Danny Spot On..

[Bristol Boy]

In the last three games we've played better football as a result of DW doing what loads of people on the Forum asked him to.

Passers, not battlers, in the centre of midfield and keeping the ball.For all that SC didn't look comfortable on the right side of four in midfield he didn't resort to BOOTING it!

We've now totally dominated the last three games-loosing one and drawing two and that's the worry.

However, I was glad to read his comments which match my view that our final ball is still only about 30/40% there and some people are still waiting for things to happen instead of making them happen, his example of getting in front/ across defenders, was the best example.

Aaron Brown is still enigmatic to say the least and LP still gives to many free kicks away, about 50% of them totally unecessary.

We lost at Blackpool througha Phillips error and we could still have been 2-0 yesterday before we put in our first meaningful effort on goal which was from Craig Woodman who improves by the week.

CR could well start on the right, as he radically improved our goal threat yesterday and I wouldn't be to surprise or disappointed if SC replaced AB at Barnsley and linked well with CW. Clist is more likely to score and a better defensive player than AB.

All in all, it's much better, but we've got to have more end product for all our domination........and we still need a loan right winger/midfielder.

[edson]

All in all, it's much better, but we've got to have more end product for all our domination........and we still need a loan right winger/midfielder.

That may be true, but ask yourself why we still need a loan right winger/midfielder.

The reason is, Danny Wilson thought he'd bought one in Luke Wilkshire, only to discover he hadn't at all. Now, put yourself in the shoes of the people who gave Mr Wilson 250k to spend on Scott's replacement.

Wilson: "Hi, Steve. You know that quarter of a million pounds you gave me to buy a replacement for Scott? Well, you'll never guess what I've gone and done. I've only bought a central midfielder by mistake. He's a good 'un, mind, but could I have some more money now to buy an actual replacement for Scott Murray, like I was meant to in the first place, and keep this one too?"

I know what my answer would be in Steve's position. It would be in the negative and would contain at least one profanity.

It reminds me of that character in The Fast Show:

"Did you buy that right winger I asked you to get?"

"Even better than that...."

[Robbored]

In the last three games we've played better football as a result of DW doing what loads of people on the Forum asked him to.

Passers, not battlers, in the centre of midfield and keeping the ball.For all that SC didn't look comfortable on the right side of four in midfield he didn't resort to BOOTING it!

We've now totally dominated the last three games-loosing one and drawing two and that's the worry.

However, I was glad to read his comments which match my view that our final ball is still only about 30/40% there and some people are still waiting for things to happen instead of making them happen, his example of getting in front/ across  defenders, was the best example.

The midfielders get into very good positions around the 18 yrd box but the final ball is often wasted or played backwards or sideways through limited options.

You can blame the midfielders for not being creative enough - or look at the runs and positions taken by the front men and supporting midfielders.

Yesterday, I can't recall Peacock having a single effort on goal thats how anonymous he was and he's Wilson no1 choice striker.Thats says alot about Peacocks form and Wilsons devotion to him.Wilson even took off Miller who looked good and kept the ineffective Peacock on when Lita came on with 10 mins to go.

If Wilson is able to highlight shortcomings in the striker department that we all agree with why doesn't he change it?He has enough options.

[cheshire_red]

<br /> That may be true, but ask yourself why we still need a loan right winger/midfielder.

The reason is, Danny Wilson thought he'd bought one in Luke Wilkshire, only to discover he hadn't at all. Now, put yourself in the shoes of the people who gave Mr Wilson 250k to spend on Scott's replacement.

No, he didn't say that at all, more along the lines that Wilkshire was not a direct replacement for Scott, ie not a marauding right winger.

Many were calling for the signing/loan of an attacking midfielder, now that LW is playing there those calls have ceased, a right winger (not right half back) is now imperative. Roberts, although by all accounts improved the side when he came on yesterday, is NOT a right winger and has none of the attributes neccessary other than pace.

[edson]

<br /> No, he didn't say that at all, more along the lines that Wilkshire was not a direct replacement for Scott, ie not a marauding right winger.

