maddog Posted 14 February 2009 Posted 14 February 2009 Yes we are top of the league but what is the weakest area of our team. 3 useless home performances and i blame the strikers. This isn't an ahhhhh shit we are fooked thread, we are still going up IMO, but which part of our team is the weakest and will be easily exploited next season in the championship I clearly blame the strikers, some the midfield, some crazy people the defence, lets see shall we. 2 goals in 12 from Fryatt since his new deal, Hayles and Dickov too old, Campbell in Blackpool, Chambers i , Howard donkeyish in the home games. Then theres Dire , Dyer's recent performances, and general struggles to cross the ball from the midfield. Or the slight lack of confidence when Martin comes to catch the ball, and the very few silly mistakes from the best defense in the league. So whats its gonna be?
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 14 February 2009 Posted 14 February 2009 In terms of depth, and depth only, the strikers. The two regular starters are excllent quality for this level, but Chambers is still finding his feet (even though I reckon he'll turn out to be an asset), and Dickov and Hayles are past it at best.
eraserhead66 Posted 14 February 2009 Posted 14 February 2009 I blame the midfield, particularly the wide positions. There seems to be a complete reluctance to get down to the byline & put crosses in. The players seem to want to turn inside & congest the centre of the park. Dyer, well. what has happened to him? He can't beat a player, he doesn't know where to position himself to get the ball, he doesn't have the know how to run into a space to run onto a ball...etc. He's like a little boy lost. I'd play Mattock on the left mid (Powell at left-back), drop Cleverley & put Berner in the centre, then Oakley right mid. Keep King where he is!
clazkel Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 I think the midfield are too deep at times are dont support the forwards. We dont seem to have any wide players anymore and Mattock and Gilbert dont get forward very much anymore. I would like Cleverly to replace Gilbert at right back as he would support the midfield better, and Chambers to replace Dyer as his confidence seems to have gone. Berner has got to play, whether its at left back and drop Mattock or in midfield, his calming influence is needed on the pitch, and you can see he has passion
SamL Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 You say that the strikers are to blame for our recent poor performances at home, but no one has really shone out. It's a bit unfair to shift all the blame onto the strikers. We've got two decent strikers for this level. Howard and Fryatt may not be playing at their best at the moment, but without them we wouldn't be where were in the league. Simple really. Dickov doesn't seem to be up to it and Chambers is still finding his feet so I definitely think we need some cover. However, DJ is not the answer.
Thracian Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 You can't sensibly blame one area. The defence is still mean in terms of conceding but has become distributively awful. Midfield is often being missed out as the ball is hooved forward compared with when Tunchev was around with his short, early passes. Virtually all our opponents now are playing 4-5-1 or versions of it, trying to deny us time and space before hoping to catch us with a swift break and this. combined with our hoofball from the back is meaning less service for the strikers, especially when we go narrow. All areas are contributing to our problems. The defenders for giving the ball away so often, the supposedly wide midfielders for crowding the central space and rarely taking people on or getting around the back and the strikers for not having sufficient pace or movement to help disrupt defences. Pearson too seems to be trying to grind his way over the line rather than play ourselves over. Football, in the end is mostly about the speed and accuracy of your passing. The more you keep the ball and the faster you get in into the danger zone the more chances you'll get and the more games you'll win. We're failing on both counts. Our passing is too often pedestrian and inaccurate, we have very little pace or movement. A final point is that our set-pieces, once again, have become predictable but with inconsistent delivery. When teams have a plan you have to challenge it by asking different questions. Oakley and King seemed to be the only players yesterday who retained the belief that passing and moving around the box was the best way to unlock Swindon's defence. Dyer when he first arrived, would take people on at pace and, if he failed, try again and again. Now he's held back by the Leicester City law for wingers - defend first, retain possession and take no risks. But, in the final third you HAVE to take risks if you're ever going to break down organised defences, however much the crowd moan when you're dispossessed. People have criticised King for twice hitting the wodwork before his goal but, unlike others, he was at least finding time and a bit of space in the box (again) and I wish he were free to do more of it. But our main attackers, Fryatt, Howard and Dyer hardly worked a goalscoring chance between them.
