Milan Posted 10 November 2007 Posted 10 November 2007 Mattock is a left back who can develop his forward game in the next 6 years, when he'll still only be 23. How often does he get beaten, he never lets wingers get in crosses. He is a solid left back for his age. Not a wing back. Sheehan... give me a break, can't defend and for the amount of games he plays his suspension already shows he can't tackle for shit.
simonthefox Posted 10 November 2007 Posted 10 November 2007 Rewind a couple of years, I'm pretty sure we were saying this about Sheehan. He got loaned out to a few lower league clubs, got experience, bulked up Now he's one of our better players, and our only player who looks dangerous from a set piece. "Aww, don't have a go at the little fella, he's only young" Well he shouldn't be bloody playing then should he.
Ultra Posted 11 November 2007 Posted 11 November 2007 Mattock is a left back who can develop his forward game in the next 6 years, when he'll still only be 23. How often does he get beaten, he never lets wingers get in crosses. He is a solid left back for his age. Not a wing back.Sheehan... give me a break, can't defend and for the amount of games he plays his suspension already shows he can't tackle for shit. And have you seen the games where he's picked up his bookings? Referees look out for him and book him for the first foul he makes. It says as much about them as it does about him. He's still way above Mattock, as yesterday's game proved.
Thracian Posted 11 November 2007 Posted 11 November 2007 Mattock is a left back who can develop his forward game in the next 6 years, when he'll still only be 23. How often does he get beaten, he never lets wingers get in crosses. He is a solid left back for his age. Not a wing back.Sheehan... give me a break, can't defend and for the amount of games he plays his suspension already shows he can't tackle for shit. Don't make excuses for the guy. Mattock was playing as a wing back today and only crossed the halfway line once in anger that I can recall. Even I cannot believe how much Sheehan was missed. When did we EVER threaten from a corner or free kick - not once. But it was not only that, it was his general passing and support play. I appreciate Mattock has been out for a while and, indeed, predicted that he wouldn't have enough in his tank to play wing-back but let's not pretend that wasn't the case today. The two are totally different players and there's a place for both. But yesterday wasn't Mattock's day. Who's day was it apart from Burnley's?
davieG Posted 11 November 2007 Posted 11 November 2007 Mattock is a left back who can develop his forward game in the next 6 years, when he'll still only be 23. How often does he get beaten, he never lets wingers get in crosses. He is a solid left back for his age. Not a wing back.Sheehan... give me a break, can't defend and for the amount of games he plays his suspension already shows he can't tackle for shit. The lad is a good prospect for the future but he does get beaten, mainly for pace as he did several times yesterday and it's not just down to match fitness either because I've seen him out paced regularly. I don't believe he's as fast as some people have said he is but he should be able to overcome that by better positional play which will come with experience - one hopes.
maddog Posted 11 November 2007 Posted 11 November 2007 Forgive me but could someone please explain to me what exactly is so good about Joe Mattock? Apart from the Villa game he has looked out of his depth almost every time he plays. He is clueless going forward, and his defending isn't good enough because he has no positional sense whatsoever. you've described Richard Stearman perfectly there
Flynny Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 Bumping a thread with the most appropriate title. Was it just me or did Mattock have one of his best games for ages today? He looked completely at home as a Championship left-back for the first time in games and games. Whether thats the opposition being poor, his accumulation of experience or him getting a run-out for the U-18's in the week I'm not sure, but it was good to see.
Simi Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 Bumping a thread with the most appropriate title.Was it just me or did Mattock have one of his best games for ages today? He looked completely at home as a Championship left-back for the first time in games and games. Whether thats the opposition being poor, his accumulation of experience or him getting a run-out for the U-18's in the week I'm not sure, but it was good to see. Or the fact he had a proper winger playing infront of him allowing him to do the job he's wanted to do for ages...
Flynny Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 Or the fact he had a proper winger playing infront of him allowing him to do the job he's wanted to do for ages... I meant to write that but stopped to eat a Double-Decker. Cheers. Having an outlet with positional awareness certainly did help.
Stuliasz Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 I have said this to people too. I really thought Mattock looked like he came of age today. I'd still bring in an experienced left back as he can't be asked to play every game and keep up that standard but it shows he is willing to work on his game and he's definitely going in the right direction.
RowlattsFox Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 If Ollie telling him to play for the Under-18s midweek was a ploy to get his confidence back it certainly worked. Mifsud hardly had a kick. He shown great fitness as well considering he played 120 minutes on tuesday.
