|
Post by Okebournegas on Mar 29, 2016 20:48:39 GMT
Forgive me if I'm wrong and I wasn't at the game, but I was under the impression that leadbitter was dropped and replaced with parkes to add extra height as dc knew that Carlisle like to play long high balls into the box? Surely if that is the case DC got his tactics right? I am a huge fan of leadbitter and he is one of my favourite players but in this occasion I have to side with the tactics deployed. UTG ! We let 3 goals in. Parkes doesn't offer an attacking threat. Parkes is slower. The OP refers to DLs pace and defensive ability. Like I said hindsight is a wonderful thing I'm aware we let in 3 goals but from what I saw at the mem I would of also gone with parkes as he is much stronger than leadbitter and not as easily muscled off the ball and from what I remember they were also quite a physical team as well as direct hoof ball. All about opinions I suppose we will agree to disagree
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 23:28:28 GMT
some very well thought out comments on this thread but for me its simple,always play daniel leadbitter as hes one of our best players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 0:43:28 GMT
Leads Clarke Locks Brown for me
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 30, 2016 7:46:18 GMT
some very well thought out comments on this thread but for me its simple,always play daniel leadbitter as hes one of our best players. Results away from home don't support the fact he's a better FB than JC although at the Mem's a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Mar 30, 2016 9:58:20 GMT
some very well thought out comments on this thread but for me its simple,always play daniel leadbitter as hes one of our best players. Results away from home don't support the fact he's a better FB than JC although at the Mem's a different matter. Be interesting to know what facts you are referring to? Mistake (if there was one) was replacing J Clarke with Parkes and moving JC back to fullback. Personally, I believe in starting with leadbitter because of his energy and changing if he gets no joy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 10:03:21 GMT
some very well thought out comments on this thread but for me its simple,always play daniel leadbitter as hes one of our best players. Results away from home don't support the fact he's a better FB than JC although at the Mem's a different matter. theres 11 players on a pitch so i dont think results are ever about one of them,i like our manager just dont agree with him on this one,i always want to see leads start
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 10:15:47 GMT
Leadbitter Lockyer Mcchrystal Brown for me Depends on the game, thats an attacking defence, but if we need a proper defence the Clarke in for Leadbitter.
|
|
|
Post by fanboy on Mar 30, 2016 10:24:42 GMT
I would always start Leadbitter. He's pacey and exciting to watch.
HOWEVER:
I think this is the reason we are fans and not managers. Whilst watching Leads is more exciting, it is not uncommon that a football manager would favour a solid defensive right back in most games, especially away from home. And I think this is why DC so regularly opts for James Clarke.
For example, last season, I think most would admit that in January - they'd have preferred to see a pacey left winger signed to play instead of Andy Monkhouse. Truth be told, Monkhouse was pretty damn boring to watch. VERY slow. But his performances were a key part in us winning promotion. He was solid, defended well, and linked play nicely. But personally; i'd have messed up our chances by signing a pacey attacking winger.
I can see why DC opts for James Clarke and to be honest, he's probably right to. I have to say also that I disagree with some of the harsh comments on Tom Parkes offering nothing going forward. Even if he doesn't necessarily offer anything in terms of headers towards goal at the other end, I think the way he plays - his passing play - and his drives forward do actually instigate a lot of our attacking moves. Significantly more so than Lockyer offers. My first choice centre back pairing would ALWAYS be Lockyer and Parkes. I think both have fantastic potential and compliment eachother well. What I will say is i'm not too keen on having 2 left footed centre backs paired together as is the case with Macca and Parkesy.
James Clarke has played AT LEAST 3 hospital balls in his last 2 games that we were very lucky to escape unharmed from. I like him, he's been a great signing - a bargain. But I'm not a fan of him in a 2 man centre back pairing AT ALL. In fact he scares the sh** out of me. And whilst Parkes also has a history of being a bit risky, I think that's his type of game rather than genuine mistakes.
If you look at the goals we conceded on Monday, however, the first was a lack of midfield that gave the guy the space - and to his credit was an unbelievable finish. The second, yes, was ridiculously poor in the centre of defence. But the third, i think, came through the left of defence. Coincidentally none of the goals actually suggested the player at right back would have stopped it happening.
|
|
|
Post by peterhooper57 on Mar 30, 2016 10:24:43 GMT
Leadbitter, Lockyer, James Clarke, Brown for me.
