marbelladave Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 The first goal was hit as soft as anything that Weale could have put his cap on it. The second goal, I agree with nobody closing him down, but a goalkeeper at this level should be saving a shot like that. It didin't swerve that much, it wasn't a thunderbolt, he could have just got his body behind it. Sadly I have to agree. The malaise that infects our outfield players from time to time finally spread to Weale. Bad day at the office Chris!
marbelladave Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Whether Weale could have stopped it wasn't my point it was you putting the blame on him with out mentioning the pathetic attempts by the players to stop it. If it was so soft there was absolutely no excuse for it to have even reached Weale, at least he can claim he was totally surprised to see it come through, the defence have no excuse. Watch the replay and see Wellens ( I think ) pathetic attempt, reminiscent of a 5 year old to stop it. True enough Davie, but if defenders stopped everything we wouldn't need a keeper! Not having a go a Weale though, he has been damn good all season but yesterday slumped to the level we have seen from our outfield players far too often this season.
Captain... Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 No one seems to have rated Pearson for this match. I commented on the bench pre match, and due to a couple of injuries early on we were left with a seriously unbalanced looking team. Why have 4 strikers on the bench? You can use 3 out of 7 subs so you need to give yourself as many options as possible, not having a midfielder on the bench, wide or central is shocking, I'd rather see a young inexperienced player that knows the position and plays there every week on the bench than no-one. The injuries didn't help, and forced his hand with the subs, and probably ruined his game plan, but the consensus seems to be taking off DNG for Howard was a poor decision too. A rare bad day at the office for NP?
jonw88 Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 We have to stop putting 4 strikers on the bench and no midfielders, it's ridiculous, and just goes to show what happens when we lose 2 midfielders during the first half! Only need 2 strikers I reckon, would rather see Dyer and Adams on the bench than two extra strikers.
Fosse Boy Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 I was in the east stand (where everyone was singing this) I guess they didn't hear the instructions, fortunately I did. I think I speak for at least myself, ARAB, my dad and my brother when I say we weren't.
davieG Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 True enough Davie, but if defenders stopped everything we wouldn't need a keeper!Not having a go a Weale though, he has been damn good all season but yesterday slumped to the level we have seen from our outfield players far too often this season. I'm pretty sure Weale will think he could have done better, my point was that it wasn't just Weale's fault, seems to me if you're going to critique the failings of conceding a goal you should identify all those responsible not just the last man or the obvious simplest choice. In this case I believe the defence had a significantly better chance of stopping it than Weale did, one could even argue that he had a right to expect them to cover that far corner especially from such a soft attempt.
breadandcheese Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 They were a better team than us, end of. They've showed us the standard we need to get to. West Brom passed and retained the ball better than us. They played to a good tempo, attacking with a purpose. Contrast this with how we tend to attack, playing the ball forward quickly before lacking options, slowing to a stop and passing it backwards to retain possession when we can't break down the defence (which by now has regrouped) Although everyone's pointing to a 5-10 minute spell when West Brom scored 2, they had far more chances than us throughout the game and Weale had to make more saves than Carson. They then looked to play the game out and try and take us on the counter, which they did. I'm not saying this as a criticism of us. I think West Brom are the best team we've played this season and it's no shame to lose to them. They gave us a lesson and hopefully we can take it on the chin and look to improve.
dandannieldanok Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 We have to stop putting 4 strikers on the bench and no midfielders, it's ridiculous, and just goes to show what happens when we lose 2 midfielders during the first half! Only need 2 strikers I reckon, would rather see Dyer and Adams on the bench than two extra strikers. Agreed, I just can't understand Pearson's thinking with his bench selection, completely unbalanced.
