hebangsthedrums Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 But when Stewart was 17, MON didn't consider him the best left-back at the club. Steve Guppy had that position nailed down anyway.Mattock's still at least a season away from being a consistent performer at Championship level. We didn't play full backs then but I take your point. I couldn't really judge how good Stewart was at 17 as I never saw him play at that age so perhaps the comparison isn't the best. Yep Mattock isn't consistent yet, but arguably Stewart never was and I personally would have him back here in a second.
Thracian Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 It seems the only reason people want Sheehan in their teams is due to his set pieces. Hume and Clemence can take good enough set pieces to be going on with, and I dont think their deliveries are too far behind Sheehans in terms of whether it keeps someone in the side or not. The FoxesTalk survey didn't specify reasons - it just asked who should play, so while your comment undoubtedly has some truth it's a very broad generalisation. The voting was pretty conclusive in Sheehan's favour and I've seen nothing these last few weeks to change that. Hume and Clemence have shown that they can deliver decent free kicks at times but they don't offer Sheehan's range or power, nor his left foot delivery which does seem to offer an added dimension. But Sheehan offers far more than free kicks. He naturally supports attacks, can pass well, has a good shot and gets into positions to use it.
hebangsthedrums Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 The FoxesTalk survey didn't specify reasons - it just asked who should play, so while your comment undoubtedly has some truth it's a very broad generalisation. The voting was pretty conclusive in Sheehan's favour and I've seen nothing these last few weeks to change that. Hume and Clemence have shown that they can deliver decent free kicks at times but they don't offer Sheehan's range or power, nor his left foot delivery which does seem to offer an added dimension. But Sheehan offers far more than free kicks. He naturally supports attacks, can pass well, has a good shot and gets into positions to use it. Thats the trouble he may do that in the reserves but I haven't seen a reserve game for about a decade. I haven't seen him play in some of his better performances, but in all the games i've seen he has not shown any of this and also shown himself to be a poor defender. At Colchester his set pieces were very average. Disregarding Mattock for a second I do not think he is good enough for a midtable championship side, let alone a promotion chasing one as we aspire to be. Trouble is he should have learnt by now how to defend if he is a full back, and he must be as he doesnt have the pace or threat to be a midfielder. I'm pretty sure you'll bring up our defensive record with him in the team - I personally choose to ignore that as I go by the passage of play I see and as I mention I have never seen him defend comfortably.
Ultra Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Sheehan's attacking qualities are in no doubt (except for the terminally blinkered). But defensively, it's evident that the manager doesn't trust him to play in a flat back four. And Holloway is not the first City boss to reach that conclusion. I still think we need another left-back at the club, even if only on loan until the end of the season.
hebangsthedrums Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 I'm not blinkered, I see what I see, but I have never seen Sheehan look threatening from open play. I will happily say the same about Mattock, one burst forward in an early game this season aside.
WetFlannel Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Why does everyone presume Norris is the only winger out there?
Manager Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 The FoxesTalk survey didn't specify reasons - it just asked who should play, so while your comment undoubtedly has some truth it's a very broad generalisation. The voting was pretty conclusive in Sheehan's favour and I've seen nothing these last few weeks to change that. Hume and Clemence have shown that they can deliver decent free kicks at times but they don't offer Sheehan's range or power, nor his left foot delivery which does seem to offer an added dimension. But Sheehan offers far more than free kicks. He naturally supports attacks, can pass well, has a good shot and gets into positions to use it. Why does this debate go on and on? Sheehan has more natural football ability than Mattock - Mattock has more qualities that managers like - (Sheehan has an attitude!) - if a good man manager gets hold of Sheehan he will be a TOP Premiership left sided player - if not he will be a League 1/2 journeyman - Mattock will always be a potentially good player - but never really delivering. Ollie is not a King Kevin type confidence builder but loves players who play like he wants to play - ergo - Mattock has nailed down Left Back - exit Sheehan stage left. Night
TrickyTrev Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Sheehan's attacking qualities are in no doubt (except for the terminally blinkered). But defensively, it's evident that the manager doesn't trust him to play in a flat back four. And Holloway is not the first City boss to reach that conclusion. I still think we need another left-back at the club, even if only on loan until the end of the season. Well i think his attacking abilities are in doubt. He's not a left midfielder because he doesn't like receiving the ball back to goal, he ponders and waits for it to get to him. He plays just like a defender trying to play in midfield. This wouldn't count against him if he showed evidence of being able to get forward effectively from a deeper position but he doesn't carry the ball forward the way you would hope an attacking full back can ala Stearman or Gareth Bale. On top of that his delivery from open play is nowhere near the standard of his delivery from set pieces. All in all I don't think it is blinkers that are preventing people rating Sheehan. Just a worry that he has shown little to suggest that he is anything more than average going forward and bad defensively. The only thing people are not questioning his set-piece ability, which is excellent. But no player warrants a place in the team just because of set-pieces, some one else can always take them.
