather than blooded slowly when completely ready for the step up.

 

As your response was to my post, where did I say that James was a midfielder? So Surman is not robust enough as a midfielder, but apparently is somehow robust enough to play as a defender? You can't have it both ways :rolleyes:

 

As for the younger/older player scenario, naturally I was talking about our players rather than in general. Of our players, Killer is an older one, as is Thomas. Both a bit prone to injury, I'd say. Granted that Perry and Wotton haven't been injured so far, but of course the season is only 5 minutes old at the moment. When we are discussing defensive cover, we are talking about the entire season and if others contend that these older players might have injury spells, it is a distinct possibility.

 

I do know that Wotton has good experience in his career at playing CB. But the problem might be that he is one of the few older, experienced players in the team and whilst he covers for CB, we are going to lack the wiser, steely player in midfield. Also it is important that the CB teaming forge a relationship together to enhance understanding. From that perspective, it is better that we have at least one CB who is a fixture. Which one is to be our fixture?

 

A central midfielder is constantly involved in the action; a left back not so much. The demands on a left back are therefore less than those on a CM: do you disagree? Full backs are rarely the most robust players a team has, though they can certainly be tough and quite nasty if they have that sort of temperament.

 

Your notion of slowly blooding players, etc, seems to assume two things: an ideal situation, in which we can afford plenty of good mid-career players and therefore take our time with our younger players; and that young players cannot simply "make the step up" without first having a couple of seasons of sitting on the bench, making substitute appearances, and the occasional spot start. Neither contention is in accord with known and demonstrable facts. We can't afford to acquire and play a bunch of good mid-career players: that surely is now widely known, obvious to all, and you will not dispute it. Hence our need to rely on youngsters and a few old heads. Seems odd to complain about that policy as if we could be doing things differently. Secondly, young players can and do simply "step up" and make a first team spot their own. Over the past couple of seasons we have seen the likes of Walcott, Bale, and Surman do just that. I'd say that several of our youngsters are doing just that this season -- Schneiderlin (the youngest of them, lest we forget) and Holmes and McGoldrick -- while on others the jury is perhaps still out a bit.

 

I would just note that, just as a couple of good wins over Brum & Derby don't mean we are suddenly the class of the CCC, so one bad game against Blackpool doesn't mean we are crap either. It's a long season, and on the whole there have been some positive indications of good play and growth. Let's just get behind the team, the players, and the system, and hope for the best, is my view, for what it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my original post I commented “Maybe I should judge Lancashire from games like Eastleigh but I don’t think he’s ready…”. That was meant to read “Maybe I should NOT” (as Oli had a very poor game against Eastleigh, totally lost my point there. Apologies). Slightly crucial typo but the new forum doesn’t seem to allow you to edit posts. Does it allow the function with the paid subscription, anyone?

 

I also think the comment I made “very astute” was poorly worded but I was rush typing at the end of lunch. Not had much time free since, hence late reply. I realise Alpine may not win people over with his negative outlook (me too on many occasions for that matter) but I do find it infuriating when people blindly support a cause when, I feel, a more realistic, less rose-tinted view is better balanced. Only today I was scanning through posts and saw a comment “Let’s face it, if Lallana carries on the way he’s playing, he’ll be gone in January” (or any other player hitting form for that matter). Cynical but perfectly plausible from our club and boardroom history. I don’t see why people have a problem with comments like that. Truth too scary to face?!

 

Please could you explain how keeping Andrew Davies could have helped us in the QPR game?

 

I was never inferring Davies was available straight away or in contention for QPR. Your misunderstanding old boy! Yes, he’s injured but not out for the season. I was under the impression he was out temporarily but if it is/was longer, then that was info. I wasn’t aware of. I still stand by my statement that selling Andrew Davies was a ridiculous mistake and we are perilously thin in defence (if you consider most of our back up is pretty inexperienced bar the injured seniors - Svensson who has a risky fitness record, Thomas out and Perry who is 34/35…forget his age)

 

Please tell me how :-

 

a) He could have helped when he's still injured.

b) We could have stopped him walking once it was known that a Premiership club was in form him, offering him much much more filthy lucre than we could afford!!

