Manager Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Yeah mate, both from free kicks around the same position, i'm sure. v Ipswitch From the resulting free-kick 20-yards from goal, captain Clemence swung in a dangerous delivery and Stearman was on hand Facts, facts, damned facts!
Ric Flair Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Mattock played plenty on the left-wing last season and still didn't score/shoot much or create much. His final pass was invariably general rather than specific.At least Sheehan did score twice and was pretty close twice, plus he had at least two shots blocked that might well have been goalbound. In fact his ratio of shots on target to off is pretty sound and you've only got to watch him shooting/crossing in pre-kick-off to see what a powerful and accurate left foot he's got. Sheehan can get into attacking positions from full-back, no question, but like King in midfield, I've mostly got the impression he's been asked to exercise caution - presumably because of our situation and our slow centre-backs. Mattock gets forward too but his end product has never been as productive as Sheehan's in all the football I've watched him. Sheehan's assists have ALL come from set pieces this season. Not that, that's anything for him to be ashamed of, hat's off to him for being able to take a good free-kick and corner. Every team needs a player like that and had Leicester not already got one or two of them in the team then Sheehan would definitely have a strong case to be included each week. But Stephen Clemence has several assists from corners/free-kicks and Iain Hume appears to be just as dangerous from free-kicks as Sheehan. Couple this with the fact that Sheehan's defensive attributes aren't as strong as Joe Mattock's, which is the basic requirement for a left back and it's hard to champion the inclusion of Sheehan when the only things he does well are already covered for by others in the team. Whether Joe Mattock is a set piece guru or not, he's defensively sound a lot more often than Mr Sheehan is and that's why Joe at 17 is getting the nod and Sheehan is on the verge of being booted out of here. In an ideal scenario Joe Mattock would be lethal from set pieces, but I fear you'd still find a cause for the inclusion of let's face it, a very, very average player who I have no doubts will never play at a higher level than he's playing at right now. A left back's job is to defend well, and help out the left winger as much as possible, Joe Mattock does that or tries to do that (he's by no means innocent this season, he's made mistakes, but Alan Sheehan's defending is horrendous at times) . Scoring goals and creating goals is a massive plus for a defender, but not at a sacrifice for the main element of that position DEFENDING!!!. So what I am trying to say is just because Joe Mattock doesn't have the assists from set pieces and goals from set pieces is in no way a reflection of whether he should be playing at left back or not. Goals win matches, but so does preventing goals. Our team could do with a lot more of both aspects and had Sheehan been a beast from open play and could offer something that Clemence or Hume can't already do then the team could probably make allowances for his deficiencies in his defending.
hebangsthedrums Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 ^ Good post, that sums up very well why I would pick Mattock over Sheehan.
Manager Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 ^ Good post, that sums up very well why I would pick Mattock over Sheehan. A pointless argument spoiled by a common sense post - ah well - back to work! . . . but maybe they could both be coached for their weaknesses and we could have 2 brilliant left fulls ok - I'm gone.
Bluemoon Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Well it's all irrelevant now. Norris has gone to Ipswich. Obviously reports of his love affair with Ollie were a bit wide of the mark. Ipswich a bigger club than us?...... reality setting in.
Ric Flair Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Well it's all irrelevant now. Norris has gone to Ipswich. Obviously reports of his love affair with Ollie were a bit wide of the mark. Ipswich a bigger club than us?...... reality setting in. I always thought he was from the Midlands area, but as it turns out he was bought up in East Anglia so going back there might have been a factor. I'd be amazed if we still have the money to sign Norris anyway, we've spent over £2 million this transfer window and Norris has gone for about that. We still need 3 or 4 new players IMO and that sort of money spent on one player might not be feasible right now.
WetFlannel Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 How many goals has Sheehan scored from free kicks? 2 (one being a mighty deflection) How many goals has Hume scored from free kicks? 2 (Both a hell of a lot better than Sheehans) Is this a reason just to keep Sheehan on the pitch? No
Manwell Pablo Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 I always thought he was from the Midlands area, but as it turns out he was bought up in East Anglia so going back there might have been a factor. I'd be amazed if we still have the money to sign Norris anyway, we've spent over £2 million this transfer window and Norris has gone for about that. We still need 3 or 4 new players IMO and that sort of money spent on one player might not be feasible right now. Who cares about David ****ing Norris anyway, he's becoming the new Freddy - Bill Sharpwood Caravan Esquire.
Ric Flair Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Who cares about David ****ing Norris anyway, he's becoming the new Freddy - Bill Sharpwood Caravan Esquire. David Norris cares about David Norris.
maddog Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Norris isn't worth £2m in my eyes. Theres no way Norris is 4 times the player of Oakley. Mattock will be worth £5m+ in a few years. He has the potential to become the next Ashley Cole. I mean on price not to become a twat who isn't even that good and no where near as good as Bridge. But Chelsea paid £23m for him, maybe if we wait with Mattock for 5 years or so they will pay an 8 digit sum for him.
