lookwhaticando Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 RE: the point about using McCarthy at RB and McAuley at CB... I thought Cap'n McCarthy had supposedly poor distribution, rendering somewhat less useful at RB. Sure he has more pace than McAuley, making him better suited to mazy runs up the flank... but surely with poor distribution (if I remember rightly) he'd be less than effective. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather McAuley was at CB where he's supposed to be. Surely using either McAuley or McCarthy at RB is a serious exercise in compromise? One has the pace but not the passing, the other has the passing but not the pace - or so I'm led to believe. Bottom line is - quit mucking about, let's just play 3-5-2 already. :thumbsup:
Thracian Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 Where's Hullfox's ratings - it's time someone trimmed Porter's average!
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 Funny how sometimes Weso and Tiatto can make really positive contributions to games, and other times they're hardly noticed. Anyone hazard an explanation for this?
MBK Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 Funny how sometimes Weso and Tiatto can make really positive contributions to games, and other times they're hardly noticed. Anyone hazard an explanation for this? Usually we defend. Somehow yest we did not
Yaxx Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 Usually we defend. Somehow yest we did not I agree. Normally Kelly insists on a very defensive formation and the resulting play is very negative - just look how awful we were against Sunderland for instance. Yet given a more attacking formation our mindset is completely different. Yesterday we looked fluid and dynamic with a real bite about our play. The players looked a different class (well most of them anyway) and it was brilliant to watch. It was just a shame we had the lowest attendance for a long long time watching it! Come on Kelly, be brave. Let's stop this negative shite in the league and get up and at 'em!!
lildave3 Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 That's very harsh on Fryatt. He was definitely one of our best players today Harsh on the whole team
Hullfox Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 Where's Hullfox's ratings - it's time someone trimmed Porter's average! Still recovering from the near miss (see General Chat) Henderson 7 - Looked to distribute to the full backs who made themselves available at last. McAuley 8 - Has played for his country in this position and deserves to be playing. McCarthy 7 - Tidy enough Kisnorbo 8 - Gives us all week in week out. Maybury 7 - Showing more commitment Hughes 7 - Great engine again for an hour Williams 7.5 - Sees and makes passes that others aren't up to at times Tiatto 7.5 - I thought Tiatto was excellent whilst his legs lasted, he continually broke down Fulham's attacks in the middle third. Porter 8.5 - Outstanding going forward, still naive at times defensively but who wouldn't live with those performances week in week out. The jury is out on whether he can reproduce this week in week out, I hope he does. Hume 7 - He's not in a rich vein of form but you'd still pick him. Fryatt 7 - Matty is getting back to form and just needs a goal now. Wesolowski 7 - 6 would have seemed harsh because he took over well enough. Cadamarteri 8 - Maybe he'll win over some of his early critics now. Kelly - 7 A job well done. Shame on those few who sang "you don't know what you're doing" when he brought Hume off. He did it at Hull also and it worked there.
Thracian Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 I forgot to give Kelly a rating but I'd concur with 7. Whatever reservations I have about the detail of it, that was a completely different Leicester City and one you could be proud of. His substitutions were positive and effective. He got 90 minutes out of Fryatt which was much needed. He played a team which was fit enough to do itself justice. We used the width of the field with good effect. Kelly seemed to get a lot out of people even though some were in unfamiliar territory and, most of all, the game was worth watching. Fulham contributed to that. It shouldn't be forgotten that they had some wonderful chances too and the outcome could have been 5-5. But that was always likely to be the case. I've always taken the view it's not so much what we don't do as what we do. And on this occasion we did get in their half and we did so with purpose. He did certain things I'd never have dreamed of but there's not just one way that works in football. Management is all about effect and Kelly's decisions yesterday had the right effect.
Wils Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 Hendo 7 Maybes 6 Kisnorbo 7 Paddy M 7 McAuley 8 Porter 8 Williams 6 Tiatto 6 Hughes 6 Fryatt 8 Hume 7
act smiley Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 Henderson - 7 - competent. McAuley - 7 - a little bit out of position at times, but coped with being at right back okay. McCarthy - 7 - Decent showing, but one or two rather nervous moments. Barely a 7. Kisnorbo - 8 - played well and kept them pretty quiet for the most part, good goal. Maybury - 7 - decent, but nothing spectacular. A little nervous in going forward at times but on the whole was quite well balanced. Hughes - 7 - Reasonable, but nothing special. Tiatto - 7 - Worked hard and that was good, but he started to lose his legs and the subbing was the right move. Williams - 8 Good passing and did everything else well enough. Porter - 9 - great. Made so much space it was amazing - created so many chances and only made one dodgy pass in the entire match. Deserved an assist and a classy one at that. Fryatt - 7 he did cause some trouble, but rarely got good shots in. Did get quite involved but wasn't special. Hume - 7 worked well, created quite a bit and caused them trouble, some reasonable attempts and would have got an 8 except the shocking miss. Cadamarteri - 8 kept up the pressure well, couple of good chances and a great goal. Wesolowski - 7 solid and dependable. Rob Kelly? Probably an 8. The decisions did work! More of this in the league, please!