 

Also, Alpine states that we have NO cover at the back, which is a blatant lie. We have plenty of cover. I know it would be nice to have experienced cover at the back but a club in our situation just can't afford it...

 

Further one of the philosophies of Total Football (which is what we are trying to use in case you missed the last 4 months) is to use midfielders as defenders.

 

A.) As explained to Itchen, I am talking about over the course of the season, not immediately (and, as I understand, Davies only had a temporary injury although he did have surgery in the close season, which I believed he was on the road to recover with. If not, I find it strange that Stoke would have bought him injured – more our style! LOL) I am not sure if you took my words out of context, if it was our misunderstanding or if you’re both being deliberately obtuse. Only you/Itchen can answer that.

B.) Not really. You're making assumptions that none of us actually know (hence my "Murky" comment). There is a thing called a contract although players often hold the cards but they ARE obligated to play to the best of their ability (Kind of contentious and funny when you consider things, they’re all in breach!) and are contract bound. We don’t have to sell everyone at the first offer and we WERE deliberately kept in the dark about the Davies transfer details which makes me suspicious. Why else would they be economical with the facts?

 

You may think we’re strong at the back, or have good, strong & adequate cover. Using the word “plenty” is foolish imho. I disagree. Simple as that! I have mentioned 2/3 of our senior, central defenders are out injured (pray we get no more or that really could be game over with the loan window creaking slowly shut) and Perry can’t play constantly. I like Perry and Cork seems a good loan (all be it, short term unless his loan can be extended) but we are ludicrously tempting fate. Sunday's game with Holmes injury and Lancashire's red card is a prime example of the trials & tribulations of the Championship and one which I have previously expressed concerns over from the onset. No doom and gloom - perfectly acceptable concerns and foresight. This philosophy of “total football” may be all good and well but if you’re playing midfielders in defence, play ball winning midfielders who aren’t slow and easily over-run. As Surman has shown time and time again.

 

The original post on this thread was in my opinion over dramatic.

 

Clubs always have injury problems and the players who come in for the injured players may not be as good as the injured players.

 

So we have Cork as a substitute for Svennson so what is the problem.

 

W have Thomas ( who may have a slight injury at the moment ) and Lancashire as further back up.

 

SFC cannot aquire another two centre halves just in case there maybe further injuries because of the cost and the practicality of keeping them match fit

 

Ok, I’ll give you that. The original post may have been over-dramatic but it’s a football forum for goodness sake, not Question Time!

 

I don’t see your point. We all know clubs have injury problems. We seem to get more than most or excessively long lay offs for niggling injuries (but maybe that's my perception). Cork is a replacement for Svensson. Ok. But I’d rather have Cork as a full back seeing as that (to me) seems our weak area (where we are constantly getting over-run and figured out). Sadly, we now have a ban and injuries so we don’t have the luxury of playing Cork as full back. We need him alongside Perry (or the chosen CB). As you say, Thomas is injured so he’s not in contention, much like Svensson or Lancashire.

 

Where in my post did I mention about adding 2 further centre halves to our squad? I merely expressed my disdain at the loss of Davies (as many other fans have). Regardless of reasoning, it’s a damn shame and annoying.

 

I think I’ll ignore Weston’s comment seeing as he’s obviously borrowed my book on sarcasm! Still, thanks for forgiving me Weston! ;o)

 

Maybe Alpine Saint brings it on himself Gordon? Just a thought....

 

Maybe. Probably. I just sometimes read the odd comment, much like the 'Lallana being sold' thread, and agree with some comments but they are lost with people just attacking individuals without digesting the merits of what has actually been said. It happens a lot but, I suppose, that’s the internet for you. :gib:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my original post I commented “Maybe I should judge Lancashire from games like Eastleigh but I don’t think he’s ready…”. That was meant to read “Maybe I should NOT” (as Oli had a very poor game against Eastleigh, totally lost my point there. Apologies). Slightly crucial typo but the new forum doesn’t seem to allow you to edit posts. Does it allow the function with the paid subscription, anyone?

yes you can

I also think the comment I made “very astute” was poorly worded but I was rush typing at the end of lunch. Not had much time free since, hence late reply. I realise Alpine may not win people over with his negative outlook (me too on many occasions for that matter) but I do find it infuriating when people blindly support a cause when, I feel, a more realistic, less rose-tinted view is better balanced. Only today I was scanning through posts and saw a comment “Let’s face it, if Lallana carries on the way he’s playing, he’ll be gone in January” (or any other player hitting form for that matter). Cynical but perfectly plausible from our club and boardroom history. I don’t see why people have a problem with comments like that. Truth too scary to face?!

