flanimal Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 I think Neilson is alright, but no better for me. His main problem seems to be that he tries to do things he doesn't have the skill for. Y'know, he just needs to focus on defending. Tackle, block, clear, win possession; and then don't blast out a Beckham style 70-yarder-pass, just play it simple. If Neilson stuck to simple things, and achieved them, I'd be happy. But, too often he tries things that are ridiculous. N'Guessan for me is if anything the opposite. A player of his strength, height and speed should try and beat defenders, and he rarely tries it. Crossing isn't great either. The whole team for me has looked totally off-balace last few games. Adams for me should be started, and use N'Guessan as impact in the 80+ minute.
Thracian Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 I felt a bit sorry for Neilson because he at least gave of his best from start to finish while others seemed to barely stir themselves all match. Even the last few seconds when he laughably blasted that chance of an equaliser skywards, it was he who was charging towards the edge of the box and trying his hardest to take responsibility. Furthermore I think Neilson was let down by the lack of cover behind him when he went forward. Whatever was said about Gradel's frustrating inconsistency he was forever willing to forage back even to his own goalline in an attempt to help the cause or his wingside partner. I didn't see much of that from N'Guessan nor have I seen it in the past. Wellens too had his moments on the ball but I didn't see him doing a King and provided endless out-ball opportunities and options for Neilson. So why the collective lack of support? Everyone knows Neilson's limitations by now. Everyone knows that it's asking a lot of him to attack when he's naturally little more than a defender. So support for him - and for Berner on the other side - should have been built into the plan but I didn't see much. Playing partnerships in football are vital. Complimentary strikers, winger/full-back teams that understand and cog-in together, familiar centre-back pairs, centre-midfield players who instinctively respond to what the other does. Last season we had Fryatt/Howard; King/Oakley; Hobbs/Brown, Gilbert/Gradel or Gilbert/Oakley. This season we're messing things about too much and, when we do, we're not showing any signs of having other complimentary partnerships developing. In fact there's a lot of evidence to suggest the manager is struggling to decide what he should do. There's nothing wrong with Neilson's heart and commitment. He's nowhere near as good as we needed at right back but having signed him and chosen him for the team, the least his team-mates should be doing is helping him and making the best of what he does do. Cos we don't have any specialist options anyway. And whatever his limitations he works hard and doesn't hide when things go wrong. Whatever my reservations about him, it's a pity those qualities are no longer evident throughout the side.
Thracian Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 I think he has a preference for taller players. Levi, Adams, Max = out And Dyer, King to an increasing extent. He definitely seems to favour big and strong. Unfortunately, if that really is the case as it seems to be, he's misguided. Manchester United and Liverpool might be ultra competitive. But they've also got people with the speed, the movement and the skills to tear the biggest defenders apart.
Webbo Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Neilson seems to have been at fault for every goal we have conceded. You may be right about some goals, but none come to mind. Can you explain to me in what way he was responsible for any of the goals yesterday?
LOL NEILSON Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Guys, you're having the same debate that we Hearts fans have had billions of times over the past few years. One thing I'll say in Neilson's favour; he's certainly a talking point! Thank you, THANK YOU for taking him off our hands. The day that Neilson left Hearts was as liberating as when Honest Abe freed the slaves.
Finnegan Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Aye you're certainly doing magnificently without him. Oh well, at least one half of Edinburgh's started the season well.
LOL NEILSON Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Aye you're certainly doing magnificently without him.Oh well, at least one half of Edinburgh's started the season well. Not having to watch Neilson is worth an infinite amount of points per season.
