Simi Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 Both have put in good and bad performances for us this season. But after reading one of Thracians posts I was tempted into making this thread. For me, I'd rather see us play Sheehan. I just feel that he offers us a lot going forward. With his range of passing it seems to give us a lot more options, at times I find Mattock very one dimensional, especially when he gets a chance to cross. Sheehans set pieces as well are a huge bonus. Especially when playing away from home when we don't create as many chances. Mattock seems to get the nod at the moment because of his pace, which is needed when we're defending. But playing Hayes left wing who is quite pacey could help us a he could support Sheehan. So who do you think deserves to be playing left back?
Mark Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 Mattock. You can't play someone just for their set piece ability especially in at left back. I'd like to see us play him at left midfield though whilst there are no other options, and us try to teach Mattock and Sheehan to overlap as we could then potentially be very dangerous.
lildave3 Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 Mattock. You can't play someone just for their set piece ability especially in at left back. I'd like to see us play him at left midfield though whilst there are no other options, and us try to teach Mattock and Sheehan to overlap as we could then potentially be very dangerous. Sheehan is the better current left back at the minute imo. Mattock seems to be making the same mistakes every week and has a lot to learn. I wouldn't mind playing him left wing against Ipswich.
Simi Posted 23 December 2007 Author Posted 23 December 2007 Mattock. You can't play someone just for their set piece ability especially in at left back. I'd like to see us play him at left midfield though whilst there are no other options, and us try to teach Mattock and Sheehan to overlap as we could then potentially be very dangerous. I don't think it's worked to well when they've both played down the left, but as you say they could learn to play with each other over time. I'm not saying Sheehan just because of his set pieces, his passing is a lot more dynamic than Mattocks and I always find Mattock commits himself forward to often leaving his man, I can think of a couple of times he did it yesterday.
Mark Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 I don't think it's worked to well when they've both played down the left, but as you say they could learn to play with each other over time.I'm not saying Sheehan just because of his set pieces, his passing is a lot more dynamic than Mattocks and I always find Mattock commits himself forward to often leaving his man, I can think of a couple of times he did it yesterday. It's not worked well cause it obviously hasn't been worked on enough. Mattock does commit himself forward, and I tell you what that is refreshing after seeing the likes of Johansson and Maybury playing left back the last few years. There was no problem for the England U21's as Milner would always cover him. If he hasn't got reliable cover then he's going to get caught out now and then.
Simi Posted 23 December 2007 Author Posted 23 December 2007 It's not worked well cause it obviously hasn't been worked on enough.Mattock does commit himself forward, and I tell you what that is refreshing after seeing the likes of Johansson and Maybury playing left back the last few years. There was no problem for the England U21's as Milner would always cover him. If he hasn't got reliable cover then he's going to get caught out now and then. Yes, which is one of the reasons that I suggested Hayes should maybe come in to play left wing until these pair can play together a little better. I just find when Sheehan gets forward he offers us more in terms of a final ball, not just that but he seems a lot less likely to over commit himself.
Thracian Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 Mattock. You can't play someone just for their set piece ability especially in at left back. I'd like to see us play him at left midfield though whilst there are no other options, and us try to teach Mattock and Sheehan to overlap as we could then potentially be very dangerous. a) I don't think Sheehan is just valuable at left-back for his set pieces. He has made a lot of valuable defensive headers and penalty box interceptions in various matches this season and he is excellent at bringing the ball out of defence and trying to use it constructively. He is also just about the only defender at our club who seems aware enough to provide the goalkeeper with a throw-out option. b) You're right that the Sheehan/Mattock combination has never been given proper chance to develop and I can see some potential benefits although my concern still applies - that Mattock doesn't have enough effect and I'm not sure we can enjoy the luxury of playing both. c) However it turned out I would still want Mattock to be given matchtime on a regular basis but I simply cannot understand why, considering the statistics, Mattock gets preference. apart from the "fast-tracking" I previously mentioned which, to my mind, is premature.
davieG Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 People have to accept that if you have attacking fullbacks they will inevitable get caught out occasionally and more importantly they will get beaten by a fast dribbling attacker now and again and we shouldn't be over critical if it happens. As Mark says we'll end up with the likes Johansson otherwise. When a full back goes forward it's important that the other 3 defenders are aware and act as a 3 man defence in order to cover once again it exposes how slow our centre backs are when the full back gets caught out of position. As for Sheehan/Mattock, with the present squad I'd be inclined to stick with Mattock but play Sheehan in front of him away from home and Hayes in home games. I think you can get away with rotating the wing position but the fullback needs to be given a consistent run of games.
Finnegan Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 I think Mattock has the edge, defensively. But I think Sheehan's set pieces contribute more to the side. Until we get a better set-piece taker, Sheehan.
WetFlannel Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 Well Humes set piece against wolves was pretty splendid so Mattock
James. Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 I think Mattock has the edge, defensively. But I think Sheehan's set pieces contribute more to the side. Until we get a better set-piece taker, Sheehan. The importance of set piece ability is emphasised in a team that struggles to score. It is not the only factor but may well be the deciding one. I would go for Sheehan.
Father Ted Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 Mattock. Although I would like Sheehan somewhere in that team, maybe left midfield.
DB11 Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 Interms of ability, either However, I voted for the fastest - Mattock?
Bert Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 a) I don't think Sheehan is just valuable at left-back for his set pieces. He has made a lot of valuable defensive headers and penalty box interceptions in various matches this season and he is excellent at bringing the ball out of defence and trying to use it constructively. He is also just about the only defender at our club who seems aware enough to provide the goalkeeper with a throw-out option.b) You're right that the Sheehan/Mattock combination has never been given proper chance to develop and I can see some potential benefits although my concern still applies - that Mattock doesn't have enough effect and I'm not sure we can enjoy the luxury of playing both. c) However it turned out I would still want Mattock to be given matchtime on a regular basis but I simply cannot understand why, considering the statistics, Mattock gets preference. apart from the "fast-tracking" I previously mentioned which, to my mind, is premature. One thing that Sheehan has over Joe. I'd probably pick Mattock at the minute if i'm being honest.
Micky Ruddle Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 Sheehan. Sheehan Sheehan for me. Basically, Sheehan
Monk Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 I'm not a massive fan of either of them, but Mattock is definately the worse of the two. He's not a bad tackler but he backs off too often and gets himself massively out of position all the time.
Durnerz Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 New left back, both arn't up to it, why o' why didn't we sign David Unsworth?!
dog_4 Posted 23 December 2007 Posted 23 December 2007 mattack isn't great at left back but neither is sheehan. I'd put sheehan left back and mattock left mid, Joe likes to go forward
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.