demon_dog Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 Pity I can't vote for 2 options! IMO both the strikeforce and midfield are not doing the job properly. I also agree with Thracian that the defence are currently hoofing the ball upfield, instead of the passing through midfield as we saw in the past. Teams are now fully aware that any long balls are meant for Howard to knock on for Fryatt, they seem to put men around Howard to negate this. It's a good job that we can score from other areas, if it was all left to Howard and Fryatt at the moment we would not be scoring many goals.
lcfc81 Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 You can't sensibly blame one area. The defence is still mean in terms of conceding but has become distributively awful. Midfield is often being missed out as the ball is hooved forward compared with when Tunchev was around with his short, early passes. Virtually all our opponents now are playing 4-5-1 or versions of it, trying to deny us time and space before hoping to catch us with a swift break and this. combined with our hoofball from the back is meaning less service for the strikers, especially when we go narrow. All areas are contributing to our problems. The defenders for giving the ball away so often, the supposedly wide midfielders for crowding the central space and rarely taking people on or getting around the back and the strikers for not having sufficient pace or movement to help disrupt defences. Pearson too seems to be trying to grind his way over the line rather than play ourselves over. Football, in the end is mostly about the speed and accuracy of your passing. The more you keep the ball and the faster you get in into the danger zone the more chances you'll get and the more games you'll win. We're failing on both counts. Our passing is too often pedestrian and inaccurate, we have very little pace or movement. A final point is that our set-pieces, once again, have become predictable but with inconsistent delivery. When teams have a plan you have to challenge it by asking different questions. Oakley and King seemed to be the only players yesterday who retained the belief that passing and moving around the box was the best way to unlock Swindon's defence. Dyer when he first arrived, would take people on at pace and, if he failed, try again and again. Now he's held back by the Leicester City law for wingers - defend first, retain possession and take no risks. But, in the final third you HAVE to take risks if you're ever going to break down organised defences, however much the crowd moan when you're dispossessed. People have criticised King for twice hitting the wodwork before his goal but, unlike others, he was at least finding time and a bit of space in the box (again) and I wish he were free to do more of it. But our main attackers, Fryatt, Howard and Dyer hardly worked a goalscoring chance between them. A very lazy comment in my opinion, either you are claiming that distribution has become worse since Tunchev has got injured (which is the most obvious statement you could post considering we are talking about taking a well cultured Bulgarian international defender out of a league 1 team) or you are suggesting that the current Defence has regressed in terms of distribution over the course of the season. Which imo is completely incorrect, the amount of time our defence looks to play short balls into the midfield has increased massively. The only statistic I have to back this up is Leicester 45% possesion MK Dons 55% Leicester 53% possession Swindon 47%. EDIT: Just looked at all the possesion stats and although sometimes it jumps around abit the general pattern suggests we have probably started to increase the amount of possesion we have, which is highly unlikely from a long ball team with poor distribution from the back.
l444ry Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 All areas seem to be playing in a comfort zone. Pearson seems to have no quality strength in depth for substitutions that can vastly improve a given situation. Glad City have the points in the bag because much more of this and they will only just limp over the automatic promotion line.
FilboFox Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 Goalkeeper on its own would be our weakest position... we have a strong defence, the midfield is perhaps our weakest outfield position but up front we are starting to look suspect too... but I still think our goalkeeping position is our weakest position on its own.
Father Ted Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 Not one area in particular but at the minute, two main weak links are Gilbert and Dyer.
Joe. Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 There's no specific weak area of our team that worries me, it's the cover we possess that does. We've not really got sufficent cover for the midfield in the wide positions, and nobody of particular quality for the middle. As for the strikers, I've got no confidence in anybody past Fryatt and Howard. Dickov and Campbell should be shipped off as soon as possible, and the only other option we have is the unproven Chambers.
Finnegan Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 I think despite investment in the summer we're still weakest out wide. I'd like to see a higher quality of winger brought in on the right if we go up. I'd also like to see a pacier striker added to the side of a genuine Championship quality (I consider Howard and Fryatt to be debatable.) I think our defence is better than it was last year, to be honest, and it was good enough then. Overall I'd say it's not a position we're weakest in - it's an attribute: Speed.
