The People's Hero Posted 10 December 2006 Share Posted 10 December 2006 Seemed to play a fairly significant role in Porter's goal. Was he any good yesterday? I have to admit, I've only seen us three times live this season (+ the sky games) and Sylla has impressed me when he's featured this season. He is what he is... but I think he's been the most effective for us on the right. What's the verdict those of you who've seen more of him/saw him yesterday? Why does he keep completely dissappearing from the squad and then straight back in the XI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe. Posted 10 December 2006 Share Posted 10 December 2006 Seemed to play a fairly significant role in Porter's goal. Was he any good yesterday? I have to admit, I've only seen us three times live this season (+ the sky games) and Sylla has impressed me when he's featured this season. He is what he is... but I think he's been the most effective for us on the right. What's the verdict those of you who've seen more of him/saw him yesterday? Why does he keep completely dissappearing from the squad and then straight back in the XI? Sorry mate but have you been taking something you shouldn't? Sylla didn't even play yesterday Elvis set up Levi's goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 10 December 2006 Author Share Posted 10 December 2006 Sorry mate but have you been taking something you shouldn't? Sylla didn't even play yesterday Elvis set up Levi's goal. Haha! No, no drugs, just only just caught the highlights. I fortuitously awoke and turned on as we came on, rather than the usual couple of minutes/hours after! So in that case, what do you make of the right wing situation? It's an interesting one in my opinion as RK seems to chop and change it so much he's obviously not convinced himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilworthfox Posted 10 December 2006 Share Posted 10 December 2006 Sorry mate but have you been taking something you shouldn't? Sylla didn't even play yesterday Elvis set up Levi's goal. ok he did not play! But lets get something straightened out right now! Levi's goal was made by himself, passing the ball sideways 25yards out then watching as he takes on 2 defenders and beats the goalie is not a significant role in the goal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe. Posted 10 December 2006 Share Posted 10 December 2006 Haha! No, no drugs, just only just caught the highlights. I fortuitously awoke and turned on as we came on, rather than the usual couple of minutes/hours after! So in that case, what do you make of the right wing situation? It's an interesting one in my opinion as RK seems to chop and change it so much he's obviously not convinced himself. The right wing situation is not good. Sylla should definitely be playing. Low as we know is just bloody useless Stearman can't play there Likewise with Hughes Basically we need somebody in January desperately. It could be the key to our downfall or success Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilworthfox Posted 10 December 2006 Share Posted 10 December 2006 Haha! No, no drugs, just only just caught the highlights. I fortuitously awoke and turned on as we came on, rather than the usual couple of minutes/hours after! So in that case, what do you make of the right wing situation? It's an interesting one in my opinion as RK seems to chop and change it so much he's obviously not convinced himself. Hughesy is ineffective at Right mid which is not his fault as he is a central midfielder, but RK must know that the current crop of right mids aint up to it, as he continues with SH when williams is fit to start. Low is no way good enough, sylla has his moments but they come and pass too quickly, so who else is there Rk's answer seems to be Hughes until jan hopefully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 10 December 2006 Author Share Posted 10 December 2006 From what I've seen this season.. my answer would be Sylla. Hughes could be an option if we wanted to keep the game narrow I suppose but as has been identified, he's a central midfielder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 10 December 2006 Share Posted 10 December 2006 He did well to set up the goal yesterday to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 10 December 2006 Author Share Posted 10 December 2006 He did well to set up the goal yesterday to be fair. Yeah, and it turned out to be Hammond, who I'd been slagging off for weeks. He's still sh it though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 10 December 2006 Share Posted 10 December 2006 ok he did not play! But lets get something straightened out right now! Levi's goal was made by himself, passing the ball sideways 25yards out then watching as he takes on 2 defenders and beats the goalie is not a significant role in the goal I'm sorry, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that assists were credited to anyone who supplied the final pass. A pity in some ways because Levi supplied two passes in the move which led to Hughes' goal against Wednesday but not the final pass. Once you start departing from the criteria you might as well take dummy runs and every player involved in the move into account. Not that I doubt your point which is that Porter made the goal for himself out of nothing. But you have to have some sort of yardstick for defining the figures. It's like shots on target counting as goals. Hughes' shot against Wednesday would almost certainly have been saved but for the deflection but Hughes gets the goal and I'm perfectly happy to accept that. If he hadn't have shot