eaststandtom Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Neilson looks like the sort of player who has more limitations than potential. He's never going to improve any more than the player he is now - a one-paced defender of limited technical ability who will try his heart out and will fight for the cause. Although he looked to me at fault for a couple of the goals last weekend, he generally seems to make up for his lack of pace and first touch with some good positioning and huge effort. He's an average passer of the ball though and Pearson would do well to instruct him not to try to be something he's not. Gilbert could bomb upfield and still get back, but Preston's second goal yesterday (while perhaps not being Neilson's fault) is the sort of goal we can expect to concede on several occasions in the future if Neilson keeps trying to be Dani Alves. Overlapping and supporting the attack is all well and good, but Championship football is, boringly, all about percentages - especially when dealing with limited players. We aren't going to get done every week by quick wingers though and he dealt fairly well with Ross Wallace yesterday, primarily through intimidation and some tactical fouling.I think that sort of solid, unspectacular full-back is probably under-appreciated by most and we'd equally be in danger of conceding goals through bad positioning or aerial weakness if we fielded a different type of player at right-back, but Neilson's not the type of player I enjoy watching and I can see already he's going to frustrate me all season. It's a shame because I could see it straight away at Tamworth on his first appearance and, as mentioned, his pace and first touch are not going to improve noticeably over the season. its like you read my mind
Thracian Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Scinell - I'm not taking the p**s out of Neilson, i'm just stating a fact that the guy isn't worthy of his blue shirt from what I have seen of him so far. If he isn't good enough then he shouldn't be playing, and from the reaction of the other posts on this topic many others seem to feel the same way. The sort of people who weren't worthy of the shirt included Sylla, Kaebi, Laczko, Glombard, that alleged winger that Levein brought from Scotland etc. Neilson done a full shift every time I've watched him. It wasn't his fault that he was drafted into the Ipswich game before he was match sharp or that he's a limited footballer anyway. There was ample evidence about Neilson's capabilities for City to absorb before they signed him and he's playing in exactly the way Hearts fans described. We're getting what we paid for. And, as far as he's able Neilson seems to be earning his wages. The guys I mentioned never seemed to. At least when I watched em.
ian_marshall Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Thracian - Couldn't agree more about the players you mentioned in your last post, but irrespective of whether or not he puts in the effort he simply isn't good enough. I also agree that the club had ample opportunity to assess his ability before we signed him, but I always believed over the summer period that NP bought him to the club predominantly for his influence in the dressing room, and as cover for another right back that never arrived.
scinnell Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 I know how much his earning a week, I cant say the amout but its alot the highest wage earner in the team
dandannieldanok Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 He's average/adequate. You can't really class him as a terrible signing when we got him for nothing.
lildave3 Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 To be fair to the lad, he slows down well.
ian_marshall Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 The reason NP didn't tell him to hold back was presumable because he didn't want him to, it's not about using your initiative if the manager has told you to play in a certain way and that was primarily without any midfield width and for the two fullbacks to get forward, likewise for Gallagher to come inside, for Howard to fall back into midfield. When Neilson ventures forward with the ball it's not his responsibility to ensure there is adequate cover that job should have been allocated to someone prior to the match commencing - it's all about organisation. Modern football, at least at this level appears to have littel if anything in common with players using their initiative if it did there'd be more intelligent players in the team not the likes of Brown and Nielson. I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if you haven't got enough pace to go forward and cover back when hit on the counter, then you simply shouldn't be going forward in the first place. Irrespective of how NP wishes to utilise Neilson, the guy should have enough common sense to use his own judgement in certain situations. After all it's Neilson who's on the pitch not Pearson. I'm sure NP would not criticise the guy for honouring his defensive duties and leaving the wide play to N'Guessan. Admittedly Neilson does need to provide support to the winger, but that should not necessarily involve him having to get ahead of N'Guessan. A prime example of this was the partnership between Gary Neville and David Beckham at Manchester United. Neville created a significant number of assists supporting Beckham on the right but rarely did he get ahead of him as Beckham often used to cut the ball back if he didn't have an opportunity to cross the ball himself. As for Gallagher, his reason for drifting in field doesn't appear to be tactical, but more of the fact that as a right footed player playing on the left, he has very little choice but to cut onto his favoured right foot and go inside. If he didn't do this he'd just be forced into the corner by the defender and would pose no threat whatsoever, hence the reason why the team currently has very little width down the left side and the left for a natural left sided winger.
