|
Post by fanboy on Oct 7, 2014 23:11:58 GMT
Excellent performance and thought he looked like he'd get another before half time. Faded second half but ran himself into the ground - and also did much better than HARRISON who did poorly in my opinion (everyone has off days).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 23:20:57 GMT
Surely it's got to be time to give White a proper run of starting games? We can't keep getting lucky forever.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Oct 7, 2014 23:28:58 GMT
Whoever plays up front with Cunnington needs to get closer to him when he's laying it off, I think white might do that.
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Oct 7, 2014 23:43:01 GMT
So he should do better than Harrison Fanboy he had 75 minutes compared to harrisons 15 and by the time Harrison went on we had resorted to pretty well hanging on to what we had so Ellis had little support.
|
|
|
Post by wakeygas on Oct 7, 2014 23:58:11 GMT
I got to be honest, I think Taylor has done well on the most part this season. I do think both strikers were poor Saturday though and I'm a fan of them both. It's worrying that White isn't get many minutes, that tells you a lot about his attitude I think. Why do you think it's about his attitude ? based on what exactly ? Perhaps it's about ability. When I saw White against Halifax he was ok but if i was defender I wouldn't be really that worried about him - physically small and not strong, not much pace. I have to say that White seemed arrogant and complacent when interviewed on joining. I have no problem with confidence but he isn't exactly Ronaldo. However, perhaps its time to give him a chance to show if he can 'walk the talk'.
|
|
|
Post by WeAreTheGas on Oct 8, 2014 9:44:33 GMT
I can see why people want White to start over Taylor, he does deserve a run in the side. BUT, I think the football we'd play with Cunnington-White upfront would be horrendous.
Unlike Taylor, White has no pace, isn't interested in linking up play, doesn't run the channels etc. He's simply a goal poacher who does his work inside the penalty area, and we aren't a team that has enough creativity from midfield to accommodate one of those along side a slow target man IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Oct 8, 2014 10:01:02 GMT
I can see why people want White to start over Taylor, he does deserve a run in the side. BUT, I think the football we'd play with Cunnington-White upfront would be horrendous. Unlike Taylor, White has no pace, isn't interested in linking up play, doesn't run the channels etc. He's simply a goal poacher who does his work inside the penalty area, and we aren't a team that has enough creativity from midfield to accommodate one of those along side a slow target man IMO. Does he? Why isn't he getting one then? There must be a reason he isn't.
|
|
|
Post by WeAreTheGas on Oct 8, 2014 10:10:18 GMT
I can see why people want White to start over Taylor, he does deserve a run in the side. BUT, I think the football we'd play with Cunnington-White upfront would be horrendous. Unlike Taylor, White has no pace, isn't interested in linking up play, doesn't run the channels etc. He's simply a goal poacher who does his work inside the penalty area, and we aren't a team that has enough creativity from midfield to accommodate one of those along side a slow target man IMO. Does he? Why isn't he getting one then? There must be a reason he isn't. I've got no idea why he isn't, but his stats from previous clubs suggests he's potentially the most natural goalscorer we have at the club, and he's barely played any minutes since we were struggling in the early parts of the season. There may be an underlying reason as to why he's not even coming on as a sub atm, in which case fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Oct 8, 2014 10:12:53 GMT
Does he? Why isn't he getting one then? There must be a reason he isn't. I've got no idea why he isn't, but his stats from previous clubs suggests he's potentially the most natural goalscorer we have at the club, and he's barely played any minutes since we were struggling in the early parts of the season. There may be an underlying reason as to why he's not even coming on as a sub atm, in which case fair enough. There's going to be. I trust Clarke enough to not just be leaving him out for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by stapletongas on Oct 8, 2014 11:50:35 GMT
I don't think the lack of goals is necessarily about individuals. Yes the likes of Taylor had a few chances last night and on Saturday that he should have buried, so an element of it is down to poor finishing.
However the way we move the ball from back to front has a lot to do with the lack of goals and chances.
We don't pass our way through and retain the ball. We don't work our way through and in between the opposition lines. The stock ball from full back as an example is the ping up and over and down the line, which time and again has one forward running the channels and if he gets the ball, he's often much further forward than the midfield and has no support, often boxed in and no options. I'm not blaming the players because this must surely be the system the players have been sent out with. What's wrong with a full back finding the shorter ball on the floor inside, centre mid/centre half and then picking your way through with a 5-10 yard game? It keeps support around the ball and defensive protection if you lose the thing. It wouldn't be so bad if we mixed the long game with a short one and showed some variation. These are professionals, they are capable.