he certainly wouldn't have scored and had Hammond not supplied a pass, Porter wouldn't have had possession and therefore wouldn't in all probability have gone on to score. Pedantic I know. But, assists don't get defined by the difficulty of the final pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilworthfox Posted 10 December 2006 Share Posted 10 December 2006 I'm sorry, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that assists were credited to anyone who supplied the final pass. A pity in some ways because Levi supplied two passes in the move which led to Hughes' goal against Wednesday but not the final pass. Once you start departing from the criteria you might as well take dummy runs and every player involved in the move into account. Not that I doubt your point which is that Porter made the goal for himself out of nothing. But yoju have to have some sort of yardstick for defining the figures. It's like shots on target counting as goals. Hughes' shot against Wednesday would almost certainly have been saved but for the deflection but Hughes gets the goal and I'm perfectly happy to accept that. If he hadn't have shot he certainly wouldn't have scored and had Hammond not supplied a pass, Porter wouldn't have had possession and therefore wouldn't in all probability have gone on to score. Pedantic I know. But, assists don't get defined by the difficulty of the final pass. True i wanted to say that the pass did not make the goal & that it was ALL Levi Porter who eot us the extra 2 points I do however think that assists should be a statistic that is just as important to people as goals! It IMO wolud be nice if we could see football stats on assists given the same importance as goals like in Ice Hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonbluefox9 Posted 10 December 2006 Share Posted 10 December 2006 We were very narrow down the right yesterday but that's what you get with Hughes. I think Kelly may have been trying to revert back to a similar system as we played towards the end of last season with one winger down the left (Porter but it was Welsh for a few games last season) and Hughes on the right. Stearman could've over-lapped a bit more because at times Hammond was coming wide right, holding the ball up and neither Hughes nor Stearman were making a run around the outside to offer an option. Last season Stearman wouldn't have thought twice about making an attacking run but he seems a little more reluctant this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 11 December 2006 Share Posted 11 December 2006 We were very narrow down the right yesterday but that's what you get with Hughes. I think Kelly may have been trying to revert back to a similar system as we played towards the end of last season with one winger down the left (Porter but it was Welsh for a few games last season) and Hughes on the right. Stearman could've over-lapped a bit more because at times Hammond was coming wide right, holding the ball up and neither Hughes nor Stearman were making a run around the outside to offer an option. Last season Stearman wouldn't have thought twice about making an attacking run but he seems a little more reluctant this season. You touch on the very essence of Kelly's philosophy. It is all about being "hard to beat" as he describes it. He sometimes refers to "it's what we do that matters" but never quite has the belief to play in such a way that other teams have to worry about us. The trouble is that over a period the whole system is far too vulnerable to games ending in a draw or an one-goal defeat because we won't generally score often enough. Psychologically the philosophy is also made for concceding towards the end of a half because it is invariably us who have conceded the initiative. Even if we go in front we focus on holding it rather than on scoring again and too often the strategy fails.. Playing both Hughes and Tiatto tilts the balance too much towards defence, and more especially if neither full-back attacks. They say RK is an educated man so why does he find this so hard to understand?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 11 December 2006 Share Posted 11 December 2006 You touch on the very essence of Kelly's philosophy. It is all about being "hard to beat" as he describes it. He sometimes refers to "it's what we do that matters" but never quite has the belief to play in such a way that other teams have to worry about us. The trouble is that over a period the whole system is far too vulnerable to games ending in a draw or an one-goal defeat because we won't generally score often enough. Psychologically the philosophy is also made for concceding towards the end of a half because it is invariably us who have conceded the initiative. Even if we go in front we focus on holding it rather than on scoring again and too often the strategy fails.. Playing both Hughes and Tiatto tilts the balance too much towards defence, and more especially if neither full-back attacks. They say RK is an educated man so why does he find this so hard to understand?. It worked on Saturday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 11 December 2006 Share Posted 11 December 2006 Little and MON had that philosophy, but the main differences were that we played to our strengths, we played our own game, and the character of the managers. I don't mind being hard to beat, but I certainly enjoyed my football back in those days. I don't like harping on about the past, but it's the inevitable comparitor, and the highs always come back more when you're in the lows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.