Thracian Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 Henderson 6 (average mark for an average day) Maybury 6 (One worthwhile shot was a collectors item but nothing special at all) McAuley 6 (Nowhere for their goal but stayed involved and helped steady our defence which was a start) Kisnorbo 6 (ditto. But hardly inspiring as skipper judging by the team's performance) Nils 6 (Again a steadying influence. But purely functional) Yeates 6.5 (Half a mark extra for his goal. But not a convincing debut) Hughes 5.5 (Not at all impressive. Big chance to make a statement but responded with a whimper) Johnson 5.5 (Effect? Not a lot. Just didn't deliver at key moments) Porter 7 (Man of the Match by a distance. Competent. Busy. And the only player you thought might have some impact) Hume 6.5 (Effort is not enough when you're a striker) Horsfield 6.5 (Awful first half. Might have conjured something up in the second) Subs: Too inconsequential for a mark although Elvis unsettled Luton two or three times, winning dangerous free-kicks and almost bursting through for a goal). Kelly 5 (Failed to lift his side beyond the mediocre once we'd scored.)
Fox63 Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 Can't argue with those scores. Seems to be a fair evaluation.
Daggers Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 ...scores... Yup, although I'd give Kelly a 3 to 4. Piss poor again.
MBK Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 Yup, although I'd give Kelly a 3 to 4. Piss poor again. Why play Stearman in midfield instead of fitneedmatchestobeinform Weso?
Sly Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 Why play Stearman in midfield instead of fitneedmatchestobeinform Weso? Who knows, it would be nice to play players in the right places.
DB11 Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 Henderson 6 (average mark for an average day) Maybury 6 (One worthwhile shot was a collectors item but nothing special at all) McAuley 6 (Nowhere for their goal but stayed involved and helped steady our defence which was a start) Kisnorbo 6 (ditto. But hardly inspiring as skipper judging by the team's performance) Nils 6 (Again a steadying influence. But purely functional) Yeates 6.5 (Half a mark extra for his goal. But not a convincing debut) Hughes 5.5 (Not at all impressive. Big chance to make a statement but responded with a whimper) Johnson 5.5 (Effect? Not a lot. Just didn't deliver at key moments) Porter 7 (Man of the Match by a distance. Competent. Busy. And the only player you thought might have some impact) Hume 6.5 (Effort is not enough when you're a striker) Horsfield 6.5 (Awful first half. Might have conjured something up in the second) Subs: Too inconsequential for a mark although Elvis unsettled Luton two or three times, winning dangerous free-kicks and almost bursting through for a goal). Kelly 5 (Failed to lift his side beyond the mediocre once we'd scored.) I think Horsefield deserves a lower mark and Johnson should have a higher one, he was my man of the match. Porter maybe a bit lower. The rest I'd agree with
Simon Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 Thrac I know you like Porter, hell I like Porter, but to say he was MOTM by a distance is quite a stretch. I thought he did OK but it certainly wasn't one of his best days. I've written in the reactions thread what I thought of each players performance so I'll just write their scores here: Hendo 6 (Will you sort that bloody kickin out!) Maybury 6 Kisnorbo 7 McAuley 7 (can we play this guy up front? Some of his flicks up front at the end of the game were pretty tasty!) Nils 7 Yeates 6.5 Johno 6.5 Hughes 5 Porter 6 Hume 6 The Horse 7 Subs: Stears 6.5 (not a midfielder but put himself about and made more forward runs than Hughes did) Hammond 5
RowlattsFox Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 Henderson - 6 maybury - 5 mcauley - 7 kisnorbo - 7 MOM johansson - 6 yeates - 6.5 hughes- 5 johnson - 6.5 porter - 6 hume - 6 horsefield - 6 stearman - 6 hammond - 6
Leicester Lass Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 Henderson - 6 Maybury - 5 McAuley - 7* Kisnorbo - 7 Johansson - 7 Yeates - 6.5 Hughes- 5 Johnson - 6 Porter - 5 Hume - 6.5 Horsfield - 5 Stearman - 6 Hammond - 5
Webbo Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 i'd have to say 6 points all round, no one was brilliant, no one was truly awful.