ibbosuk Posted 21 January 2008 Author Posted 21 January 2008 Sheehan is far more than a set-piece deliver and even this season, with such a limited attack, has created more goals or close things in attack than Mattock. That's not opinion it's fact. Personally I think the (Sheehan or Mattock) debate will be sorted in transfer market before this window closes, and with a new left back in place. On my question: Would you sell Joe Mattock to West Ham for 1.5 Million, If that enabled us buy David Norris from Plymouth for 2 Million ??? Yes I would sell Mattock, and buy David "Chuck" Norris.
davieG Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 As I've never seen Sheehan play in a Championship team with a decent balanced midfield at either RM or LB I'm going to reserve judgement, I think it can be said that individuals can up their performance when playing with better players and in a team that suits there attributes, I'd like to see if that applies to Shhehan As for the Sheehan V Mattock debate I would like to think it was possible to play either of them depending on the opposition because they both have a completely different set of skills and a variety of weaknesses. On the thread subject I can't really see the the point of the question because I really don't believe we're in a position to have to resort to such tactics.
Thracian Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Why does this debate go on and on?Sheehan has more natural football ability than Mattock - Mattock has more qualities that managers like - (Sheehan has an attitude!) - if a good man manager gets hold of Sheehan he will be a TOP Premiership left sided player - if not he will be a League 1/2 journeyman - Mattock will always be a potentially good player - but never really delivering. Ollie is not a King Kevin type confidence builder but loves players who play like he wants to play - ergo - Mattock has nailed down Left Back - exit Sheehan stage left. Night I don't know that he's got "an attitude" any longer. He seems to put in enough extra hours. Otherwise, and perhaps strangely enough, I agree with what you say and mentioned only a couple of days ago my thought that he might move on, say to Leeds, with his contract up in July anyway. It will be a shame and a waste. But then we've long preferred hustlers to footballers at Leicester which is one of the reasons we've been in the shit for so long. Teams need a balance, always have done, and we don't have that balance. I accept that Holloway is trying to change that but am by no means convinced that his judgement is always sound. And I still wish we'd kept Gradel here which only emphasises my point really. We need more goals and people to create them and here we are likely to offload someone we know can score/create goals in rare numbers for a full-back. But then I always did want Keegan here and said so several times.
Manwell Pablo Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Sheehan is far more than a set-piece deliver and even this season, with such a limited attack, has created more goals or close things in attack than Mattock. That's not opinion it's fact. From open play. No it's not, it's most definatley opinion.
Ric Flair Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 I don't know that he's got "an attitude" any longer. He seems to put in enough extra hours.Otherwise, and perhaps strangely enough, I agree with what you say and mentioned only a couple of days ago my thought that he might move on, say to Leeds, with his contract up in July anyway. It will be a shame and a waste. But then we've long preferred hustlers to footballers at Leicester which is one of the reasons we've been in the shit for so long. Teams need a balance, always have done, and we don't have that balance. I accept that Holloway is trying to change that but am by no means convinced that his judgement is always sound. And I still wish we'd kept Gradel here which only emphasises my point really. We need more goals and people to create them and here we are likely to offload someone we know can score/create goals in rare numbers for a full-back. But then I always did want Keegan here and said so several times. We're still yet to allow a player to leave from our Academy that has come back to haunt us in recent years. I doubt it would be different with Sheehan either. Only time before he leaves. No great loss as long as he's replaced with someone who can defend at left back, whose got a bit of pace and as long as Clemence continues to supply consistent corners then we'll be better off than having One Trick Pony in the team anyway.
Thracian Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 From open play. No it's not, it's most definatley opinion. I really have no idea how you can come up with that one and if I'd tried to defend such a statement there'd be a whole column of mockery. Just taking three aspects, goals scored, shots and assists, Sheehan is way ahead. In the Official Football League statistics: Sheehan has scored 2 goals (7th) to Mattock's zero (unplaced out of 15 players). As for shots Sheehan has had a massive 19 shots (Eleven on target 8 off target) and is 4th best in the club! Mattock has a total of 6 shots (3 on target 3 off As for official assists Sheehan has five (second) and Mattock has none. That doesn't take into account all sorts of unofficial near things of which Sheehan's had many and you'd have to go back years to find a Leicester full-back with those sort of attacking statistics. Singularly unappreciated Sheehan.
hebangsthedrums Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 I'm not going to give chapter and verse, because the bloke will be leaving soon anyway (opinion ), but that's fact. Just his goals and his shots put him some way ahead, but there's been more and you know it. But both of his goals were free kicks were they not?