So often though last night the ball went high and long down the channel, Taylor or Cunnington got on the end of it but found themselves stranded from there strike partner or too far forward with no support from midfield. And we wonder why we are not scoring. We are not creating, that's a big part of the issue.
Sometimes the ball can go too far forward too quickly. This issue has cropped up in most home games this season a number of times.
Get it down and play a short game
I think the problem is two fold. We are wasting what good chances we are getting, but also the way we move the ball back to front does not create enough chances.
|
|
|
Post by WeAreTheGas on Oct 8, 2014 12:18:40 GMT
I don't think the lack of goals is necessarily about individuals. Yes the likes of Taylor had a few chances last night and on Saturday that he should have buried, so an element of it is down to poor finishing. However the way we move the ball from back to front has a lot to do with the lack of goals and chances. We don't pass our way through and retain the ball. We don't work our way through and in between the opposition lines. The stock ball from full back as an example is the ping up and over and down the line, which time and again has one forward running the channels and if he gets the ball, he's often much further forward than the midfield and has no support, often boxed in and no options. I'm not blaming the players because this must surely be the system the players have been sent out with. What's wrong with a full back finding the shorter ball on the floor inside, centre mid/centre half and then picking your way through with a 5-10 yard game? It keeps support around the ball and defensive protection if you lose the thing. It wouldn't be so bad if we mixed the long game with a short one and showed some variation. These are professionals, they are capable. So often though last night the ball went high and long down the channel, Taylor or Cunnington got on the end of it but found themselves stranded from there strike partner or too far forward with no support from midfield. And we wonder why we are not scoring. We are not creating, that's a big part of the issue. Sometimes the ball can go too far forward too quickly. This issue has cropped up in most home games this season a number of times. Get it down and play a short game I think the problem is two fold. We are wasting what good chances we are getting, but also the way we move the ball back to front does not create enough chances. This is spot on, IMO. When you play a shorter game and pass through the midfield it allows the whole team to progress up the pitch as a unit and, naturally, there will be more support in and around the strikers. As you say, when you hoof it up the pitch to one of the forwards, even if they get on the end of it, it would take a very fit team to be able to constantly sprint forward in support of the strikers and then fall back in position when the move breaks down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 12:22:50 GMT
I don't think the lack of goals is necessarily about individuals. Yes the likes of Taylor had a few chances last night and on Saturday that he should have buried, so an element of it is down to poor finishing. However the way we move the ball from back to front has a lot to do with the lack of goals and chances. We don't pass our way through and retain the ball. We don't work our way through and in between the opposition lines. The stock ball from full back as an example is the ping up and over and down the line, which time and again has one forward running the channels and if he gets the ball, he's often much further forward than the midfield and has no support, often boxed in and no options. I'm not blaming the players because this must surely be the system the players have been sent out with. What's wrong with a full back finding the shorter ball on the floor inside, centre mid/centre half and then picking your way through with a 5-10 yard game? It keeps support around the ball and defensive protection if you lose the thing. It wouldn't be so bad if we mixed the long game with a short one and showed some variation. These are professionals, they are capable. So often though last night the ball went high and long down the channel, Taylor or Cunnington got on the end of it but found themselves stranded from there strike partner or too far forward with no support from midfield. And we wonder why we are not scoring. We are not creating, that's a big part of the issue. Sometimes the ball can go too far forward too quickly. This issue has cropped up in most home games this season a number of times. Get it down and play a short game I think the problem is two fold. We are wasting what good chances we are getting, but also the way we move the ball back to front does not create enough chances. What a great post.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Oct 8, 2014 12:29:03 GMT
I agree with all of that too. What I find interesting is that it is very similar to last season when we're going forward. The main differences and improvements are that Cunnington is better than Harrold as a target man , Trottman is better than McCrystal and we now have Sinclair who in my opinion is already becoming one of my all time favourite players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 13:53:59 GMT
if his finishing was top notch there's no way he'd be in the conference. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by markczgas on Oct 8, 2014 13:56:32 GMT
