Robbored Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Its seems that some Forum users are coming up with reason why City lost yesterday.Fingers pointed at Wilson for not making susbstitutions,the ref for disallowing a "good" goal,poor City defending ..........ect,ect. The bottom line is that City's luck ran out.They huffed and puffed but didn't play that well which is a similar to recent games.The difference is that the ball didn't run for City and decisions went against them.Their 'keeper played a blinder, plus the fact that Wednesday scored with virtually the last kick of the game.All factors that suggest to me that yesterday was "just one of those days" Its good that City have another game so soon.It gives the players the opportunity to redeem themselves and I expect the Wycombe players having seen yesterdays result will not fancy a the trip to AG on Tuesday. City will get back on track.Lets not overeact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest redrebel Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 To a large extent I agree but as I drove back from Sheffield I still could not understand why Leroy was not brought on for the last 20 minutes as he clearly unsettled the Peterborough defenders when he came on then and he has pace and eye for a goal.Yet Danny brought on Roberts who has been out of the picture recently.Also why has he gone back to Wilkshire on the wing when I thought he had accepted that due to his lack of any pace he was better in the centre.If anyone has a view I would appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reds Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I dunno. Bit it was better to end our run at a big team rather than sum muppits like Wycombe, if we got what it takes then we should smash them on the rebound.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Also why has he gone back to Wilkshire on the wing when I thought he had accepted that due to his lack of any pace he was better in the centre.If anyone has a view I would appreciate it. Because Danny recently bought Wilkshire for a lot of money, so he has to fit him into the team, regardless of the fact that he isn't the replacement for Murray that Mr Wilson claimed him to be when he signed. We won every game without Luke, and while I like him as a player, he doesn't fit into the team at present. Wilson doesn't want to break up Tommy and Tins, because they have experience and strength, which Luke lacks, so the manager is forced to stick Luke on the wing or leave him on the bench. £250k is a lot of money for a bench-warmer, so Wilson chooses to play him out of position. Luke has never been a winger and never will be, and it is a shame that Wilson doesn't seem to agree with the evidence in front of all our eyes. Still, with a bit of luck, he'll remember that again soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Seems to me if you read the interview with Goodfellow in the Green Un today you get a little insight into why Wilson is playing Wilkshire alongside Tom and Tinman - no not because he cost a lot of money but because he helps to tighten the midfield by playing more tucked in. As a formation I think it works and helps us control the centre but leaves a lot of the onus on Aaron to provide the width and pace - this works if Aaron plays well, if like Sat he has an average game, then admittedly it leaves us with a problem. I assume that is why Roberts came on for Wilkshire (although I think I would have brought on Goodfellow as I thought Roberts was poor). We might have won every game whilst Wilkshire was away but we've also won quite a few with him in the team! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Seems to me if you read the interview with Goodfellow in the Green Un today you get a little insight into why Wilson is playing Wilkshire alongside Tom and Tinman - no not because he cost a lot of money but because he helps to tighten the midfield by playing more tucked in. As a formation I think it works and helps us control the centre but leaves a lot of the onus on Aaron to provide the width and pace - this works if Aaron plays well, if like Sat he has an average game, then admittedly it leaves us with a problem. I assume that is why Roberts came on for Wilkshire (although I think I would have brought on Goodfellow as I thought Roberts was poor). We might have won every game whilst Wilkshire was away but we've also won quite a few with him in the team! I'm glad you agree that Wilkshire playing on the right wing is a good idea. That's two of you. Anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave L Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Luke has never been a winger and never will be, and it is a shame that Wilson doesn't seem to agree with the evidence in front of all our eyes. The evidence in front of my eyes yesterday was that Wilkshire was playing as a right sided midfield player, not a winger, with Carey being given the job of creating width by overlapping on the right hand side. I don't think Wilkshire had the greatest of games as it happens, but he wasn't being played on the wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 The evidence in