reynard Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 henderson 6 no chance with the goals. mcauley 8 excellent. looked a little short of pace but was well protected by hughes. kisnorbo 7 good goal and better than of late caught flat footed for their 1st goal. mccarthy 7 good competitive performance maybury 7.5 he played well today. 1 great forward run in the first half should have resulted in a goal and was it not his ball to porter that set up the 2nd goal? hughes 8 very good performance especially in the first half. really helped out defensively as well. tiatto 7 good display. some timely challenges and some good passes to release porter. williams 6 sorry but though he wasn't poor i lost count of the number of times he passed to the opposition or simply on 2 occassions into touch. he made 1 tackle in the whole game i remeber for which he was booked. not involved enough if we had had a quality player in his position we would probably have won. porter 9 excellent performance. hume 6 missed a sitter but worked hard. fryatt 7 no real chances and still doesn't see the obvious pass but some of his play was very good indeed especially with his back to goal. danny c 8 great impact what more can you say. weso 6 fine
Daggers Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 Henderson 5 Positioning wrong too often, distribution verged on the idiotic at times McAuley 7 Could do little when attacked McCarthy 5 Gobby displays to the ref and some feeble defending Kisnorbo 8 Made up for Captain Cock-up next to him Maybury 5 Kept going to his right foot & failed to support attacks down the line Hughes 7 He's not a winger Williams 6.5 I want more bite from him Tiatto 8 Another it does what it says on the tin performance Porter 7 I found him wanting as a winger, again Hume 7.5 Shame about the miss, felt he offered far more than Fryatt Fryatt 6 I wanted him subbed, he kept running into the same space as Hume in the box Wesolowski 7 Did a job Cadamarteri 7.5 What he lacked in pace he made up for in a cross and a goal Kelly I still believe the performance yesterday had more to do with the players lifting themselves than Kelly influencing anything. There were periods where we vanished, when we couldn't lay off one damn pass...and yet he wasn't offering anything from the touchline.
Simi Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 Henderson 5 Positioning wrong too often, distribution verged on the idiotic at times McAuley 7 Could do little when attacked McCarthy 5 Gobby displays to the ref and some feeble defending Kisnorbo 8 Made up for Captain Cock-up next to him Maybury 5 Kept going to his right foot & failed to support attacks down the line Hughes 7 He's not a winger Williams 6.5 I want more bite from him Tiatto 8 Another it does what it says on the tin performance Porter 7 I found him wanting as a winger, again Hume 7.5 Shame about the miss, felt he offered far more than Fryatt Fryatt 6 I wanted him subbed, he kept running into the same space as Hume in the box Wesolowski 7 Did a job Cadamarteri 7.5 What he lacked in pace he made up for in a cross and a goal Kelly I still believe the performance yesterday had more to do with the players lifting themselves than Kelly influencing anything. There were periods where we vanished, when we couldn't lay off one damn pass...and yet he wasn't offering anything from the touchline. Fair assumption of the match. McAuley did offer little going forward which is why I don't know why Kelly played him at right back. As some people have suggested maybe Kelly is avoiding having Stearman cuptied. Also agree that the players did lift themselves and it wasn't too much down to Kelly.
The Stig Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 Hendo 6 Did what was required but kicks were not good McAuley 6 Not got the pace to play right back but shouldnt have been played there in the first place Paddy Mac 7 Did what was required and looked improved Paddy Kis 8 Solid as normal Maybury 5 Right back he should be played not left, did poorly coming forward Hughes 7 Still prefer him at CM but we have no one else, did well Williams 6,5 Did what was expected but could have been been better Tiatto 7 Like him at CM, solid and improving well Porter 7 For such a young lad hes doing well Hume & Fryatt 7 NEED GAMES TOGETHER, i like it when they play together and goals from both of them are on thier way Weso 6 Looked Solid DC 678 I was so happy when he scored, just for that finish he made my night, worked hard, good finsih looked good. ( 7 really! )
dannyallen1992 Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 Henderson-6 McAuley-7 Kisnorbo-8 McCarthy-6 Maybury-5 Hughes-6 Williams-7 Tiatto-7 Porter-9 Fryatt-7 Hume-8 Cadamarteri-8 Weso-5
Sparky Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 mccarthty man of the match in the notw . was the match reporter pis sed ? not as bad as his usual self but at least 10 players on the pitch infront of him for that award
Flynny Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 mccarthty man of the match in the notw . was the match reporter pis sed ? not as bad as his usual self but at least 10 players on the pitch infront of him for that award Hahaha, you're right. No-one really played badly but there were much better performances. Kisnorbo defended at least as well AND got a goal, so how that works I have no fooking idea.
Daggers Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 mccarthty man of the match in the notw . was the match reporter pis sed ? I reckon the journo from the Times spent most of the game in the 1884 as well!
Joe. Posted 7 January 2007 Posted 7 January 2007 mccarthty man of the match in the notw . was the match reporter pis sed ? not as bad as his usual self but at least 10 players on the pitch infront of him for that award They also said he is our most competetive player at the moment and gave ANOTHER impeccable defensive display.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.