HoustonFox Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 What about Luke O'Neill? He's seemed decent when he's played.
ian_marshall Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 If he's simple not good enough and is picked to play that's not his fault that's the managers. So your question is not all that relevant, a more pertinent one might be why did NP sign him and why does he keep picking Neilson when he's not good enough? And if you think Maybury is the worse fullback we've had you not seen that many games Rest assured i've been ever present at Leicester over the years so i'm certain that i'm in a good enough position to judge our full backs, and for me Maybury was very poor often getting caught out by the diagonal balls in behind him. With the exception of Kaebi (Who only played 3 games), I can't think of many regular Leicester City full backs who have been worse than Alan Maybury over the years. Any suggestions?
davieG Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if you haven't got enough pace to go forward and cover back when hit on the counter, then you simply shouldn't be going forward in the first place. Irrespective of how NP wishes to utilise Neilson, the guy should have enough common sense to use his own judgement in certain situations. After all it's Neilson who's on the pitch not Pearson. I'm sure NP would not criticise the guy for honouring his defensive duties and leaving the wide play to N'Guessan. Admittedly Neilson does need to provide support to the winger, but that should not necessarily involve him having to get ahead of N'Guessan. A prime example of this was the partnership between Gary Neville and David Beckham at Manchester United. Neville created a significant number of assists supporting Beckham on the right but rarely did he get ahead of him as Beckham often used to cut the ball back if he didn't have an opportunity to cross the ball himself. As for Gallagher, his reason for drifting in field doesn't appear to be tactical, but more of the fact that as a right footed player playing on the left, he has very little choice but to cut onto his favoured right foot and go inside. If he didn't do this he'd just be forced into the corner by the defender and would pose no threat whatsoever, hence the reason why the team currently has very little width down the left side and the left for a natural left sided winger. I'm not sure it's a case of agreeing or disagreeing as we simply do not know what instructions he was given. What does seem to be the case is that Pearson doesn't take kindly to people ignoring his instructions. I for one cannot believe he would be playing that far upfield in what to him is an alien position if he hadn't been instructed to do so. One thing for sure whoever is to blame it cannot continue, that I'm sure is something we can agree on
Karljohn Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Rest assured i've been ever present at Leicester over the years so i'm certain that i'm in a good enough position to judge our full backs, and for me Maybury was very poor often getting caught out by the diagonal balls in behind him. With the exception of Kaebi (Who only played 3 games), I can't think of many regular Leicester City full backs who have been worse than Alan Maybury over the years. Any suggestions? Tony Spearing, Peter Gilbert, Nicky Platnauer...
davieG Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Tony Spearing, Peter Gilbert, Nicky Platnauer... Curtis.
ian_marshall Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 I'm not sure it's a case of agreeing or disagreeing as we simply do not know what instructions he was given. What does seem to be the case is that Pearson doesn't take kindly to people ignoring his instructions. I for one cannot believe he would be playing that far upfield in what to him is an alien position if he hadn't been instructed to do so. One thing for sure whoever is to blame it cannot continue, that I'm sure is something we can agree on Yes I do most definitely agree with you on this. Let's hope that between NP, the backroom staff and the playing staff, this issue is resolved very quickly.
Thracian Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 Thracian - Couldn't agree more about the players you mentioned in your last post, but irrespective of whether or not he puts in the effort he simply isn't good enough. I also agree that the club had ample opportunity to assess his ability before we signed him, but I always believed over the summer period that NP bought him to the club predominantly for his influence in the dressing room, and as cover for another right back that never arrived. That might make sense. I was never arguing that he was good enough, and never have done since first seeing him at Ipswich. But I don't think he's in any way been unworthy of the shirt. Lucky to wear it, perhaps, but no worse than others I've seen playing full-back for us at various times.
Mark Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 What went through his head in the last few minutes of the match, shooting from outside the area? Give me strength, he has no technical ability whatsoever, I had my head in my hands before he'd struck the ball. and that tackle on Wallace was a shocker, made me laugh when everyone around the stadium was booing a bloke that had blood pouring down his leg!
lilsmig Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 He is absolutley **** shit!!! cant stand him yesterday he goes forward loses the ball and TRIES to run back but aint fast enough so tunchev has to come from centre back and leave his man unmarked to stop the attack then nielson **** moans at him!!! and n'guessen needs time its a big step from league 2 to the champ but he is our 2nd top scorer so he cant be that bad!? worst signins under pearson nielson and dickov
Ashley Posted 27 September 2009 Posted 27 September 2009 He is absolutley **** shit!!! cant stand himyesterday he goes forward loses the ball and TRIES to run back but aint fast enough so tunchev has to come from centre back and leave his man unmarked to stop the attack then nielson **** moans at him!!! and n'guessen needs time its a big step from league 2 to the champ but he is our 2nd top scorer so he cant be that bad!? worst signins under pearson nielson and dickov I wouldnt call hima pearson signing
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.