Wolves away post match

[Matt]

On a positive note we have 123 points to play for and two home games coming up.

On a realist note we won't get nearly half that amount of points at this rate.

[Daggers]

I'm not calling for Pearson to be sacked - but if he is I'll be bloody delighted.

Anybody who gets shot of all the defensive options during the close season clearly has no long term plan beyond getting a pay-off for his contract. Pearson's sides evoke one emotion in me - boredom. I've had enough, he produces misfiring and tedious sides oozing inconsistency just like he did during our L1 days. No side he puts out seems to be able to produce a full 90minute performance. No player seems to be able to translate a performance from one match to the next.

There's bad luck and then there's simple ineptitude. He doesn't learn from his mistakes, he repeats them over and over...and then over again.

[Guest Basildon Fox]

He has been passing the ball very well this season until today.

I don't rate him, but I have to admit he has been a transformed figure this season.

He didn't do well today, giving the ball away taking rash long shots.

But im actually warming to the lad, he works well with King but today proved that he can easily struggle against physical midfielders like Henry and Doumbia.

Drinkwater has done well, but for some games I just think oh Drinkwater will definitely struggle today. In away games like today, we need ball winners and physical presence, but we just don't have that in King, Drinkwater and James.

And yes im coming back to the point about a defensive midfielder, but in some games you really need one, and against Wolves today that's something we were missing, along with a shambolic defensive performance in the first half.

But I enjoyed the second half, I thought we played pretty well as I said in another other post.

How would having a defensive midfielder playing today have helped? We lost due to our inability to mark properly twice on set pieces not because we were over run in midfield.

[i luv u foxes]

Oh dear god! Really? You really want to start this? Do you seriously think that Knocky is going to be effective like that throughout a game? He can play the way he does when he comes on for the last ten minutes because the defenders have run out of steam. If he were to start and play like that he would be burnt out within the first ten minutes. Dyer plays completely differently. and also keeps shape, where as Knoky doesn't. I am not saying he isn't an excellent player because he is but he will just get chopped in this league and burn out quickly.

Oh and btw you sir are the tool.

Absolute nonsense knockaert is a clever player who finds gaps plays clever little balls does run at them with lightning pace dyer would be a better impact sub not knockaert

[shen]

Yes they did. De Laet put in as many shocking crosses as good ones. Konchesky scored one screamer and other than that continuously gave the ball away all match.

You can't expect a right-back to deliver a peach every time, can you? At least he made a few good crosses which is more than Ben Marshall, our supposed specialist, managed all game (and even then, he nearly scored with a fluke one). And you clearly looked away for the best part of the second half if you thought Konch gave it away all match. Peczko did squat all second half, because Konch had him in his pocket. He carried the ball forward and passed it to a team-mate on most occasions second half, how did you miss this? I understand feelings getting carried away and clouding judgement, but give these guys a break!

The real chances we created were - Marshall miscontrolling it, Waghorn hitting the post and (and I think I'm being generous here) Nugent heading wide late on (if I'm being kind to him it was a bit too high for him and he was under pressure).

When did Drinkwater remember how to pass the ball? He still gave it away at almost every opportunity in the second half. You're way off the mark there.

You say most of the game - even if you were right about the second half, that would have to mean we played well at one point in the first half too. So when was that?

Anyway, even if we looked a Premiership side for 90 minutes, is that really a good enough thing to be positive about now when we've lost 3 out of 3 in away games? For how many seasons are we going to be taking positives out of about 3 chances in away games when we've ended up losing? For how long are we going to make out we've been unlucky when actually we're the masters of our own downfall?

We gave it to them because we played appallingly, and more specifically, we defending appallingly.

No excuses this time.

This is what I mean with frustration getting the better of you. I don't blame you for it, I think it was frustrating as hell too, particularly when we showed second half that the players have the quality to play good attacking football, even if the finishing leaves a lot to be desired!! I've not been making any excuses here, I'm just calling it as I see it. Admittedly, I'll be somewhat less biased as I can only see the games on TV.

We created at least a couple more chances though: Waggy's mistimed header (the cross was begging to be nodded in), Nuge's woeful cross first half when Vardy was alone in the box and both players had somewhere between 5-10 yards of space to the nearest defender and Nuge's odd backward header from a couple of yards out that Knocky then recovered to swivel into a defender. Three chances that would've likely been put away had they not been majorly c*cked up.

Drinky certainly upped his game markedly second half. He was the one that most often set up Knocky and De Laet. He had a few poor passes still, but he kept trying to pass it forward, so that is expected. Obviously his first half performance was atrocious, so he was always going to be tarnished with that for the rest of the game.

And first half we were poor, but we still made good runs and created openings only to let ourselves down with terrible passing with the aforementioned DD being one of the main culprits. We still created more after their second goal than they did.

We had massive defensive problems on set pieces, but the backline dealt with most of the rest rather well. Morgan put in a good performance, recovering to make a great tackle on Doyle first half and after one of his careless misplaced passes. Moore struggled, but ultimately Wolves created little else because the backline upped their game.