 

 

 

I was never inferring Davies was available straight away or in contention for QPR. Your misunderstanding old boy! Yes, he’s injured but not out for the season. I was under the impression he was out temporarily but if it is/was longer, then that was info. I wasn’t aware of. I still stand by my statement that selling Andrew Davies was a ridiculous mistake and we are perilously thin in defence (if you consider most of our back up is pretty inexperienced bar the injured seniors - Svensson who has a risky fitness record, Thomas out and Perry who is 34/35…forget his age)

 

 

 

A.) As explained to Itchen, I am talking about over the course of the season, not immediately (and, as I understand, Davies only had a temporary injury although he did have surgery in the close season, which I believed he was on the road to recover with. If not, I find it strange that Stoke would have bought him injured – more our style! LOL) I am not sure if you took my words out of context, if it was our misunderstanding or if you’re both being deliberately obtuse. Only you/Itchen can answer that.

B.) Not really. You're making assumptions that none of us actually know (hence my "Murky" comment). There is a thing called a contract although players often hold the cards but they ARE obligated to play to the best of their ability (Kind of contentious and funny when you consider things, they’re all in breach!) and are contract bound. We don’t have to sell everyone at the first offer and we WERE deliberately kept in the dark about the Davies transfer details which makes me suspicious. Why else would they be economical with the facts?JP said in an radio interview that it was in his contract and his agent wanted him to leave, not saying it is right but only direct info I have heard and therefore lean towards it being true. Therefore the existence of a contract actually made it more likely he would go due to the terms agreed

 

You may think we’re strong at the back, or have good, strong & adequate cover. Using the word “plenty” is foolish imho. I disagree. Simple as that! I have mentioned 2/3 of our senior, central defenders are out injured (pray we get no more or that really could be game over with the loan window creaking slowly shut) and Perry can’t play constantly. I like Perry and Cork seems a good loan (all be it, short term unless his loan can be extended) but we are ludicrously tempting fate. Sunday's game with Holmes injury and Lancashire's red card is a prime example of the trials & tribulations of the Championship and one which I have previously expressed concerns over from the onset. No doom and gloom - perfectly acceptable concerns and foresight. This philosophy of “total football” may be all good and well but if you’re playing midfielders in defence, play ball winning midfielders who aren’t slow and easily over-run. As Surman has shown time and time again.

 

 

 

Ok, I’ll give you that. The original post may have been over-dramatic but it’s a football forum for goodness sake, not Question Time!

 

I don’t see your point. We all know clubs have injury problems. We seem to get more than most or excessively long lay offs for niggling injuries (but maybe that's my perception). Cork is a replacement for Svensson. Ok. But I’d rather have Cork as a full back seeing as that (to me) seems our weak area (where we are constantly getting over-run and figured out). Sadly, we now have a ban and injuries so we don’t have the luxury of playing Cork as full back. We need him alongside Perry (or the chosen CB). As you say, Thomas is injured so he’s not in contention, much like Svensson or Lancashire.

 

Where in my post did I mention about adding 2 further centre halves to our squad? I merely expressed my disdain at the loss of Davies (as many other fans have). Regardless of reasoning, it’s a damn shame and annoying.

 

I think I’ll ignore Weston’s comment seeing as he’s obviously borrowed my book on sarcasm! Still, thanks for forgiving me Weston! ;o)

 

 

 

Maybe. Probably. I just sometimes read the odd comment, much like the 'Lallana being sold' thread, and agree with some comments but they are lost with people just attacking individuals without digesting the merits of what has actually been said. It happens a lot but, I suppose, that’s the internet for you. :gib:

 

a/a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...