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Mar 30, 2016 10:29:58 GMT
Its a difficult one this one and its hard to call because you can't just go by results because there is seldom just one change ie if it was a case of just judging changing JC and DL then you could probably come to a reasonable judgement however the game against Carlisle for instance saw Parkes replacing Lockyer plus James Clarke replacing Leadbitter. This is also true of many of the players and a good example is Jermaine Easter who came on and played Central midfield/between the two strikers and midfield and IMO gave a Man of the Match performance but I would be shocked if he starts there Saturday or even starts at all. I am of the old school of "Never change a winning team" but DC is of a new age of Manager and treats every game as completely separate and also training is very important and can determine also whether a player plays.In the good old days you had players who were awful trainers but played every game. My opinion for what its worth is that a team is picked based on how they play in the matches and whether they are match fit. It is very difficult to criticise DC because results speak for themselves and 6 wins out of 7 games is bloody good going!! It is very easy to criticise decisions when they lose as I find reporting on every games because you try to allocate blame for that individual match. IMO we lost Mondays match not because of team selection but because we were trying to win the game after pulling level whereas many Managers would have just tightened up and held on to a draw. Well done DC for going for the win but on Monday it was just not to be- we were very unlucky not to win!
|
|
|
Post by 2nd May 1990 on Mar 30, 2016 10:33:33 GMT
I would always start Leadbitter. He's pacey and exciting to watch. HOWEVER: I think this is the reason we are fans and not managers. Whilst watching Leads is more exciting, it is not uncommon that a football manager would favour a solid defensive right back in most games, especially away from home. And I think this is why DC so regularly opts for James Clarke. For example, last season, I think most would admit that in January - they'd have preferred to see a pacey left winger signed to play instead of Andy Monkhouse. Truth be told, Monkhouse was pretty damn boring to watch. VERY slow. But his performances were a key part in us winning promotion. He was solid, defended well, and linked play nicely. But personally; i'd have messed up our chances by signing a pacey attacking winger. I can see why DC opts for James Clarke and to be honest, he's probably right to. I have to say also that I disagree with some of the harsh comments on Tom Parkes offering nothing going forward. Even if he doesn't necessarily offer anything in terms of headers towards goal at the other end, I think the way he plays - his passing play - and his drives forward do actually instigate a lot of our attacking moves. Significantly more so than Lockyer offers. My first choice centre back pairing would ALWAYS be Lockyer and Parkes. I think both have fantastic potential and compliment eachother well. What I will say is i'm not too keen on having 2 left footed centre backs paired together as is the case with Macca and Parkesy. James Clarke has played AT LEAST 3 hospital balls in his last 2 games that we were very lucky to escape unharmed from. I like him, he's been a great signing - a bargain. But I'm not a fan of him in a 2 man centre back pairing AT ALL. In fact he scares the sh** out of me. And whilst Parkes also has a history of being a bit risky, I think that's his type of game rather than genuine mistakes. If you look at the goals we conceded on Monday, however, the first was a lack of midfield that gave the guy the space - and to his credit was an unbelievable finish. The second, yes, was ridiculously poor in the centre of defence. But the third, i think, came through the left of defence. Coincidentally none of the goals actually suggested the player at right back would have stopped it happening. [ Excellent post. Totally agree re Parkes, too. Him and Locks is our most balanced centre back pairing.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 30, 2016 10:38:29 GMT
Its a difficult one this one and its hard to call because you can't just go by results because there is seldom just one change ie if it was a case of just judging changing JC and DL then you could probably come to a reasonable judgement however the game against Carlisle for instance saw Parkes replacing Lockyer plus James Clarke replacing Leadbitter. This is also true of many of the players and a good example is Jermaine Easter who came on and played Central midfield/between the two strikers and midfield and IMO gave a Man of the Match performance but I would be shocked if he starts there Saturday or even starts at all. I am of the old school of "Never change a winning team" but DC is of a new age of Manager and treats every game as completely separate and also training is very important and can determine also whether a player plays.In the good old days you had players who were awful trainers but played every game. My opinion for what its worth is that a team is picked based on how they play in the matches and whether they are match fit. It is very difficult to criticise DC because results speak for themselves and 6 wins out of 7 games is bloody good going!! It is very easy to criticise decisions when they lose as I find reporting on every games because you try to allocate blame for that individual match. IMO we lost Mondays match not because of team selection but because we were trying to win the game after pulling level whereas many Managers would have just tightened up and held on to a draw. Well done DC for going for the win but on Monday it was just not to be- we were very unlucky not to win! Good points made by FB & SK, I guess we wouldn't be having the inquest now if DC had just accepted the draw, but on the flip side we'd have all been calling him the new messiah if he had manage to pull off a famous win. I guess it's now time to move on to the next "project"?
|
|
|
Post by oddsongas on Mar 30, 2016 10:49:30 GMT
Its a difficult one this one and its hard to call because you can't just go by results because there is seldom just one change ie if it was a case of just judging changing JC and DL then you could probably come to a reasonable judgement however the game against Carlisle for instance saw Parkes replacing Lockyer plus James Clarke replacing Leadbitter. This is also true of many of the players and a good example is Jermaine Easter who came on and played Central midfield/between the two strikers and midfield and IMO gave a Man of the Match performance but I would be shocked if he starts there Saturday or even starts at all. I am of the old school of "Never change a winning team" but DC is of a new age of Manager and treats every game as completely separate and also training is very important and can determine also whether a player plays.In the good old days you had players who were awful trainers but played every game. My opinion for what its worth is that a team is picked based on how they play in the matches and whether they are match fit. It is very difficult to criticise DC because results speak for themselves and 6 wins out of 7 games is bloody good going!! It is very easy to criticise decisions when they lose as I find reporting on every games because you try to allocate blame for that individual match. IMO we lost Mondays match not because of team selection but because we were trying to win the game after pulling level whereas many Managers would have just tightened up and held on to a draw. Well done DC for going for the win but on Monday it was just not to be- we were very unlucky not to win! The last few sentences sum it up for me! I'm so glad we are actually going for a win. Another time we win the 3-2 and it's a good comeback, it wasn't meant to be, but the fact we tried to win it encourages me greatly.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadbatesy on Mar 30, 2016 13:05:05 GMT
Leads Clarke Lockyer brown for me. Not even the bench for macca.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 14:34:19 GMT
James Clarke had a shocker at Carlisle and for me is brilliant in a 3 man central defence but it no right back on a big pitch like Carlisle has.
