sphericalfox Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 King is an excellent defender and perfectly suited to the defensive fulcrum role i've mentioned so often . He reads the game well, doesn't go ball-watching, never commits himself to a clumsy tackle but shepherds people away from danger and quaite often nicks the ball. He wins a stack of headers from defensive corners and in areas of deep midfield, is a fast and safe passer and the sort of guy who makes himself available for the next pass as well. Indeed it is only since he's shed his defensive role, post Pearson that we've started to concede so many goals, including two more at Forest to go with the two against Reading and Bristol City. With Fernandez gradually imposing some presence on the team King would, as Marbella suggests, have his best opportunity yet, to make runs from deep without the fear that, if he does so, he will have no cover. People are so bland about us sacrificing the 20-odd goals he's involved in a season but we've already got little chance of success without those goals - and more from people other than our strikers when they're finally in place. Please explain how, in specific detail, how King not playing his defensive role was to blame for the concession of goals from each of these games, especially against Nothingham, I am intrigued!
marbelladave Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 Please explain how, in specific detail, how King not playing his defensive role was to blame for the concession of goals from each of these games, especially against Nothingham, I am intrigued! This is tantamount to foul play, spherical, you should know better...... Applying a general argument to specific events is practically a yellow card offence...... When playing his more defensive role, King routinely made effective tackles in and around our box, made goal line clearances on more than one occasion and rarely gave away freekicks. He was also pretty effective in the air and did not give the ball away by booting upfield to the opposition. No one in our team has been half as effective in this role since he was pushed forward.
okie fox Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 With Fernandez gradually imposing some presence on the team King would, as Marbella suggests, have his best opportunity yet, to make runs from deep without the fear that, if he does so, he will have no cover. People are so bland about us sacrificing the 20-odd goals he's involved in a season but we've already got little chance of success without those goals - and more from people other than our strikers when they're finally in place. I am intrigued to know how Fernandes, who is playing on the right side of the diamond, is going to provide cover for King at the base of the diamond, which is intended to be a stay-at-home position (Makelele role, 'holding midfielder' or 'anchor man').
marbelladave Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 I am intrigued to know how Fernandes, who is playing on the right side of the diamond, is going to provide cover for King at the base of the diamond, which is intended to be a stay-at-home position (Makelele role, 'holding midfielder' or 'anchor man'). It assumes a change in formation from the diamond that was used first half on saturday...... This formation was only partially effective, Danns and Fernandez did very well, Wellens stayed too deep to do anything productive and King was in my view, played out of position in the attacking mid role and largely anonymous. Think diamond with Danns and (say) Wellens in the (not so wide) positions and King and Fernandez playing both the anchor role in defence and getting forward in their different ways in attack. If Fernandez drives forward with the ball at his feet then King holds, if King makes a forward run then Fernandez uses his passing skills to move the ball forward but covers King. Not exactly rocket science, but yes it does require another change in formation, not ideal.
okie fox Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 Thanks, that makes sense. I was watching online so didn't get the big picture! Did we lose our shape in the second half?
sphericalfox Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 It assumes a change in formation from the diamond that was used first half on saturday...... This formation was only partially effective, Danns and Fernandez did very well, Wellens stayed too deep to do anything productive and King was in my view, played out of position in the attacking mid role and largely anonymous. Think diamond with Danns and (say) Wellens in the (not so wide) positions and King and Fernandez playing both the anchor role in defence and getting forward in their different ways in attack. If Fernandez drives forward with the ball at his feet then King holds, if King makes a forward run then Fernandez uses his passing skills to move the ball forward but covers King. Not exactly rocket science, but yes it does require another change in formation, not ideal. So I am not mistaken, you are suggesting that the attacking based formation, the one that Thracian demanded, only before the game, was successful, yet to satisfy Thracian, and to play to King's strength's we should play a formation which suits him, and be more defensive, and exploit his ability to score goals. Interesting. It must be difficult for Thracian, he must have no hair for having pulling it all out.
Kitchandro Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 Thanks, that makes sense. I was watching online so didn't get the big picture! Did we lose our shape in the second half? No, we were very comfortable until Nugent and Danns went off and Gallagher came on, at which point we invited pressure. Still, they didn't really look like scoring until the penalty and sending off.
marbelladave Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 Thanks, that makes sense. I was watching online so didn't get the big picture! Did we lose our shape in the second half? Very much so, Fernanandez and Danns dropped deeper, Nugent and Vassell stayed well forward with King somewhat lost in between. Sort of 4-3---1---2....... The result was that with nothing much in advanced midfield, our balls out of defence got longer and longer and Nugent and Vassel were run ragged trying to cope. Around the hour mark they were both just about out on their feet and Forest were beginning to dominate midfield, though to be fair they only threatened our goal on one or two occasions. The introduction of Gallagher was a poor call by the management, with no pace from Gallagher and Vassell going through the motions, we had no one who could be a threat in behind the Forest defence so they were able to push their back 4 forward and gain total control of the midfield.
sphericalfox Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 No, we were very comfortable until Nugent and Danns went off and Gallagher came on, at which point we invited pressure. Still, they didn't really look like scoring until the penalty and sending off. I agree. We don't have the number of attacking options on the bench that other teams have, and certainly not the options that Nothingham have. However, you are right, the turning point was very simple, the turning point was the penalty, and this gave the impetus for the opposition to get back in the game. With Schemeichel sent off, and with Weale in goal, they must have felt that they fancied stealing a point from the game. With Weale's history of long shots, and handling from crosses and corners, I instantly felt our momentum slip away.