front of my eyes yesterday was that Wilkshire was playing as a right sided midfield player, not a winger, with Carey being given the job of creating width by overlapping on the right hand side. I don't think Wilkshire had the greatest of games as it happens, but he wasn't being played on the wing. My point exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 The evidence in front of my eyes yesterday was that Wilkshire was playing as a right sided midfield player, not a winger, with Carey being given the job of creating width by overlapping on the right hand side. I don't think Wilkshire had the greatest of games as it happens, but he wasn't being played on the wing. I'm sorry, but regardless of who was overlapping who, we are not getting width and crosses into the box as we should be doing. What's the point of playing two big men up front, if you only have width down one side, in Aaron? Aaron is inconsistent and cannot be relied upon to supply the service our front two require, so we need an outlet on the other side. Regardless of where Wilkshire is now playing, he is one of two players Wilson has so far bought to replace Scott, and neither have done so. Luke hasn't because that in't his position. Goodfellow hasn't because that isn't his position either, not only that but it isn't even his side of the pitch. Danny has had £300k to spend on two replacements for Murray and he has failed to do so with either of his purchases. Simply saying 'Well it was Carey's job to get wide, not Luke's', doesn't get away from that simple fact. Before long, we'll have come full circle, and we'll have Wilson proclaiming Louis as the goal-scoring, attacking midfielder we've been looking for, in attempt to cover up his shortcomings. In another post, someone mentions that Roberts was poor. Only last week, Wilson issued a statement, saying that Roberts has gone off the boil'. Now, how on earth can Christian have played badly after a rallying cry like that? Oh, it's ok, I think I've worked it out. No wonder we have to get Brian Jones in to get players believeing in themselves. Last season, Scott Murray and Chris Roberts scored 43 goals between them. Scott was sold, which wasn't Wilson's fault and Roberts has been dropped (certainly from the position he was scoring goals from). Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why our top-scoring striker from last season who now can't even get on the bench every week might not be 'firing on all cylinders'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 The fact is, we still haven't replaced Scott Murray. And... 1. Goodfellow is left footed and lightweight, 2. Roberts is #### at the moment, and 3. Wilkshire doesn't give you natural width and pace. We're used to having natural width and pace on both wings, something we don't have at this moment in time. The question is, which is more effective? Well, Wilkshire isn't doing a bad job, but I wouldn't be too disspleased to see Goodfellow given another crack at it, because while he didn't set the world alight, he did ok, and probably wasn't given long enough (let's bare in mind every time he started, we won). I'd also be inclined to rest Tinnion for the massive month we face in April and onwards. Tins and Doherty in the middle leave our midfield a little too deep (one of the reason's why on so many occasions yesterday we failed to get sufficent numbers in the box). Though they are different types of player, they both like to sit rather than try and get beyond the two strikers. With height upfront, rather than pace, we need a player capable of getting beyond and linking up with the two Lee's to get the best out of them. Neither Tins or Doherty do this. Wilkshire does. My starting 11 on Tuesday would be, assuming Matt Hill joins the suspended Tony Butler on the sidelines: Phillips Carey - Coles - Fortune - Woodman Goodfellow - Wilkshire - Doherty - Brown Miller - Peacock We still need a natural right winger to get the best out of our system however, and in particular, Tinnion's passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claverham_Red Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 My starting 11 on Tuesday would be, assuming Matt Hill joins the suspended Tony Butler on the sidelines: Phillips Carey - Coles - Fortune - Woodman Goodfellow - Wilkshire - Doherty - Brown Miller - Peacock yep i would have the same 11 players that you have already said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spud55 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I'm with edson. We were well and truly dominated down the right because there was no width there, oh so as Wilkshire is not a winger we play him on the right side of midfield and just give them the right side of the pitch to play in, that is so much more tactically aware than playing a central midfielder on the wing isn't it. Willson has bought in two replacements for Murray, neither of them are as good as the obvious choice, Robbo on the right, Goodfellow is a left winger , and should be providing competition the the inconsistant Brown, and wilkshire although i like him is not a right winger, a right sided midfielder or anything, he is a creative central midfielder. Robbo