Thracian Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 But both of his goals were free kicks were they not? But they are part of the picture and I doubt you'd want me to give chapter and verse of all the chances Sheehan's been involved in creating more from open play because it would add up to more than you'd obviously think. People talk about no-one being released by Leicester and going on to do well as if we should be proud of it. But I doubt if many, or any such people have had the chance to move on to better clubs and better coaches so that's not really unexpected. But I don't think Leicester are getting nearly as much out of Sheehan as they should - or many other players for that matter. They could start by getting them properly fit.
Manwell Pablo Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 I really have no idea how you can come up with that one and if I'd tried to defend such a statement there'd be a whole column of mockery.Just taking three aspects, goals scored, shots and assists, Sheehan is way ahead. In the Official Football League statistics: Sheehan has scored 2 goals (7th) to Mattock's zero (unplaced out of 15 players). As for shots Sheehan has had a massive 19 shots (Eleven on target 8 off target) and is 4th best in the club! Mattock has a total of 6 shots (3 on target 3 off As for official assists Sheehan has five (second) and Mattock has none. That doesn't take into account all sorts of unofficial near things of which Sheehan's had many and you'd have to go back years to find a Leicester full-back with those sort of attacking statistics. Singularly unappreciated Sheehan. Yes and I said open play. Your points are incredibly easily countered. From Free kicks From Free kicks oh and wait, they're from free kicks as well.
TrickyTrev Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 I really have no idea how you can come up with that one and if I'd tried to defend such a statement there'd be a whole column of mockery.Just taking three aspects, goals scored, shots and assists, Sheehan is way ahead. In the Official Football League statistics: Sheehan has scored 2 goals (7th) to Mattock's zero (unplaced out of 15 players). As for shots Sheehan has had a massive 19 shots (Eleven on target 8 off target) and is 4th best in the club! Mattock has a total of 6 shots (3 on target 3 off As for official assists Sheehan has five (second) and Mattock has none. That doesn't take into account all sorts of unofficial near things of which Sheehan's had many and you'd have to go back years to find a Leicester full-back with those sort of attacking statistics. Singularly unappreciated Sheehan. But both of those goals and I think all of those assists are from set-pieces. We are talking about open play. Some of those shots will be from set pieces, not to mention he has played left midfield as much as left back this season meaning he will inevitably get in more attacking positions. I think more importantly than all this is that its just statistics, football is not a science. You can't calculate how useful a player is by the number of times he has crossed the ball or taken a shot, that may have been the wrong option at the time! By your measurement a full back who got the ball and whacked it hopefully at goal from 35 yards every time he got the ball would be a good attacking player, when in reality all they'd be is a hinderance. I'm not particularly excited by Mattock, I think Stearman is a better player, I just think its clear that he is the best option we have at the moment. If we were to sell him, the money wouldn't all go towards a new winger, we'd urgently need a new left back. (Not that we don't need one at the moment)
Manwell Pablo Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 But both of those goals and I think all of those assists are from set-pieces. We are talking about open play. Some of those shots will be from set pieces, not to mention he has played left midfield as much as left back this season meaning he will inevitably get in more attacking positions. I think more importantly than all this is that its just statistics, football is not a science. You can't calculate how useful a player is by the number of times he has crossed the ball or taken a shot, that may have been the wrong option at the time! By your measurement a full back who got the ball and whacked it hopefully at goal from 35 yards every time he got the ball would be a good attacking player, when in reality all they'd be is a hinderance.I'm not particularly excited by Mattock, I think Stearman is a better player, I just think its clear that he is the best option we have at the moment. If we were to sell him, the money wouldn't all go towards a new winger, we'd urgently need a new left back. (Not that we don't need one at the moment) Oh no, you've done it now.
The People's Hero Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Oh no, you've done it now. Sweepstake. Thrac's reply. TPH - 832 words. 3x 'impact,' 2 x 'demonstrably.'
Thracian Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 The facts speak for themselves - and dramatically.
The People's Hero Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Thracian· View this post · Un-ignore Thracian Sh it. That didn't take long. No way he typed 832 words in that time. As long as he got 'his opinion' and 'facts' differentiated finally though, perhaps we can all get along?
TrickyTrev Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 The facts speak for themselves - and dramatically. Except facts can't speak for themselves. Thats the point. They need qualification.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.