Extra time pays for Sheehan

[Guest]

Oh god, don't tell ThracAlan that!

It's alright, I think he's got me on ignore.

[Scow]

Nils-Eric really DRIVES you wild doesn't he.

Yes, he's always in my TRAIN of thought.

That's really poor.

[Thracian]

If proof of worth is goals and assists, could we revisit last season's argument of how Hammond is amazing, Thracian?

Because I seem to remember at the time that the hallmark of a good player was being 'difficult to play against' and being caught offside a lot.

Strange how these things change.

a) No-one said Hammond was amazing. Nor ever implied it. The word is your invention yet again.

b) No problem anyway. Hammond had more goals/assists than Fryatt last season. And I cannot remember seeing anyone offside more than Fryatt was against Barnsley. How conveniently you shape your arguments.

c) Your memory is seriously selective. The hallmark of a good player is what they do, what effect they have on a game. I've said it often enough for even you to remember.

[Fez of Mahrez]

a) No-one said Hammond was amazing. Nor ever implied it. Theword is your invention yet again.

b) No problem anyway. Hammond had more goals/assists than Fryatt last season. And I cannot remember seeing anyone offside more than Fryatt was against Barnsley. How conveniently you shape your arguments.

c) Your memory is seriously selective. The hallmark of a good player is what they do, what effect they have on a game. I've said it often enough for even you to remember.

Fryatt scored the only goal of the game against Barnsley, which could have proved vital.

The hallmark of a good player is, in the first sense, being able to control a football.

Sorry I just fancied getting involved, bit bored.

[James.]

Thracian I'd be very interested to hear your response to probably the most constructive post in this whole thread regarding why Mattock is a superior player - see below. So far you seem to have conveniently ignored it in order to focus on responding to "less balanced" posts...

If we could have rolling subs, Sheehan would be perfect for this. To bring on when we have a corner or a free-kick within striking distance of goal. In open play, however he's not as good as Joe Mattock. Mattock is the more complete footballer, he's quicker, more aggressive, a better passer, a hell of a better defender and he get's forward more. Thracian mistakes Sheehan's assists from corners and goals from free-kicks as Sheehan being more attack minded, when it's nothing of the sort.

From open play, Sheehan is less attacking than Nils-Eric Johansson was for us. He can't beat a man and his passing is indifferent. This isn't another mindless bit of criticism because I like some of the things Sheehan brings to the table, but as a left wing back, i'm unconvinced. It's a difficult position to master and he's neither here nor there with it. Just like he's not a left winger and he's not really a quality left back.

He's a set piece master.

[Milky]

Why, when trying to defend Hammond, does Thracian always bring Fryatt into it! Fryatt is irrelevant to Hammond's ability.

[Thracian]

If we could have rolling subs, Sheehan would be perfect for this. To bring on when we have a corner or a free-kick within striking distance of goal. In open play, however he's not as good as Joe Mattock. Mattock is the more complete footballer, he's quicker, more aggressive, a better passer, a hell of a better defender and he get's forward more. Thracian mistakes Sheehan's assists from corners and goals from free-kicks as Sheehan being more attack minded, when it's nothing of the sort.

From open play, Sheehan is less attacking than Nils-Eric Johansson was for us. He can't beat a man and his passing is indifferent. This isn't another mindless bit of criticism because I like some of the things Sheehan brings to the table, but as a left wing back, i'm unconvinced. It's a difficult position to master and he's neither here nor there with it. Just like he's not a left winger and he's not really a quality left back.

He's a set piece master.

There is no way Mattock's a better passer than Sheehan - over short or long distance - and to suggest he's less attacking than Nils is laughable as the statistics clearly show apart from anything else.

Sheehan is constantly attack-minded and hits the attacking half of the field as often as any full-back I've seen. The only reason he would not do this would be if he were under strict instructions to play more defensively as was the case, for instance, in the game against Plymouth from what I could gather.

I've watched Mattock play perhaps 25 times. He's promising but is nothing like the more complete footballer you mention.