filbertboy Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 Hendo 6 why cant he kick the ****ing ball properly ?? Maybury 6 Kisnorbo 7 McAuley 6.5 Nils 6.5 Yeates 6.5 did ok Johno 6 Hughes 5 Porter 6 Hume 6 The Horse 6.5 Subs: Stears 6 Hammond 5 kelly 4 really time to go now
Harpenden Fox Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 i'd have to say 6 points all round, no one was brilliant, no one was truly awful. spot on. My son and I were trying to nominate a MOTM afterwards, a neither of us could. Similarly noone had a complete stinker. It was just utterly mediocre all round. The truth is though, I've seen us play worse. Luton away. Sunderland at home. Burnley at home spring to mind. How depressing is that?!
tallington fox Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 Definitely Johnson's best match but hardly a match winner. Biggest disappointment was Hughes....with Williams gone this was his chance to claim back a central role but he was poor. Very average display from very average team. Roll on May when (hopefully still in Championship) we can get rid of most/all of this lot and start again.
Hullfox Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 Porter 7 (Man of the Match by a distance. Competent. Busy. And the only player you thought might have some impact) Elvis unsettled Luton two or three times, winning dangerous free-kicks and almost bursting through for a goal. I have decided that I will after all make one more post here. Thrach, your love for these two is outrageous. They were as shit as everyone else.
Guest Gist Posted 4 February 2007 Posted 4 February 2007 i'd have to say 6 points all round, no one was brilliant, no one was truly awful. I agree with that. No one seemed to stand out.
Ric Flair Posted 5 February 2007 Posted 5 February 2007 Henderson 6 - Didn't have a great deal to do, flapped at a few crosses aerly on. Still horrificly bad at kicking. Maybury 6 - Fairly solid, had a ripper of a shot in the first half. McAuley 7 - Takes everything in his stride, really impressed with him as the season goes on. Kisnorbo 7 - His usual self, defended well. If he could pass the ball out of defence as well as McAuley could then I think we'd be half way there to stop this hoof ball we play. As long as we got rid of Kelly first. Nisse 5 - I thought he was dreadful at times. He was getting skinned by their right winger and his passing up the left flank was abysmal. Yeates 7 - I thought he looked good. He's got some talent there. He did more in 65 minutes than Welsh did in his entire loan spell this season. Not scared to run at defenders. He's not explosively quick, but I think he's the best player i've seen on the right wing for us this season. Hughes 5 - Certainly didn't revel in his so called preferred role. Frustrating. Johnson 7* - I'll give him man of the match because for once he passed the ball well, tackled well and tried to drive the team forward. He's still got the creativity of a 5 year old kid with a dog shit though. Porter 6 - When he was given the ball he rarely wasted it. Didn't beat the full-back as much as he usually does, but if we give him the ball he'll make things happen. Hume 6 - Not in the best of form at present. Still battled well and caused Luton to panic at times. Horsfield 6 - Started really badly and looked sluggish, but as the game went on he got more in to it. Could be useful for us. Subs: Stearman 6 - Why Kelly put him in midfield i'll never know, but he did actually help out more than Hughes did. Elvis 5 - Had a couple of chances to make an impact but guess what? He didn't take them.