has his weaknesses, and is not up to murrays standard. But remember how poor Murray was when he first joined, Roberts is a better right winger than Murray was for a long while. I would pretty much agree with your team brendon, but swap robbo for freezer and freezer on the left instead of Brown, who needs a quick kick up the arse to get him going again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted February 29, 2004 Author Share Posted February 29, 2004 Width down the right is a problem.Yesterday we saw both Miller and Peacock going out wide to fetch the ball leaving one short in the middle. If Wilson insists on playing Wilkshire then the best way would surely be 3-5-2. Brown,Tinion,Docherty,Wilkshire and Roberts or Goodfellow across the middle.Certainly at AG this formation would very appropriate with the onus on City to do most the attacking.Not so sure it would be so viable away. Strange that this wasn't discussed when City were 12 unbeaten.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Last season, Scott Murray and Chris Roberts scored 43 goals between them. And we conceded 48. Why the obsession with reinventing Scott Murray when far more often than not we have created enough chances to win no matter who has played where? Yesterday we recorded twice as many attempts on goal as Wednesday; their keeper made two/three great saves; we had a (perfectly good?) goal disallowed; and, like the Owls, we could/should have had two penalties. Christian Roberts himself had two great chances again yesterday - the first was well saved at his nearpost by Pressman, the second he missed the target because (as usual) he went for power instead of placement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Why the obsession with reinventing Scott Murray I don't know. Perhaps you should ask Mr. Wilson why he has spent £300k trying to do just that. Yesterday we recorded twice as many attempts on goal as Wednesday; their keeper made two/three great saves; we had a (perfectly good?) goal disallowed; and, like the Owls, we could/should have had two penalties. While Leroy Lita, who has been an important part of our winning run, sat and watched from the touchline. Christian Roberts himself had two great chances again yesterday - the first was well saved at his nearpost by Pressman, the second he missed the target because (as usual) he went for power instead of placement. Yes, blame Christian's finishing, I should, and doubtless Danny will too, as he did publicly after the Barnsley FA Cup defeat. 'Kicking a man while he's down', I think it's called. Chris Roberts has all but had the confidence ripped out of him this season, then people are surprised when he tries to do too much when his chance finally comes around. Even if we put aside the way his confidence has been torn apart through poor man management and say "He's paid to play for us and he should put that out of his mind when he's on the pitch", Christian has been at the club two years and, apparently, he is still going for power over placement (as usual). Makes you wonder what their coaching them these days, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Isn't it natural that if a player is dropped then their confidence will be lowered, edson? Why is that poor management? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 May I also add it takes a proffesional to bounce back from being dropped. Though Christian Roberts, who did score an excellent number of goals in what was his first full season in Division 2 last term, may be bemused that his poor form led to him being left out, perhaps he should look at Tommy Doherty. Following his stupid act at Wycombe, the club captain who had been playing well, was dropped, and rightly so. But when called upon to return he took his chance well, and is now in the form of his career. It's fair to say Roberts hasn't been treated too well, but it's also fair to say that he hasn't taken the chances he's been given in the first team this season, and failed to produce the goods. He hasn't earned a place in the starting 11. We're a proffesional football club fighting for promotion. We can't afford endless patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 May I also add it takes a proffesional to bounce back from being dropped. Following his stupid act at Wycombe, the club captain who had been playing well, was dropped, and rightly so. But when called upon to return he took his chance well, and is now in the form of his career. It's fair to say Roberts hasn't been treated too well, but it's also fair to say that he hasn't taken the chances he's been given in the first team this season, and failed to produce the goods. He hasn't earned a place in the starting 11. We're a proffesional football club fighting for promotion. We can't afford endless patience. Spot on! but the Wilson bashers need some straws to clutch at - even more so now after we'd heard nothing from them with 11 straight wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Spot on! but the Wilson bashers need some straws to clutch at - even more so now after we'd heard nothing from them with 11 straight wins. Why is questioning individual aspects of the