PS: I don't think anyone has suggested Sheehan is a winger. But he's far more than simply a set-piece player. He makes goals and can be dangerous with any loose ball on the edge of the box. He reads the game fairly well, has improved in the air and can be just as aggressive as Mattock except it's not a good feature of his game when he is.

Basically he's a cultured footballer and I appreciate that is often anathema to some City fans who would far prefer a team full of Tiattos. Except that combative aggression and teams full of spoilers hasn't got us anywhere for season after season. You would think the penny might have dropped by now that we need people to score and create goals as well. People who can cause a bit of panic.

[Bert]

Fryatt scored the only goal of the game against Barnsley, which could have proved vital.

The hallmark of a good player is, in the first sense, being able to control a football.

Sorry I just fancied getting involved, bit bored.

It was actually an own goal. Should've been a free kick their way tbh.

From what i've seen this season, Sheehan is more liable to mistakes than Mattock and a lot more lazy.

[Thracian]

Why, when trying to defend Hammond, does Thracian always bring Fryatt into it! Fryatt is irrelevant to Hammond's ability.

Because TPH has long shouted the merits of Fryatt and campaigned for his place in the team.

Hammond is not really an issue at all to be honest cos he's injured. But if he got himself fit I'd say he might often be more of a threat than two or three of our present strikers.

I'm suprised to say that because I thought we'd have a much stronger strike force this season.

[Ric Flair]

There is no way Mattock's a better passer than Sheehan - over short or long distance - and to suggest he's less attacking than Nils is laughable as the statistics clearly show apart from anything else.

Sheehan is constantly attack-minded and hits the attacking half of the field as often as any full-back I've seen. The only reason he would not do this would be if he were under strict instructions to play more defensively as was the case, for isntance, in the game against Plymouth from what I could gather.

I've watched Mattock play perhaps 25 times. He's promising but is nothing like the complete footballer you mention.

PS: I don't think anyone has suggested Sheehan is a winger. But he's far more than simply a set-piece player. He makes goals and can be dangerous with any loose ball on the edge of the box. He reads the game fairly well, has improved in the air and can be just as aggressive as Mattock except it's not a good feature of his game when he is.

Basically he's a cultured footballer and I appreciate that is often anathema to some City fans who would far prefer a team full of Tiattos. Except that combative aggression and teams full of spoilers hasn't got us anywhere for season after season. You would think the penny might have dropped by now that we need people to score and create goals. People who can cause a bit of panic.

I'm going to have to stop this discussion with you Thracian. If you honestly think that Alan Sheehan is an attack minded defender bar his set pieces then my opinion is that you must be mistaken. You obviously don't think you are mistaken so the argument might as well stop here.

I'm full of praise for Sheehan's set pieces, which is where all of his goals and assists have come from. It's a special asset to have, I applaud him 100% for it. I want that element in our team, but I also want the other fundamentals required from a wingback in the team if possible, such as being able to defend, being able to pass consistently (Sheehan's passing can be good, but it can also be horrible at times) getting forward, beating the opposition where applicable. Sheehan doesn't have that. What he does have is the ability to score and create goals from set pieces, I don't recall much creativity from open play, which is a shame as he's a very good crosser, but he isn't capable of getting forward as fluently as is needed for a wingback who doesn't have any support from anyone else when playing that role to overlap etc.

I didn't say Mattock was a complete player either, I said he was more of a complete player than Sheehan for the reasons given above. What Mattock doesn't have is the set piece quality, which would be wonderful if he could develop. But it's not essential if there's others in the team that can provide that. Have we got anyone else to provide that and therefore not require the only thing that Sheehan can bring that Mattock can't? It's hard to say, Clemence has more assists this season than Sheehan but has played more games and he too takes a good corner. But nowhere near as good a free-kick taker.

I think Sheehan has a future here, he's improving and it's good to see. But as a left wingback, I don't think he brings as much to the team as Mattock but unless his set pieces are taken care of by someone equally as good then we'll be at a disadvantage there.