Many were calling for the signing/loan of an attacking midfielder, now that LW is playing there those calls have ceased, a right winger (not right half back) is now imperative. Roberts, although by all accounts improved the side when he came on yesterday, is NOT a right winger and has none of the attributes neccessary other than pace.

Well, I'll quote Danny Wilson directly:

"Now the right-sided player we were looking for we have as well in Luke and it is a tremendous bonus from our point of view that we aren't settling for second best."

So, he has the right-sided player he was looking for, and now he's looking for another one. I'm sorry but, he has clearly said in that statement that Wilkshire is the right-sided player he was after. If he is now admitting that Wilkshire is not that player, then why should the board find further funds to cover him?

In addition, Luke was reported thus, on the official website:

Wilkshire, 21, currently has a year left to run on his Boro contract and is seen as a replacement for Scott Murray - who left for Reading in the summer for a deal worth £650,000.

When I read on the official webiste that a player 'is seen as a replacement', I assume that to be the view of the manager, not the writer of the piece.

It is quite clear that, while Luke is a real asset to the club, he is not the player Wilson believed or implied he was buying. As such, I wouldn't blame the board if they refused to stump up further cash to fund the loan or purchase of an additional player to cover Wilson's mistake.

[SimplyRed]

The statements quoted do not specifically say that Wilkshire was purchased as a right winger. They merely mention that a right-sided player was bought to replace Scott Murray.

Without wishing to split hairs, a 'right-sided' player does not have to be a winger, merely one who has a favoured right foot. Also, 'replacing a player' does not mean that it has to be a direct replacement, just that a player of similar quality would be needed to top up the talent that had been lost from the squad by Murray's departure.

Realistically, we were never likely to find a player of Murray's qualities just 'hanging around waiting to be purchased', otherwise wouldn't Reading have bought said player instead of Scott?

Whilst I agree that Wilson probably made an error of judgement when he thought that Wilkshire could fulfil a right midfield role, I don't think that it was necessarily a high-magnitude mistake.

If we don't have a pacy right winger, then we need to use the talent we have to do without. It is not written in the laws of the game that we MUST have a pacy right winger.

I think that Wilkshire and Tinnion have enough creative ability to produce chances from deep and to provide opportunities for overlapping full-backs (and we have some good 'uns!). What we need to do now is work on the strikers to be looking for through-balls as well as the occasional cross.

I guess you could say we need to be adaptive and not rigid in our formation.

[edson]

The statements quoted do not specifically say that Wilkshire was purchased as a right winger.  They merely mention that a right-sided player was bought to replace Scott Murray.

Without wishing to split hairs, a 'right-sided' player does not have to be a winger, merely one who has a favoured right foot.  Also, 'replacing a player' does not mean that it has to be a direct replacement, just that a player of similar quality would be needed to top up the talent that had been lost from the squad by Murray's departure.

Realistically, we were never likely to find a player of Murray's qualities just 'hanging around waiting to be purchased', otherwise wouldn't Reading have bought said player instead of Scott?

Whilst I agree that Wilson probably made an error of judgement when he thought that Wilkshire could fulfil a right midfield role,  I don't  think that it was necessarily a high-magnitude mistake.

If we don't have a pacy right winger, then we need to use the talent we have to do without.  It is not written in the laws of the game that we MUST have a pacy right winger.

I think that Wilkshire and Tinnion have enough creative ability to produce chances from deep and to provide opportunities for overlapping full-backs (and we have some good 'uns!).  What we need to do now is work on the strikers to be looking for through-balls as well as the occasional cross.

I guess you could say we need to be adaptive and not rigid in our formation.

The points you make are reasonable, but I maintain that, when a player is reported as being 'seen as a replacement for Scott Murray', the implication is that he is just that i.e. a player to fill the role vacated by the outgoing player.

I do, however, agree with your final statement regarging rigidity. A good place to start with this would be to tell Mr Carey that Scott has left, and that he can no longer just pop hopeful, aimless balls forwards down the line, especially when he has 30 yards of space yawning in front of him that he could usefully carry the ball into.

[edson]

Without wishing to split hairs, a 'right-sided' player does not have to be a winger, merely one who has a favoured right foot.

I see. Like Harpal Singh, you mean?