MikeyT Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 Forgive me but could someone please explain to me what exactly is so good about Joe Mattock? Apart from the Villa game he has looked out of his depth almost every time he plays. He is clueless going forward, and his defending isn't good enough because he has no positional sense whatsoever. I understand what you are saying, but you have to remember he's still only 17. He's got a long way to go yet and a long career ahead of him. He will only get better! Maybe we need a more experienced head in that position and in future games just bring him on as a sub in the latter stages of a game. To be honest i thought he did alright yesterday. He didnt look like he was out of his depths and looked like he'd been playing there for years! Just my opinion, but like i said i do understand where you are coming from at the same time!
Simon Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 Bumping a thread with the most appropriate title.Was it just me or did Mattock have one of his best games for ages today? He looked completely at home as a Championship left-back for the first time in games and games. Whether thats the opposition being poor, his accumulation of experience or him getting a run-out for the U-18's in the week I'm not sure, but it was good to see. I think it was probably a mixture of the three. His reading of the game has got so much better- he didn't get sucked into his marker too much and thus only got skinned once. He put in a lot more well-timed tackles too because he'd read the play much better. Think Laczko helped him a bit too- our shape was much better so he had someone in front of him to protect him and who did his fair share of defending, which he hasn't had for a long time. Because we were on the attack so much it meant a lot of the pressure was taken off Mattock too- in fact attack wise I thought he linked up really well with Laczko. If he keeps this up, he'll make the position his own. Alan Sheehan will get nowhere near.
davieG Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 Bumping a thread with the most appropriate title.Was it just me or did Mattock have one of his best games for ages today? He looked completely at home as a Championship left-back for the first time in games and games. Whether thats the opposition being poor, his accumulation of experience or him getting a run-out for the U-18's in the week I'm not sure, but it was good to see. I think this was partly due to Laczko helping out defensively and offering him an outlet for his passes.
Toby or not Toby Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 he is a local lad, so the fact it was a derby would have made him more up for the game. a couple of crunching tackles if i rememeber correctly, not a bad game yesterday.
Ultra Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 I think it was probably a mixture of the three. His reading of the game has got so much better- he didn't get sucked into his marker too much and thus only got skinned once. He put in a lot more well-timed tackles too because he'd read the play much better. Think Laczko helped him a bit too- our shape was much better so he had someone in front of him to protect him and who did his fair share of defending, which he hasn't had for a long time. Because we were on the attack so much it meant a lot of the pressure was taken off Mattock too- in fact attack wise I thought he linked up really well with Laczko.If he keeps this up, he'll make the position his own. Alan Sheehan will get nowhere near. Good though he was yesterday, it's unrealistic to expect a player of his age to play that well in every game. Holloway's decision to go for another left-back is probably for the best. It will give Mattock more time to work on his game and become a quality left-back of potential Premier League standard.
Bert Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 he is a local lad, so the fact it was a derby would have made him more up for the game. a couple of crunching tackles if i rememeber correctly, not a bad game yesterday. Surely if it's a local derby every player should be up for it? Surely they should be up for every game anyway?
Simi Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 Surely if it's a local derby every player should be up for it?Surely they should be up for every game anyway? You'd hope wouldn't you. I don't like it when people say "it's one of those games where everyone will put in 100%" Any player that isn't putting that in every week deserves to be subbed. Although with the amount of foreigners now, it's probably just another game for them!
Simi Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 Might have known. ****ing foreigners. Send all of them back, we've got no decent foreigners anyway.
Simon Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 Good though he was yesterday, it's unrealistic to expect a player of his age to play that well in every game.Holloway's decision to go for another left-back is probably for the best. It will give Mattock more time to work on his game and become a quality left-back of potential Premier League standard. You could well be right; competition will do him a lot of good definitely and a decent amount of time to develop.
Koke Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 The amount of first team games this kid is playing is not good and I'm led to believe Ollie is looking for a left back. Too much pressure on a 17 year old will hammer is development. But he did well yesterday and I was ever so pleased for him.
Flynny Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 Send all of them back, we've got no decent foreigners anyway. Exactly. It'll stop the Red's agents putting that poison in the water thats turned this entire nation into hippy-hugging, wet commie bastards. Or something. I did have an actual point for this thread but I lost it somewhere. Oh yeah. Laczko was an outlet for Mattock but its unfair to attribute our better defending to him. He was playing like a proper winger, not how we used to have our men on the flanks where we practically played a full-back and a wing-back.
bringbackWalshie Posted 13 January 2008 Posted 13 January 2008 Please tell me how it will hammer his confidence? dropping him every other week will be far more counter-productive! IF he's good enough then he's old enough! As with all players young and old they occasionally need an arm around their shoulder and given a bit of confidence.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.