Leads for me every time
|
|
|
Post by gaffers on Mar 30, 2016 18:05:24 GMT
I totally agree leads should be in the line up every week, I don't agree you play a different team to counter act your opponents strengths(well maybe alittle) but I think you should concentrate more on your own strengths and leads would be in there all the time if that's the case and yet again proved it against Cambridge...the lads need to know a starting eleven that is the best out of the bunch and it's all done on merit and their strengths will only get better, it's not premiership standard that players can swap week to week from playing to a different position or not playing at all! Monty was joint m.o.m for me against Cambridge and dragged him off?? You can't do that to a lad who has been very patient all season and leave players on who don't have the legs anymore...at any standard especially after watching England vs Holland it shows it hardly pays to change formation and players positions?? I think I would be very watered off if I waited a while for my chance took it with both hands and proved a point to be dragged off so early...he will lose the players if that Carrys on...you earn your spot you stay..play to our strengths and try not to be too clever trying to cancel there's out....before if a team had a star player you had one or two mark him not change formation..watching rovers at twerton I knew the line up before the game as I knew who played well the week before and everyone had to fight to get in...leads for me every time as long as he played to his best and there's more to come from him as well...
|
|
|
Post by spiess1 on Mar 30, 2016 18:40:05 GMT
Look at the table.
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Mar 30, 2016 19:22:27 GMT
This is slightly understated so Look at the table
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 30, 2016 19:37:12 GMT
I totally agree leads should be in the line up every week, I don't agree you play a different team to counter act your opponents strengths(well maybe alittle) but I think you should concentrate more on your own strengths and leads would be in there all the time if that's the case and yet again proved it against Cambridge...the lads need to know a starting eleven that is the best out of the bunch and it's all done on merit and their strengths will only get better, it's not premiership standard that players can swap week to week from playing to a different position or not playing at all! Monty was joint m.o.m for me against Cambridge and dragged him off?? You can't do that to a lad who has been very patient all season and leave players on who don't have the legs anymore...at any standard especially after watching England vs Holland it shows it hardly pays to change formation and players positions?? I think I would be very watered off if I waited a while for my chance took it with both hands and proved a point to be dragged off so early...he will lose the players if that Carrys on...you earn your spot you stay..play to our strengths and try not to be too clever trying to cancel there's out....before if a team had a star player you had one or two mark him not change formation..watching rovers at twerton I knew the line up before the game as I knew who played well the week before and everyone had to fight to get in...leads for me every time as long as he played to his best and there's more to come from him as well... I get it, keeping Montano happy was more important than making sure we didn't get a hammering on Monday? Surely that's the type of thinking which led to us being relegated to the Conference?
|
|
|
Post by gaffers on Mar 30, 2016 20:18:41 GMT
I totally agree leads should be in the line up every week, I don't agree you play a different team to counter act your opponents strengths(well maybe alittle) but I think you should concentrate more on your own strengths and leads would be in there all the time if that's the case and yet again proved it against Cambridge...the lads need to know a starting eleven that is the best out of the bunch and it's all done on merit and their strengths will only get better, it's not premiership standard that players can swap week to week from playing to a different position or not playing at all! Monty was joint m.o.m for me against Cambridge and dragged him off?? You can't do that to a lad who has been very patient all season and leave players on who don't have the legs anymore...at any standard especially after watching England vs Holland it shows it hardly pays to change formation and players positions?? I think I would be very watered off if I waited a while for my chance took it with both hands and proved a point to be dragged off so early...he will lose the players if that Carrys on...you earn your spot you stay..play to our strengths and try not to be too clever trying to cancel there's out....before if a team had a star player you had one or two mark him not change formation..watching rovers at twerton I knew the line up before the game as I knew who played well the week before and everyone had to fight to get in...leads for me every time as long as he played to his best and there's more to come from him as well... I get it, keeping Montano happy was more important than making sure we didn't get a hammering on Monday? Surely that's the type of thinking which led to us being relegated to the Conference? If you read properly what I wrote your see I'm saying having a team that play every week together and to their strenghs is better and more consistent than playing different systems and players every week?? I don't think that's an attitude of someone who wants a team relegated Never mind you don't get it
|
|