Bert Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 yeah Clem took both 1 was a the goal Stearman got slated for celebrating, the other was Kisnorbo He didn't get slated for celebrating it at all. It was the way he celebrated.
Manwell Pablo Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Theres no way Norris is 4 times the player of Oakley. Mattock will be worth £5m+ in a few years.He has the potential to become the next Ashley Cole. I mean on price not to become a twat who isn't even that good and no where near as good as Bridge. But Chelsea paid £23m for him, maybe if we wait with Mattock for 5 years or so they will pay an 8 digit sum for him. Oh, my, word. (23 Million, have I missed something?)
Thracian Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Sheehan's assists have ALL come from set pieces this season. Not that, that's anything for him to be ashamed of, hat's off to him for being able to take a good free-kick and corner. Every team needs a player like that and had Leicester not already got one or two of them in the team then Sheehan would definitely have a strong case to be included each week. But Stephen Clemence has several assists from corners/free-kicks and Iain Hume appears to be just as dangerous from free-kicks as Sheehan. Couple this with the fact that Sheehan's defensive attributes aren't as strong as Joe Mattock's, which is the basic requirement for a left back and it's hard to champion the inclusion of Sheehan when the only things he does well are already covered for by others in the team. Whether Joe Mattock is a set piece guru or not, he's defensively sound a lot more often than Mr Sheehan is and that's why Joe at 17 is getting the nod and Sheehan is on the verge of being booted out of here. In an ideal scenario Joe Mattock would be lethal from set pieces, but I fear you'd still find a cause for the inclusion of let's face it, a very, very average player who I have no doubts will never play at a higher level than he's playing at right now. A left back's job is to defend well, and help out the left winger as much as possible, Joe Mattock does that or tries to do that (he's by no means innocent this season, he's made mistakes, but Alan Sheehan's defending is horrendous at times) . Scoring goals and creating goals is a massive plus for a defender, but not at a sacrifice for the main element of that position DEFENDING!!!. So what I am trying to say is just because Joe Mattock doesn't have the assists from set pieces and goals from set pieces is in no way a reflection of whether he should be playing at left back or not. Goals win matches, but so does preventing goals. Our team could do with a lot more of both aspects and had Sheehan been a beast from open play and could offer something that Clemence or Hume can't already do then the team could probably make allowances for his deficiencies in his defending. About six weeks ago I did go through the goals conceded statistics when Sheehan has played/not played over their career and at the time it was better with Sheehan and even now I don't think there any noticeable difference. So much of the defensive theory is a myth. Sheehan, like Nils before him is lousy ion the turn and not the best at closing down but his general defending particularly within the box is much improved and every bit as sound as that of Mattock, who himself, has had his problems containing wingers. As for the assists it is only the official assists that might all have been from set pieces. There were various others. He had a hand in the goal that beat Accrington in the cup, there was a chance for Campbell at Barnsley or Sheffield Wednesday, another fluffed by Fryatt at the near post and so on, I can't remember whether the disallowed Cort goal at Preston was from open play, there was a second disallowed goal that wouldn't appear on official stats and the list, totally ignored by everyone, goes on and on. And whatever Hume or Clemence do (and we'll agree to differ about them being as good at dead ball delivery as Sheehan) these chances come from a full-back and are a real bonus and one we could do with keeping instead of throwing away, especially with our goalscoring record. Sheehan's never been a specialist left-winger or midfielder anyway but I have witnessed him creating such opportunities for years at left-back so there's nothing new and there's no reason those chances should stop. As for how I'd feel if Mattock became as dangerous in attack I'd be delighted and cannot understand why you'd think otherwide. In fact I sang his praises loud and clear for exactly that in the FA Youth Cup game against Crystal Palace when he played left midfield. Sadly I've never seen him drive forward like that for the first team though, even then, he did demonstrate that he has a way to go before his final shot/pass is as accurate as sheehan's.
Thracian Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Gareth Williams is regularly up there on the assists. Sylla was third one season. Can't remember writing Williams off as such - just being disappointed that he never seemed anything like as good as his publicity and seemed forever prone to injury. As for Sylla, that was way before you steered me towards the Football League stats but I truly cannot remember him assisting anyone or anything. I certainly wrote him off, so you've scored a point against me on that score, but I cannot say I've ever regretted writing him off and have to suggest the stats represent proof that, however hard you try, they are not infallible. Interesting though, looking those stats up, winger Sylla had fewer assists for the entire season (4) than full-back Sheehan had in half - and no goals. Nils had one goal, three assists and a grand total of 12 shots of which three were on target for the following (2006/7 season), again, fewer in every department than Sheehan had despite a defence that conceded slightly more goals on average.
snootyfox1 Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 williams?????? who tommy ??? best fullback ever at filbo
rustic Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 I think we should count ourselves lucky to have two young and improving left sided players.There's nothing wrong with a bit of competition. For me it should be Chambers on the right and Sheehan on the left with Mattock on the bench. Unfortunately Sheehan seems to be taking the blame for the Soton defeat............. ......................unless he's injured heard from a good source that he isnt injured. he was to play against Coventry at left back but Holloway wanted him to go to swansea on loan after they turned down a bid for him from leeds united. Sheehan refused to go on loan and since then Holloway has bombed him down to train with the academy.
