Thracian Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 All I can say is the sooner we get Andy King in the team the better. Kelly did this all wrong today. He conceded the initiative from the off and once Palace said "thanks very much" we were always in trouble. Had Kelly started with Hammond and Hume or even 4-3-3 with Horsfield, and had a go at the Palace defence from the off then there might have been some encouragement. But he didn't. Horsfield hasn't justified a place but he got one and did nothing of note. And when we found ourselves on the back foot and a goal down we just hadn't got an attacking outlet. For the second game running Porter received no sort of ball from midfield, none of the passes King could supply in abundance, not to mention a constant threat to the opposition goal. And, as usual Hughes, Johnson and Jarrett (apart from one shot) never threatened the Palace penalty box from start to finish. Kelly shouldn't be surprised. It's never been otherwise really. On a scale of 1/10 their collective attacking rates less than two. Like I've said so often Kelly seems to have no plan B and that's a pity cos Plan A is shit.
Graz Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 I wish people would stop topping old posts. Oh wait, this is a new one? Weird I could swear I've read this before...
renards Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 I wish people would stop topping old posts. Oh wait, this is a new one? Weird I could swear I've read this before... Really necessary????
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 All I can say is the sooner we get Andy King in the team the better. Kelly did this all wrong today. He conceded the initiative from the off and once Palace said "thanks very much" we were always in trouble. Had Kelly started with Hammond and Hume or even 4-3-3 with Horsfield, and had a go at the Palace defence from the off then there might have been some encouragement. But he didn't. Horsfield hasn't justified a place but he got one and did nothing of note. And when we found ourselves on the back foot and a goal down we just hadn't got an attacking outlet. For the second game running Porter received no sort of ball from midfield, none of the passes King could supply in abundance, not to mention a constant threat to the opposition goal. And, as usual Hughes, Johnson and Jarrett (apart from one shot) never threatened the Palace penalty box from start to finish. Kelly shouldn't be surprised. It's never been otherwise really. On a scale of 1/10 their collective attacking rates less than two. Like I've said so often Kelly seems to have no plan B and that's a pity cos Plan A is shit. Seeing as it's you, and your never wrong, I'll have to agree. Oh yeah, how did Louis Dodds get on today?
Simi Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 If he has any sort of talent I don't see why he can't at least make an appearance from the bench as an impact sub.
The Reverend Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 All I can say is the sooner we get Andy King in the team the better. Kelly did this all wrong today. He conceded the initiative from the off and once Palace said "thanks very much" we were always in trouble. Had Kelly started with Hammond and Hume or even 4-3-3 with Horsfield, and had a go at the Palace defence from the off then there might have been some encouragement. But he didn't. Horsfield hasn't justified a place but he got one and did nothing of note. And when we found ourselves on the back foot and a goal down we just hadn't got an attacking outlet. For the second game running Porter received no sort of ball from midfield, none of the passes King could supply in abundance, not to mention a constant threat to the opposition goal. And, as usual Hughes, Johnson and Jarrett (apart from one shot) never threatened the Palace penalty box from start to finish. Kelly shouldn't be surprised. It's never been otherwise really. On a scale of 1/10 their collective attacking rates less than two. Like I've said so often Kelly seems to have no plan B and that's a pity cos Plan A is shit. Well, im sorry Thrac but it isnt gonna happen. However good King may be Kelly just doesnt want to give any youngsters a chance and its been like this for too long. If your ever going to do it nows the time- i mean, we're practically safe. The rest of this season is pretty meaningless and if Kelly doesnt blood some youngsters now he isnt going to do it at all im afraid.
Simi Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 Seeing as it's you, and your never wrong, I'll have to agree. Oh yeah, how did Louis Dodds get on today? 14 Mins he got didn't he
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 14 Mins he got didn't he Indeed, failed to get in the team agian. The genius striker who can score any a wide variety of goals and would catpulte us to Premiership glory should the the evil youngster hating coaching staff give him the chance he has a devine right to, can't even get in Rochdales team.
Thracian Posted 10 March 2007 Author Posted 10 March 2007 Indeed, failed to get in the team agian. The genius striker who can score any a wide variety of goals and would catpulte us to Premiership glory should the the evil youngster hating coaching staff give him the chance he has a devine right to, can't even get in Rochdales team. If Dodds gets six full games for a team judge him then. You know you're football well enough and, underneath, I dioubt even you think there's any purpose on judging an already out of practuise striker on the basis of a short cameo. Why don't you turn over a new leaf and try to be fair to our young players?