manager's decision-making instantly labelled 'clutching at straws'? I will not judge Wilson's overall ability to do the job until the end of the season, when we are either promoted and he is vindicated, or we are still in this division and he is shown not to be up to it. Having said that, I don't see the problem with asking questions along the way. Whether Christian's drop in form from last season is down to the player's lack of professionalism (as implied by other posters), the management not handling him correctly or even a combination of the two, is a fair debate, but to say that nobody is allowed to question anything the manager does, purely because his team put together an outstanding run of wins, doesn't really add much to the debate. Personally, I think each player needs to be treated on an individual basis and just because 'the stick' works for one player, doesn't mean 'the carrot' might not be better employed on someone else. That, to me, is the essence of good man-management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redtrojan Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I've said it before and i'll say it again,Ray graydon could get our squad of players promoted and i've no doubt wilson will as well.However that does not excuse poor decisions,Edson is quite right,we are desperately unbalanced without a natural right winger,which quite clearly Wilkshire and Goodfellow are not(the goodfellow signing in particular is perplexing).The fact that we have got away with it so spectacularly reinforces how poor this league is.We will get promoted this season,but if DW makes such poor positional decisions next season,we will get found out badly.Hopefully he will learn from his mistakes and improve as the team has,but i was dissappointed to see him return Wilkshire to the right wing.And the calls to drop the tinman above-no,no,no,no,no-have you forgotten how we played without him in the early part of the season,such amnesia that can be generated by a winning run(in which tinman was an instrumental part!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 I will not judge Wilson's overall ability to do the job until the end of the season, when we are either promoted and he is vindicated, or we are still in this division and he is shown not to be up to it. So, your critism of Wilsons man-management skills and his tactical acumen is not judgeing him? We are not at the end of the season yet are we? If you read the original topic of this thread is about not overeacting to one defeat in 12 and after 11 winning games it looks as if you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Red_Rat Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Wilson has been brilliant for us. Think of or our last minute goals,it had to happen to us sometime. Bring on the Wycombe,we'll be back at the top by Tuesday at 9.40pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 So, your critism of Wilsons man-management skills and his tactical acumen is not judgeing him? We are not at the end of the season yet are we? If you read the original topic of this thread is about not overeacting to one defeat in 12 and after 11 winning games it looks as if you are. I said: I will not judge Wilson's overall ability to do the job until the end of the season, when we are either promoted and he is vindicated, or we are still in this division and he is shown not to be up to it. Having said that, I don't see the problem with asking questions along the way. I am asking questions along the way not judging his overall ability to do the job . It helps if you read what I've put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 Semantics! You should have been a Q.C..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 So, your critism of Wilsons........tactical acumen is not judgeing him? Perhaps I should ask you the same question, following on from your previous post on this thread, where you said: Width down the right is a problem.Yesterday we saw both Miller and Peacock going out wide to fetch the ball leaving one short in the middle. If Wilson insists on playing Wilkshire then the best way would surely be 3-5-2. Brown,Tinion,Docherty,Wilkshire and Roberts or Goodfellow across the middle.Certainly at AG this formation would very appropriate with the onus on City to do most the attacking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Semantics! You should have been a Q.C..... Not at all. If anything, you are guilty of using semantics in an attempt to misrepresent what I actually said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 An observation and an alternative - not a direct critism of Wilson.I'm not in the "Wilson out" camp.I have faith in his ability to get out of this awfull division. That said, I have (along with many others) "questioned" some of his early season selections and formations but have never supported his sacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I'm not in the "Wilson out" camp. Nor me. That said, I have (along with many others) "questioned" some of his early season selections and formations but have never supported his sacking. Likewise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.