Jimmy Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Agreed, I just can't understand Pearson's thinking with his bench selection, completely unbalanced. Apart from Astrit what other Central midfielders did we have available yesterday
shen Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Apart from Astrit what other Central midfielders did we have available yesterday Is Adams injured?
dandannieldanok Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Apart from Astrit what other Central midfielders did we have available yesterday Nicky Adams, Lloyd Dyer could have come on the wing and would have just meant a small reshuffle of the midfield rather than have it completely unbalanced with left-back and two strikers in there. Pearson's benches are indefensible.
Jimmy Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Is Adams injured? no but he is a winger Nicky Adams, Lloyd Dyer could have come on the wing and would have just meant a small reshuffle of the midfield rather than have it completely unbalanced with left-back and two strikers in there. Pearson's benches are indefensible. that would be Bruno Berner who virtually ONLY played as a central midfielder for us until Mattock was sold, he is more that capable of doing so again if called upon
dandannieldanok Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 that would be Bruno Berner who virtually ONLY played as a central midfielder for us until Mattock was sold, he is more that capable of doing so again if called upon Bit different though, he was adequate enough in League One but he was unsurprisingly pissed all over yesterday. He can't cut it in the midfield against the top teams in this league.
marbelladave Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 I have to say that I am more concerned by our performance when we were at full strength than our performance after the changes. We set up pretty much as we always do at home, it was as ineffective yesterday as it has been for most of the season. The pattern has been set at the Walkers, turgid, pedestrian 4-4-2 first half followed by a bit of extra effort second half to get us out of trouble. At no point do we play any decent football though our performances away suggest that we are capable of it. The quality of the Championship is so mediocre that despite these distinctly average performances we remain in a play off spot, so there appears to be no real need to make the changes we need. Given the loss of Oakley and most probably King for the Plymouth game I would love to see us try something different different but if I was a betting man I would put money on Wellens and Berner in center mid, Gallagher and N'Guessan on the flanks and another turgid performance.
dandannieldanok Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 I have to say that I am more concerned by our performance when we were at full strength than our performance after the changes.We set up pretty much as we always do at home, it was as ineffective yesterday as it has been for most of the season. The pattern has been set at the Walkers, turgid, pedestrian 4-4-2 first half followed by a bit of extra effort second half to get us out of trouble. At no point do we play any decent football though our performances away suggest that we are capable of it. The quality of the Championship is so mediocre that despite these distinctly average performances we remain in a play off spot, so there appears to be no real need to make the changes we need. Given the loss of Oakley and most probably King for the Plymouth game I would love to see us try something different different but if I was a betting man I would put money on Wellens and Berner in center mid, Gallagher and N'Guessan on the flanks and another turgid performance. It is really strange why we're so disappointing performance-wise at home, yes West Brom have better players than us but we didn't give them enough problems. When you're up against ball-playing midfielders you have to get in their faces but our players look scared, just like we always do at home in first halves. While we're so far up in the league it's difficult to complain, but it's just strange how home and away performances differ like they currently are.
Daggers Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 He can't cut it in the midfield against the top teams in this league. Don't have to play the top teams every week though, eh?
dandannieldanok Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Don't have to play the top teams every week though, eh? No, but when we do I hope that Pearson's learnt his lesson and puts a proper midfielder on the bench so we don't have to resort to Berner. It had knock-on effects too, meaning we had to bring on the eternally disappointing McGivern.
Asha Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Couple of people saying Wellens was the best player yesterday He was absolutely woeful.
Bryn Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Neilson wasn't that bad, he was marking two men for much of the game, noone was properly pinning down Mattock. Thomas and Mattock are both quicker than he is and to be honest I think he stifled them quite well.