Jimmy Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 If Dodds gets six full games for a team judge him then. You know you're football well enough and, underneath, I dioubt even you think there's any purpose on judging an already out of practuise striker on the basis of a short cameo. Why don't you turn over a new leaf and try to be fair to our young players? why dont you turn over a new leaf and take of those blue tinted specs with which you view there every move, seeing this exact same thread after every defeat where we dont create much is getting more tiresome then watching a craig levein side, if your that unhappy about it, vote with your feet and dont go
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 If Dodds gets six full games for a team judge him then. You know you're football well enough and, underneath, I dioubt even you think there's any purpose on judging an already out of practuise striker on the basis of a short cameo. Why don't you turn over a new leaf and try to be fair to our young players? I'll stop putting them down needlessly when you stop building them up to be the Future world XI. It's not about his performance it's about his inabilty to get in the game, says something doesn't it. And I hear he's a midfielder these days
hebangsthedrums Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 If Dodds gets six full games for a team judge him then. You know you're football well enough and, underneath, I dioubt even you think there's any purpose on judging an already out of practuise striker on the basis of a short cameo. Why don't you turn over a new leaf and try to be fair to our young players? Why don't you judge him after 6 games at senior level? As Manwell said, what does him not getting in at rochdale either tell you?
Benji Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 Levi was as bad as the rest of the losers, only kisnorbo and mcaulay deserve to be called footballers in that team, come on milan, ship them ALL out
Simi Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 Why don't you judge him after 6 games at senior level? As Manwell said, what does him not getting in at rochdale either tell you? I'm not sticking up for Dodds but when a new player gets to a club he never get's straight into the team does he ? Fair enough he maybe should have impressed more but 10/15 mins here and there is no good to anyone and defeats the object of him going on loan.
Webbo Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 All I can say is the sooner we get Andy King in the team the better. come off it Thrac your just winding us up now, admit it.
hebangsthedrums Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 I'm not sticking up for Dodds but when a new player gets to a club he never get's straight into the team does he ? Fair enough he maybe should have impressed more but 10/15 mins here and there is no good to anyone and defeats the object of him going on loan. Generally with loan signings that have come from the division above they do. Your second sentence seems to contradict the first - if players never get in straight away, then him getting 15 mins doesnt defeat the object of him going on loan
Jimmy Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 I'm not sticking up for Dodds but when a new player gets to a club he never get's straight into the team does he ? Fair enough he maybe should have impressed more but 10/15 mins here and there is no good to anyone and defeats the object of him going on loan. Mark Yeates, Geoff Horsfield, Larsson. just 3 loanees (2 here) that went straight into the side they went to, most loanees go straight in
hebangsthedrums Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 Mark Yeates, Geoff Horsfield, Larsson. just 3 loanees (2 here) that went straight into the side they went to, most loanees go straight in exactly - thats the whol epoint of short term loans, fair enough season long ones may be different
Simi Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 Generally with loan signings that have come from the division above they do. Your second sentence seems to contradict the first - if players never get in straight away, then him getting 15 mins doesnt defeat the object of him going on loan I suppose but the idea of sending him on loan is to get first team football. 10/15 mins is not going to benifit him much in my opinion but I can see what your saying.
hebangsthedrums Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 I suppose but the idea of sending him on loan is to get first team football. 10/15 mins is not going to benifit him much in my opinion but I can see what your saying. What i think might have happened, and this is just my opinion, is that the manager there may have had a look at his record and thought he was worth a pop for the relatively small wage, then when he got there found he isn't quite up to senior level, or at least isn't as good as he had hoped
Simi Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 What i think might have happened, and this is just my opinion, is that the manager there may have had a look at his record and thought he was worth a pop for the relatively small wage, then when he got there found he isn't quite up to senior level, or at least isn't as good as he had hoped That's a fair point, I would probably agree. Theres no doubt that scoring a lot of goals at that level means that he has some talent. Exploiting that however is a different matter. Maybe he isn't physical enough to play at the higher level. I have never seen much of him so I can't really comment.
davieG Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 I think the reason is the rest of the team started knocking in a bagful of goals, maybe the pressure of Dodds on the bench had some influence on the improvement.
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 I'm not sticking up for Dodds but when a new player gets to a club he never get's straight into the team does he ? Fair enough he maybe should have impressed more but 10/15 mins here and there is no good to anyone and defeats the object of him going on loan. Staight in maybe not but they've played four games since he's been there and he's only there for a month.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.