Thracian Posted 5 February 2007 Author Posted 5 February 2007 I have decided that I will after all make one more post here. Thrach, your love for these two is outrageous. They were as shit as everyone else. I wouldn't expect you to have a good word to say about either of them. But, apart from his size, if we had a Levi Porter in every outfield position we'd rarely get beaten because we'd have a team full of people who could control the ball quickly and pass it constructively. As for Hammond I can't be bothered to go into the detail of why he's so under-rated - it's all been written before - and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to your opinion anyway. But I'll stick to my belief that we need strong, fit, fast, pass-and-move footballers to be any good. Not a team of laborious old timers. And that means right through the team. We'll never get it in our present state but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get as close as we can. I watched Manchester United last night and the post-match analysis stressed so many of the things I've talked about. Full backs supporting at pace right up to the opposition goalline, midfielders driving into the box from way out - and I mean driving not ambling. People constantly giving a pass and moving to create space. Fast, purposeful passes into the danger zone. What an example of attitude and determination to win away from home. We've not got that style of player in our side apart from the odd one. And that's mainly because we've clogged it up with people who physically and skillfully cannot play like that. Some we have who do attempt to play properly never get a sniff of selection. And we'll win sod all until we do play that way. Hammond is not the greatest by any means. But teams need pace with determination and, without Hammond we don't have any. Yeates, who wasn't fit and isn't aggressive, had gone off and Hume, like Porter, was slipping further and further back to find the ball because our woeful midfielders - who still get selected in so many fans' teams - couldn't keep them supplied or supported, any more than our full-backs.
The People's Hero Posted 5 February 2007 Posted 5 February 2007 Comparing us to Man United is ridiculous, Thracian, you know that. I'm compelled to hear your argument about how Elvis Hammond is so under-rated. I'd like you to consider the following points and not ignore them, as you always have done. He cannot control the ball properly. His shooting is appalling. He can't pass. He has no vision/awareness, he just runs. Pace is nothing if you can't time your runs. I admit he has pace. Now tell me one other attribute he has.
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 February 2007 Posted 5 February 2007 I wouldn't expect you to have a good word to say about either of them. But, apart from his size, if we had a Levi Porter in every outfield position we'd rarely get beaten because we'd have a team full of people who could control the ball quickly and pass it constructively. As for Hammond I can't be bothered to go into the detail of why he's so under-rated - it's all been written before - and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to your opinion anyway. But I'll stick to my belief that we need strong, fit, fast, pass-and-move footballers to be any good. Not a team of laborious old timers. And that means right through the team. We'll never get it in our present state but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get as close as we can. I watched Manchester United last night and the post-match analysis stressed so many of the things I've talked about. Full backs supporting at pace right up to the opposition goalline, midfielders driving into the box from way out - and I mean driving not ambling. People constantly giving a pass and moving to create space. Fast, purposeful passes into the danger zone. What an example of attitude and determination to win away from home. We've not got that style of player in our side apart from the odd one. And that's mainly because we've clogged it up with people who physically and skillfully cannot play like that. Some we have who do attempt to play properly never get a sniff of selection. And we'll win sod all until we do play that way. Hammond is not the greatest by any means. But teams need pace with determination and, without Hammond we don't have any. Yeates, who wasn't fit and isn't aggressive, had gone off and Hume, like Porter, was slipping further and further back to find the ball because our woeful midfielders - who still get selected in so many fans' teams - couldn't keep them supplied or supported, any more than our full-backs. Thats all a bit irrelavent really, they were both average on Saturday thats all he said, which as far as I understand is true.
Thracian Posted 5 February 2007 Author Posted 5 February 2007 Comparing us to Man United is ridiculous, Thracian, you know that. I'm compelled to hear your argument about how Elvis Hammond is so under-rated. I'd like you to consider the following points and not ignore them, as you always have done. He cannot control the ball properly. His shooting is appalling. He can't pass. He has no vision/awareness, he just runs. Pace is nothing if you can't time your runs. I admit he has pace. Now tell me one other attribute he has. I wsn't comparing us to Manchester United, as you well know. I was saying that Manchester United show in blazing technicolour how football should be played - what we should be aiming for. Hammond has strength and determination. When he moves he does so with attitude and demands that defenders go with him, thus creating space for others. He also has the stamina to repeat his runs and the effect of that would be more pronounced if King was give him some proper passes and to run into space around him.