Father Ted Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 I think despite investment in the summer we're still weakest out wide. I'd like to see a higher quality of winger brought in on the right if we go up.I'd also like to see a pacier striker added to the side of a genuine Championship quality (I consider Howard and Fryatt to be debatable.) I think our defence is better than it was last year, to be honest, and it was good enough then. Overall I'd say it's not a position we're weakest in - it's an attribute: Speed. It's good enough at the minute but I'm not sure it's better than last years. Ok, the distribution may be better but I would say that: McAuley/Kisnorbo > Morrison Stearman > Gilbert
Mr Happy Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 Not one area in particular but at the minute, two main weak links are Gilbert and Dyer. These two players don't look like the same two we signed up at the beginning of the season anymore. Time to give them a rest, put Cleverly at right back and Berner back in Midfield.
Guest Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 I think despite investment in the summer we're still weakest out wide. I'd like to see a higher quality of winger brought in on the right if we go up.I'd also like to see a pacier striker added to the side of a genuine Championship quality (I consider Howard and Fryatt to be debatable.) I think our defence is better than it was last year, to be honest, and it was good enough then. Overall I'd say it's not a position we're weakest in - it's an attribute: Speed. On yesterday's showing, definitely. We were second to almost every ball. Perhaps it's time to give some of the main 11 a rest and let some of the others start for a change.
Thracian Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 A very lazy comment in my opinion,either you are claiming that distribution has become worse since Tunchev has got injured (which is the most obvious statement you could post considering we are talking about taking a well cultured Bulgarian international defender out of a league 1 team) or you are suggesting that the current Defence has regressed in terms of distribution over the course of the season. Which imo is completely incorrect, the amount of time our defence looks to play short balls into the midfield has increased massively. The only statistic I have to back this up is Leicester 45% possesion MK Dons 55% Leicester 53% possession Swindon 47%. EDIT: Just looked at all the possesion stats and although sometimes it jumps around abit the general pattern suggests we have probably started to increase the amount of possesion we have, which is highly unlikely from a long ball team with poor distribution from the back. Not have the fine details of the data at hand to assess I'd say a whole lot of factors could contribute to those figures without affecting my argument one bit. But I truly wish I could run a film back to you because there would be no doubting my point then. And no-one is denying that the centre-backs, Hobbs in particular, might have retained possession for some time what with Swindon generally being concerned with getting their men behind the ball and the oft-referred to "surgs forward" of Hobbs. However, time and again, when he and Morrison finally passed the ball, time and and again it was a floated 30 yarder which was easily anticipated and mostly won by the opposition. There was one run in the first 10 minutes when it happened five or six times in succession. I got sick of counting and asked the guy in my neigbouring seat to watch just in case I was seeing things. Our distribution is almost bound to be worse without Tunchev but surely the manager can simply instruct the centre-backs to play the ball simply and make themselves available for a possible return rather than floating it forward and giving the ball away because they are not good enough to float the ball accurately and consistently over that distance. What makes it worse is that Howard is the only potential target and the opposition quickly knows that. Fryatt is not one to win the ball in the air, nor is he fast enough to race off the last defender and home in on goal. None of the players who occupy the flanks are aerial playes nor particularly fast either so the whole idea of lofted passes is limited ecept when Howard is winning everything, holding the ball up and feeding therunners from midfield which simply wasn't the case yesterday.
BlabyFox Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 I blame the midfield, particularly the wide positions. There seems to be a complete reluctance to get down to the byline & put crosses in. The players seem to want to turn inside & congest the centre of the park. Dyer, well. what has happened to him? He can't beat a player, he doesn't know where to position himself to get the ball, he doesn't have the know how to run into a space to run onto a ball...etc. He's like a little boy lost. I'd play Mattock on the left mid (Powell at left-back), drop Cleverley & put Berner in the centre, then Oakley right mid. Keep King where he is!
Daggers Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 All areas seem to be playing in a comfort zone. Pearson seems to have no quality strength in depth for substitutions that can vastly improve a given situation. Glad City have the points in the bag because much more of this and they will only just limp over the automatic promotion line. Yea - we looked sodding dreadful at Walsall. Pearson out!
l444ry Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 Seem to be mixing up two different issues, Daggers. You won't find me knocking Pearson. In fact, with the tools at his disposal I suggest he's doing even better than most think.
Houdini Logic Posted 15 February 2009 Posted 15 February 2009 You can hardly narrow it down to one of those three options. Dyer and Gilbert for me
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.