WetFlannel Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Theres no way Norris is 4 times the player of Oakley. Mattock will be worth £5m+ in a few years.He has the potential to become the next Ashley Cole. I mean on price not to become a twat who isn't even that good and no where near as good as Bridge. But Chelsea paid £23m for him, maybe if we wait with Mattock for 5 years or so they will pay an 8 digit sum for him. Err... Right
Jimmy Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 He didn't get slated for celebrating it at all. It was the way he celebrated. no after that game someone on here whinged that he "had the nerve to celebrate a goal from half a yard out"
Thracian Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 heard from a good source that he isnt injured. he was to play against Coventry at left back but Holloway wanted him to go to swansea on loan after they turned down a bid for him from leeds united. Sheehan refused to go on loan and since then Holloway has bombed him down to train with the academy. So why the hell doesn't Holloway let him go to Leeds? He'll be able to go for free at the end of the season anyway. I don't get Holloway over this at all. You've only got to read some of the shit written about Sheehan on here to see that he could do no right if he scored 20 goals a season and made 40. So give him three cheers and send him on his way to Leeds. What is anyone afraid of - that he'll wave to us on the way past next season? Why worry? No-one's done any better for leaving Leicester. It's his problem. I've mentioned they want to fast-track Mattock anyway so there's going to be limited opportunities for Sheehan despite the fact that the stats clearly show, at least as far as I am concerned, that he's one of the most effective attacking left backs we've had here for years. More effective that Mattock but there's no way Holloway seems keen to let Mattock go on loan whether he gets a new left-back or not. Sheehan knows he deserves a place in the team as it stands, and the evidence confirms it but, if what you say is true, he's let Holloway know he's not happy with his treatment and I wouldn't blame him one bit. What with Kelly's attitude and now, apparently, Holloway's fit of pique, I'd not be surprised if he wants away. But that's not a lad having "attitude". In fact Sheehan doesn't strike me as a problem player one bit. He's known to do extra training, he's there almost every home game for the Reserves with Wesolowski and was, indeed, captain of the reserves so that hardly suggests he's trouble. He's just a typical Irish lad who's prepared to stand up for himself if he thinks he's being shat on and why not?
rustic Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 So why the hell doesn't Holloway let him go to Leeds? He'll be able to go for free at the end of the season anyway. I don't get Holloway over this at all. You've only got to read some of the shit written about Sheehan on here to see that he could do no right if he scored 20 goals a season and made 40. So give him three cheers and send him on his way to Leeds. What is anyone afraid of - that he'll wave to us on the way past next season? Why worry? No-one's done any better for leaving Leicester. It's his problem. I've mentioned they want to fast-track Mattock anyway so there's going to be limited opportunities for Sheehan despite the fact that the stats clearly show, at least as far as I am concerned, that he's one of the most effective attacking left backs we've had here for years. More effective that Mattock but there's no way Holloway seems keen to let Mattock go on loan whether he gets a new left-back or not. Sheehan knows he deserves a place in the team as it stands, and the evidence confirms it but, if what you say is true, he's let Holloway know he's not happy with his treatment and I wouldn't blame him one bit. What with Kelly's attitude and now, apparently, Holloway's fit of pique, I'd not be surprised if he wants away. But that's not a lad having "attitude". In fact Sheehan doesn't strike me as a problem player one bit. He's known to do extra training, he's there almost every home game for the Reserves with Wesolowski and was, indeed, captain of the reserves so that hardly suggests he's trouble. He's just a typical Irish lad who's prepared to stand up for himself if he thinks he's being shat on and why not? Its a pity for a young lad who joined the club at 16 to be treated like this. And I agree with the point made that Holloway should have let Sheehan go to leeds if he wasnt going to play him.
Thracian Posted 21 January 2008 Posted 21 January 2008 Its a pity for a young lad who joined the club at 16 to be treated like this. And I agree with the point made that Holloway should have let Sheehan go to leeds if he wasnt going to play him. You're a good lad Rustic - I can perhaps arrange honorary membership of the Swan Barbars (Independent) team! Remember, you've gotta be in it to win it!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.