Bert Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Sadly I have to agree.The malaise that infects our outfield players from time to time finally spread to Weale. Bad day at the office Chris! Hardly a bad day at the office. Made quite a few decent saves too. Bit different though, he was adequate enough in League One but he was unsurprisingly pissed all over yesterday. He can't cut it in the midfield against the top teams in this league. What other option did we have AT THE TIME yesterday? It is really strange why we're so disappointing performance-wise at home, yes West Brom have better players than us but we didn't give them enough problems. When you're up against ball-playing midfielders you have to get in their faces but our players look scared, just like we always do at home in first halves. While we're so far up in the league it's difficult to complain, but it's just strange how home and away performances differ like they currently are. Did you go to the game? We gave them enough problems yesterday and could've scored 5. Fryatt had 2 chances, Waghorn, Gallgher and the goal. If that's not giving them problems, then tell me what is? Whilst Neilson didn't have a great game, I'm sure most people's opinions would've changed if that goal had've counted.
dandannieldanok Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 What other option did we have AT THE TIME yesterday? None which is exactly the point, the discussion is about Pearson's shite unbalanced bench, there could have been options if he'd picked a better bench. Did you go to the game? We gave them enough problems yesterday and could've scored 5. Fryatt had 2 chances, Waghorn, Gallgher and the goal. If that's not giving them problems, then tell me what is?Whilst Neilson didn't have a great game, I'm sure most people's opinions would've changed if that goal had've counted. Yeah we caused them a few problems but if you count the saves Chris Weale had to make compared to Scott Carson then you'd realise that the reality is we didn't do anywhere near enough. I was mainly talking about giving them problems when they had the ball anyway, for example forcing them to rush instead of backing off and letting them play it around at their pace. There was never any pressure put on their ball-playing midfielders.
marbelladave Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Hardly a bad day at the office. Made quite a few decent saves too. What other option did we have AT THE TIME yesterday? Did you go to the game? We gave them enough problems yesterday and could've scored 5. Fryatt had 2 chances, Waghorn, Gallgher and the goal. If that's not giving them problems, then tell me what is? Whilst Neilson didn't have a great game, I'm sure most people's opinions would've changed if that goal had've counted. Beaten twice, saved by the woodwork at least once and some misunderstandings with his center backs makes it a bad day for me, by his own very good standards this season. However I do not blame him for our poor performance, there were many more culpable than he was. None at the time, the complaint is that there were no other options available! Gallagher's miss aside the rest of our chances were tight, half chances created (if that's the right word) by lumping the ball into the box. We have been creating such 'chances' all season and to similarly little effect. Neilson is a competent right back routinely exposed by flaws further forward, still prefer Morrison though.
C-man Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 I'm pretty sure Pearson will have learnt lessons from his mistakes yesterday's game - particularly bench selection.
Guest ttfn Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 The thing about Pearson's bench selection is that you shouldn't have to legislate for 2 injuries occurring to midfielders in the first half. Playing Oakley on the right meant that we had our central midfield cover on the pitch, so Gallagher could effectively replace any of those who started. Even had those 2 injuries occurred 20 minutes later in the game, the impact would not have been as great, as we could have had Bruno as a makeshift central midfielder for 25 mins or so. But it wasn't ever realistic to expect him to do a job at this level in centre mid for 50 minutes. It doesn't help that McGivern is a wretched excuse for a footballer. The sad thing is I don't even see any potential there. His positioning is awful, he can't pass or cross, or even tackle particularly well (not that his positioning allows him the chance). He occasionally gets blocks in but they seem to be more by chance than design. And on the 4-2-4 we played near the end - I actually think we should have done that instead of bring McGivern on. I advocated starting with Howard because I felt that we could never pass them off the pitch and we didn't (although that may have been largely due to circumstance, with those two injuries and two goals in 5 minutes). We were instantly more effective once we by-passed the ineffective Berner and off-form Wellens and hit it long. It may not have been pretty but it was much more effective than giving the ball to the midfield pair only for them to lose it.
Anish Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Marbella and others who say WBA were not that good - they obviously aren't Arsenal or Brazil but they are a damn sight better than us. They kept the ball like no other team in this league, at times we were just chasing shadows. They didn't make many clear cut chances but they could easily have had 4 goals yesterday and that was after they took the foot off the pedal slightly. That's the standard we should be looking to achieve. The football was excellent for this division.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.