My end of the discussion.

[Ric Flair]

Because TPH has long shouted the merits of Fryatt and campaigned for his place in the team.

Hammond is not really an issue at all to be honest cos he's injured. But if he got himself fit I'd say he might often be more of a threat than two or three of our present strikers.

I'm suprised to say that because I thought we'd have a much stronger strike force this season.

It's a shame you didn't apply this to Matty Fryatt last season, when he was struggling with injuries, yet Rob Kelly kept picking him.

[Bert]

There was a reason, why at the start of the season Elvis wasn't handed a squad number, all credit to him for working hard and earning his number but he can't be that much of a threat if he wasn't handed a squad number at first.

[The People's Hero]

I'm going to have to stop this discussion with you Thracian. If you honestly think that Alan Sheehan is an attack minded defender bar his set pieces then my opinion is that you must be mistaken. You obviously don't think you are mistaken so the argument might as well stop here.

I'm full of praise for Sheehan's set pieces, which is where all of his goals and assists have come from. It's a special asset to have, I applaud him 100% for it. I want that element in our team, but I also want the other fundamentals required from a wingback in the team if possible, such as being able to defend, being able to pass consistently (Sheehan's passing can be good, but it can also be horrible at times) getting forward, beating the opposition where applicable. Sheehan doesn't have that. What he does have is the ability to score and create goals from set pieces, I don't recall much creativity from open play, which is a shame as he's a very good crosser, but he isn't capable of getting forward as fluently as is needed for a wingback who doesn't have any support from anyone else when playing that role to overlap etc.

I didn't say Mattock was a complete player either, I said he was more of a complete player than Sheehan for the reasons given above. What Mattock doesn't have is the set piece quality, which would be wonderful if he could develop. But it's not essential if there's others in the team that can provide that. Have we got anyone else to provide that and therefore not require the only thing that Sheehan can bring that Mattock can't? It's hard to say, Clemence has more assists this season than Sheehan but has played more games and he too takes a good corner. But nowhere near as good a free-kick taker.

I think Sheehan has a future here, he's improving and it's good to see. But as a left wingback, I don't think he brings as much to the team as Mattock but unless his set pieces are taken care of by someone equally as good then we'll be at a disadvantage there.

My end of the discussion.

Agree with every word and here ends my contribution.

Well said Flair.

[Flynny]

I'm full of praise for Sheehan's set pieces, which is where all of his goals and assists have come from. It's a special asset to have, I applaud him 100% for it. I want that element in our team, but I also want the other fundamentals required from a wingback in the team if possible, such as being able to defend, being able to pass consistently (Sheehan's passing can be good, but it can also be horrible at times) getting forward, beating the opposition where applicable. Sheehan doesn't have that. What he does have is the ability to score and create goals from set pieces, I don't recall much creativity from open play, which is a shame as he's a very good crosser, but he isn't capable of getting forward as fluently as is needed for a wingback who doesn't have any support from anyone else when playing that role to overlap etc.

He was superb left-wing against Forest, in fairness. I've not seen much of him, but to suggest he's not good going forward is patently ludicrous, otherwise he wouldn't be on the field - because he's not out there for his defending, thats for sure.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Flair is right to be honest. Sheehan is too slow and too lazy to get forward effectively from full-back. Mattock may not have the same delivery but at least he gets there to put the crosses in and support the midfield.

[Fez of Mahrez]

He was superb left-wing against Forest, in fairness. I've not seen much of him, but to suggest he's not good going forward is patently ludicrous, otherwise he wouldn't be on the field - because he's not out there for his defending, thats for sure.

Superb is taking it a bit far, and we've covered both reasons he's on the field - set pieces and lack of quality on the left side.

[Thracian]

It was actually an own goal. Should've been a free kick their way tbh.

From what i've seen this season, Sheehan is more liable to mistakes than Mattock and a lot more lazy.

Some pretty big mistakes by Mattock against Blackpool!

But when it comes to mistakes you could mention almost any player.