marbelladave Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 So I am not mistaken, you are suggesting that the attacking based formation, the one that Thracian demanded, only before the game, was successful, yet to satisfy Thracian, and to play to King's strength's we should play a formation which suits him, and be more defensive, and exploit his ability to score goals. Interesting. It must be difficult for Thracian, he must have no hair for having pulling it all out. If you read the full post you will see that the formation I suggest can be just as attacking as on saturday, more so as the Fernandez / King pairing will offer more in attack than King on his own and more in defence than Wellens will ever manage. I suggested Wellens on the right, where Fernandez played on saturday, because I did not want to change the personel which I thought might blur the argument. As I am sure you know I would not have Wellens anywhere near my starting XI.
Wherethefoxhat? Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 If you read the full post you will see that the formation I suggest can be just as attacking as on saturday, more so as the Fernandez / King pairing will offer more in attack than King on his own and more in defence than Wellens will ever manage. I suggested Wellens on the right, where Fernandez played on saturday, because I did not want to change the personel which I thought might blur the argument. As I am sure you know I would not have Wellens anywhere near my starting XI. Bloody clueless !!!
marbelladave Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 I agree. We don't have the number of attacking options on the bench that other teams have, and certainly not the options that Nothingham have. However, you are right, the turning point was very simple, the turning point was the penalty, and this gave the impetus for the opposition to get back in the game. With Schemeichel sent off, and with Weale in goal, they must have felt that they fancied stealing a point from the game. With Weale's history of long shots, and handling from crosses and corners, I instantly felt our momentum slip away. Disagree, we had Schlupp on the bench with pace aplenty, at least he wuold have chased down those long balls and his pace would have stopped Morgan and co pushing forward, that was a big turning point as it allowed Forest to pressurise our defense. I agree that the penalty / sending off incident was the real game changer, but I was fearing for our lead even before that.
marbelladave Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 Bloody clueless !!! I WANT CAKE AND TO EAT IT TOO! MWAH! I'm feeling ground down by the weight of sustained intellectual argument......
Wherethefoxhat? Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 I'm feeling ground down by the weight of sustained intellectual argument...... Are you intimating that you're intellectual then ? If you had HALF a football brain .....you'd be bloody dangerous !
marbelladave Posted 22 August 2011 Posted 22 August 2011 Are you intimating that you're intellectual then ? If you had HALF a football brain .....you'd be bloody dangerous ! Have I managed to upset you again? A football fan indulging in a little 'armchair management', hardly an intelectual pursuit. Now if you want to discuss the Wiles proof of Fermats last theorem..........
funkyrobot Posted 23 August 2011 Posted 23 August 2011 When playing well easily our best player. Not far in the season you cant judge him. You must watch a different king to me. Great finisher but not easily our best player. Disappears in every game.
marbelladave Posted 23 August 2011 Posted 23 August 2011 I WANT CAKE AND TO EAT IT TOO! MWAH! Just realised (can be a bit slow sometimes, particularly after a rather nice Chardonnay) that this refers to my comment about keeping Sven as manager whilst actually err....... employing another manager.... It is actually a serious suggestion, Sven as a kind of General Manager (Football) and a much more 'hands on' coach in charge of team affairs. I accept that the personal dynamics could be quite difficult but it would be an excellent solution if it could be pulled off.
Wherethefoxhat? Posted 23 August 2011 Posted 23 August 2011 Have I managed to upset you again? A football fan indulging in a little 'armchair management', hardly an intelectual pursuit. Now if you want to discuss the Wiles proof of Fermats last theorem.......... Bet you're arse is massive eh ? Must be to have you up it all the time !
okie fox Posted 23 August 2011 Posted 23 August 2011 Now if you want to discuss the Wiles proof of Fermats last theorem.......... Are you a scientist?
marbelladave Posted 23 August 2011 Posted 23 August 2011 Bet you're arse is massive eh ? Must be to have you up it all the time ! Half a brain, massive arse........ Why are you so fascinated with my physiology, are you in a cult or something?
marbelladave Posted 23 August 2011 Posted 23 August 2011 Are you a scientist? Engineering background, studied some fairly serious math at one point. And no, I really don't understand the Wiles proof. It's very long (100+ pages) and very complex, many mathematicians do not even believe it to be a 'proper' proof, way beyond my ability anyway. The later 'proof' by Frey is considered to be better but is even more complex The proplem though is very simple, if a, b and c are whole integers; Prove that an + bn = cn is not true, for any value of n >2. Strangely the equation can be true if n = 2, Pythagoras being the obvious example but is never true for n = 3 or greater. Gets into some serious number theory with prime numbers being heavily involved......
Raw Dykes Posted 23 August 2011 Posted 23 August 2011 Engineering background, studied some fairly serious math s.
Wherethefoxhat? Posted 23 August 2011 Posted 23 August 2011 Half a brain, massive arse........ Why are you so fascinated with my physiology, are you in a cult or something? Don't flatter yourself ! And yes i am ....it's the SETBOF Cult !
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.