I don't think the lack of goals is necessarily about individuals. Yes the likes of Taylor had a few chances last night and on Saturday that he should have buried, so an element of it is down to poor finishing. However the way we move the ball from back to front has a lot to do with the lack of goals and chances. We don't pass our way through and retain the ball. We don't work our way through and in between the opposition lines. The stock ball from full back as an example is the ping up and over and down the line, which time and again has one forward running the channels and if he gets the ball, he's often much further forward than the midfield and has no support, often boxed in and no options. I'm not blaming the players because this must surely be the system the players have been sent out with. What's wrong with a full back finding the shorter ball on the floor inside, centre mid/centre half and then picking your way through with a 5-10 yard game? It keeps support around the ball and defensive protection if you lose the thing. It wouldn't be so bad if we mixed the long game with a short one and showed some variation. These are professionals, they are capable. So often though last night the ball went high and long down the channel, Taylor or Cunnington got on the end of it but found themselves stranded from there strike partner or too far forward with no support from midfield. And we wonder why we are not scoring. We are not creating, that's a big part of the issue. Sometimes the ball can go too far forward too quickly. This issue has cropped up in most home games this season a number of times. Get it down and play a short game I think the problem is two fold. We are wasting what good chances we are getting, but also the way we move the ball back to front does not create enough chances. Stop talking so much sense !!!
|
|
|
Post by markczgas on Oct 8, 2014 13:59:14 GMT
I agree with all of that too. What I find interesting is that it is very similar to last season when we're going forward. The main differences and improvements are that Cunnington is better than Harrold as a target man , Trottman is better than McCrystal and we now have Sinclair who in my opinion is already becoming one of my all time favourite players.Steady on Socrates, he's only been here 2 minutes !!!! Having said that - he would be in my first 3 or 4 on the team-sheet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 14:02:12 GMT
I can see why people want White to start over Taylor, he does deserve a run in the side. BUT, I think the football we'd play with Cunnington-White upfront would be horrendous. Unlike Taylor, White has no pace, isn't interested in linking up play, doesn't run the channels etc. He's simply a goal poacher who does his work inside the penalty area, and we aren't a team that has enough creativity from midfield to accommodate one of those along side a slow target man IMO. Ollie, When we had Cureton, at his best, he was called lazy and not a team player by many. Feck me, how I'd love another so darned lazy.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Oct 8, 2014 14:03:54 GMT
I agree with all of that too. What I find interesting is that it is very similar to last season when we're going forward. The main differences and improvements are that Cunnington is better than Harrold as a target man , Trottman is better than McCrystal and we now have Sinclair who in my opinion is already becoming one of my all time favourite players.Steady on Socrates, he's only been here 2 minutes !!!! Having said that - he would be in my first 3 or 4 on the team-sheet. Becoming I said, not is mind. I can't think of a player who's had as good an attitude as him in years though, and he doesn't just talk the talk he plays like he talks too. And he plays with a smile on his face which is great to see.
|
|
|
Post by Staffordshire Gas on Oct 8, 2014 14:35:09 GMT
I can see why people want White to start over Taylor, he does deserve a run in the side. BUT, I think the football we'd play with Cunnington-White upfront would be horrendous. Unlike Taylor, White has no pace, isn't interested in linking up play, doesn't run the channels etc. He's simply a goal poacher who does his work inside the penalty area, and we aren't a team that has enough creativity from midfield to accommodate one of those along side a slow target man IMO. Ollie, When we had Cureton, at his best, he was called lazy and not a team player by many. Feck me, how I'd love another so darned lazy. Saw Cureton score three for us at The Brittania.Jason Roberts awesome that day and the Stokies I worked with silenced.Bit different now though!
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Oct 8, 2014 14:44:16 GMT
Stapletongas has it exactly right but the worrying thing is that Clarke is obviously sending them out to play the way they do or he would be dropping players who don't follow his instructions. In truth it is not producing bad results against either top sides in this league or the lower sides but lack of goals does very much lead us to scraping games or being caught out like saturday. Like Stapletongas says I would love to see us playing more football and also the defence moving up to the half way line forcing the opponents to use up energy getting back onside. I haven't really seen many lightning quick players who are going to catch our defence out and it would really help our midfield if play was compacted more and also playing that way our forwards would not have to run the channels so much and could stay in position to hopefully at least get the chances
|
|