Campbell's miss from Sheehan's cross at Sheffield, Fryatt not passing to Hume in the same game, Kisnorbo and McAuley's defending for the Charlton goals. Sheehan hardly shone either in that match and there have been others who haven't been in games enough to be seen to make mistakes.

I don't think Sheehan's lazy at all. He's one of the most supportive of defenders so could hardly be lazy. It's just that he's got the same unhurried style as many players you wouldn't dream of calling lazy rather than having an action-man style.

I don't remember Nils being called lazy ever. Yet he hardly ever crossed the halfway line, except at Preston, of course, which would forgive him anything!

Anyway, off to Stoke now for the reserves game.

[Flynny]

Superb is taking it a bit far, and we've covered both reasons he's on the field - set pieces and lack of quality on the left side.

He was forward time and time again, both down the flank and cutting into the centre and running at the goal. He was looking good before he got the goal. "Superb in the first half" might be fairer, because he was much less effective after the break, but it was certainly a creditable performance.

[Ric Flair]

He was superb left-wing against Forest, in fairness. I've not seen much of him, but to suggest he's not good going forward is patently ludicrous, otherwise he wouldn't be on the field - because he's not out there for his defending, thats for sure.

He's not good going forward though. He can't beat a man, he always needs support if he's going forward for the overlap. That's fine in a 4-4-2 and i'd not oppose to him playing in that formation if there were no better alternatives but in a wingback system he's not a patch on Joe Mattock in open play.

People mistake his set pieces as being attack minded. I can take a mean goal kick, i'm no goalie though.

[Manwell Pablo]

He does never get to the byline, where he'd be effective, he always crosses from deep and they just float and hang looking for a head on that isn't going to come.

[The People's Hero]

Some pretty big mistakes by Mattock against Blackpool!

But when it comes to mistakes you could mention almost any player.

Campbell's miss from Sheehan's cross at Sheffield, Fryatt not passing to Hume in the same game, Kisnorbo and McAuley's defending for the Charlton goals. Sheehan hardly shone either in that match and there have been others who haven't been in games enough to be seen to make mistakes.

I don't think Sheehan's lazy at all. He's one of the most supportive of defenders so could hardly be lazy. It's just that he's got the same unhurried style as many players you wouldn't dream of calling lazy rather than having an action-man style.

I don't remember Nils being called lazy ever. Yet he hardly ever crossed the halfway line, except at Preston, of course, which would forgive him anything!

Anyway, off to Stoke now for the reserves game.

I know I said I'd made my last contribution...

Just felt it was my duty to highlight the understatement of the year!

[Thracian]

Agree with every word and here ends my contribution.

Well said Flair.

You somehow manage to talk shit even when you're agreeing with people. Cos Ric's views certainly weren't yours.

[Ric Flair]

I must say, he did impress me against Watford at left wing. But not for his wing play, his tracking back or anything like that. Just his ability to rip shots in when given the chance. But is that enough to play as a left wingback?

[Bert]

You somehow manage to talk shit even when you're agreeing with people. Cos Ric's views certainly weren't yours.

Unheard of.

I can picture Thracian, getting wound up at his desk, banging his hand on the table right now.....

[Thracian]

He's not good going forward though. He can't beat a man, he always needs support if he's going forward for the overlap. That's fine in a 4-4-2 and i'd not oppose to him playing in that formation if there were no better alternatives but in a wingback system he's not a patch on Joe Mattock in open play.

People mistake his set pieces as being attack minded. I can take a mean goal kick, i'm no goalie though.

All players need support overlapping. Generally full-backs wouldn't be enouraged to "take people on" even if they're fast enough and Mattock/Sheehan certainly aren't, nor were Clarke, Nils, Kenton, Maybury.

Sheehan is probably less risky with 5-3-2 than 4-4-2 because the defensive cover remains but, as I say, apart from his loosish marking and vulnerability when run at and turned quickly - like most others including Mattock - his supposed defensive frailties are exagerrated.