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 February 2007 Posted 5 February 2007 I wsn't comparing us to Manchester United, as you well know. I was saying that Manchester United show in blazing technicolour how football should be played - what we should be aiming for. Hammond has strength and determination. When he moves he does so with attitude and demands that defenders go with him, thus creating space for others. He also has the stamina to repeat his runs and the effect of that would be more pronounced if King was give him some proper passes and to run into space around him. Yes but he has to pass the ball to those in space, has to be onside, and most of importantly has to control the ball before any of this can take pace.
breadandcheese Posted 5 February 2007 Posted 5 February 2007 Henderson 6 - Didn't have a great deal to do, flapped at a few crosses aerly on. Still horrificly bad at kicking. Maybury 6 - Fairly solid, had a ripper of a shot in the first half. McAuley 7 - Takes everything in his stride, really impressed with him as the season goes on. Kisnorbo 7 - His usual self, defended well. If he could pass the ball out of defence as well as McAuley could then I think we'd be half way there to stop this hoof ball we play. As long as we got rid of Kelly first. Nisse 5 - I thought he was dreadful at times. He was getting skinned by their right winger and his passing up the left flank was abysmal. Yeates 7 - I thought he looked good. He's got some talent there. He did more in 65 minutes than Welsh did in his entire loan spell this season. Not scared to run at defenders. He's not explosively quick, but I think he's the best player i've seen on the right wing for us this season. Hughes 5 - Certainly didn't revel in his so called preferred role. Frustrating. Johnson 7* - I'll give him man of the match because for once he passed the ball well, tackled well and tried to drive the team forward. He's still got the creativity of a 5 year old kid with a dog shit though. Porter 6 - When he was given the ball he rarely wasted it. Didn't beat the full-back as much as he usually does, but if we give him the ball he'll make things happen. Hume 6 - Not in the best of form at present. Still battled well and caused Luton to panic at times. Horsfield 6 - Started really badly and looked sluggish, but as the game went on he got more in to it. Could be useful for us. Subs: Stearman 6 - Why Kelly put him in midfield i'll never know, but he did actually help out more than Hughes did. Elvis 5 - Had a couple of chances to make an impact but guess what? He didn't take them. I'd agree with that Ric bar nudging Nisse up to 6 and knocking Yeates down to 6 on the basis he had a blinding 20 minutes, but apart from that, not much else. Johnson was my man of the match. He had a good game, orchestrating the midfield and quite frankly put Hughes to shame. For the next scapegoat (seeing as we always have one every week, Maybury, McCarthy, etc) I would like to nominate Hughes
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 February 2007 Posted 5 February 2007 I'd agree with that Ric bar nudging Nisse up to 6 and knocking Yeates down to 6 on the basis he had a blinding 20 minutes, but apart from that, not much else. Johnson was my man of the match. He had a good game, orchestrating the midfield and quite frankly put Hughes to shame. For the next scapegoat (seeing as we always have one every week, Maybury, McCarthy, etc) I would like to nominate Hughes Surely it's Mayburys turn again?
breadandcheese Posted 5 February 2007 Posted 5 February 2007 Surely it's Mayburys turn again? How about we skip back to McCarthy. Dislocated shoulder or not, off the pitch I don't care, the defending for Luton's goal was abysmal and we could all see it coming. Paddy, what were you doing?
The People's Hero Posted 5 February 2007 Posted 5 February 2007 Hammond has strength and determination. When he moves he does so with attitude and demands that defenders go with him, thus creating space for others. I don't dispute that he can distract defenders and open up space. Unfortunately when he doesn't have the ball, he tends to be offside. When he does have the ball, it doesn't matter if anyone else is in space, he never looks up so he would be unaware and even if he did, his quality of passing is absolutely disgusting. It's players like this that mean we can't play like Manchester United. You name me one player in the Manchester United said who never looks up or can't pass. You can't have it both ways. Hammond does not fit in to your idea of a pass and move attacking side.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.