You're absolutely spot on though that we blew it ourselves. Poor defending for their goals and poor up front when we created chances. And frankly, I'm more worried about the latter...

[dnewty]

I'm not calling for Pearson to be sacked - but if he is I'll be bloody delighted.

Anybody who gets shot of all the defensive options during the close season clearly has no long term plan beyond getting a pay-off for his contract. Pearson's sides evoke one emotion in me - boredom. I've had enough, he produces misfiring and tedious sides oozing inconsistency just like he did during our L1 days. No side he puts out seems to be able to produce a full 90minute performance. No player seems to be able to translate a performance from one match to the next.

There's bad luck and then there's simple ineptitude. He doesn't learn from his mistakes, he repeats them over and over...and then over again.

spot on. Also look at the zak whitbread situation what a joke will the bloke ever be fit. Why go and buy a player who is injured all the time

[smudger63]

King was up against Karl Henry, a brutal thug, and Doumbia, who looked about 6'4 and 16 stone.

Oh diddums, did they have some big nasty players in their midfield, against our 2 lightweight little boys, it`s so unfair isn`t it!

The correct way for players like King and Drinkwater to "impose" themselves in that situation is through moving the opposition about with short passes so they can't exert their physical domination.

They didn`t though did they!

What you seem to want is the equivalent of putting two chess players in a ring with two heavyweight boxers and suggesting they settle their differences with a punch up.

No what he wants, is someone in the midfield with some bollocks, who is willing to put his foot into a challenge, and not shirk away from all the brutal thugs in opposing championship teams!

[hornyhollthefox123]

Oh dear god! Really? You really want to start this? Do you seriously think that Knocky is going to be effective like that throughout a game? He can play the way he does when he comes on for the last ten minutes because the defenders have run out of steam. If he were to start and play like that he would be burnt out within the first ten minutes. Dyer plays completely differently. and also keeps shape, where as Knoky doesn't. I am not saying he isn't an excellent player because he is but he will just get chopped in this league and burn out quickly.

Oh and btw you sir are the tool.

You must be joking. How you can possibly guess that someone isn't fit enough to ever play 90 minutes. Knockaert is a professional footballer, he hasn't got where he is by playing in short second half cameos! Nothing to do with defenders running out of steam.

All the chances we created in the second half were more positive than any in the first, largely down to a very impressive Knockaert display. Just baffled how you can suggest a player will burn out and shouldn't start therefore. But the fact is, he's fully fit and now should start games for us.

[LJS]

I'm not calling for Pearson to be sacked - but if he is I'll be bloody delighted.

Anybody who gets shot of all the defensive options during the close season clearly has no long term plan beyond getting a pay-off for his contract. Pearson's sides evoke one emotion in me - boredom. I've had enough, he produces misfiring and tedious sides oozing inconsistency just like he did during our L1 days. No side he puts out seems to be able to produce a full 90minute performance. No player seems to be able to translate a performance from one match to the next.

There's bad luck and then there's simple ineptitude. He doesn't learn from his mistakes, he repeats them over and over...and then over again.

I can't make my mind up. I don't want Pearson sacked from the point of view that a season without a managerial change would be a nice novelty. And he did well last time he was here, proving that he is capable of leading a side to a promotion challenge at this level.

But on the other hand, if I ask myself whether I really believe Pearson can get us promoted this season then the answer is no. If he doesn't do so he will probably lose his job anyway, so why not just get the upheaval out of the way now? I also think there are some decent options about to replace him with.

[Kitchandro]

Like I said I don't rate him either, but have to admit he has somewhat improved.

You can't play well every game, Drinkwater didn't do well today his passing was shocking and his shooting was even worse.

But he has linked up well with King this season, played a couple of blinders this season has Drinkwater some MOTM worthy.

Sometimes he will play well, sometimes he won't it really depends on what midfield he comes up against, a physical midfield like today he tends to struggle, a similar midfield to us he plays well and usually controls things.

Drinkwater and Moore have been excellent in games this season, but for some reason they are getting absolutely slated today and calls for them to be dropped, which in my opinion is utter frustrated rubbish.

Well if you want to talk about Moore - I've seen him in 2 games and he's looked dreadful. People will be frustrated if he's playing this badly.

Drinkwater was ok against Blackpool, but again, he didn't really make a big impact on the game. I'm not saying he plays like today every game, but when you have games as bad as today, you need to balance them out with games where you control the game as you say. I realise I didn't see the first 3 games but I've seen the last two and plenty last season, and I've not once seen it once from him. So he's still got a lot to do to convince me.

[dnewty]

No what he wants, is someone in the midfield with some bollocks, who is willing to put his foot into a challenge, and not shirk away from all the brutal thugs in opposing championship teams!

Agree but pearson should have known that months ago thats why long term he's not the man to get us up

[Guest ttfn]

No what he wants, is someone in the midfield with some bollocks, who is willing to put his foot into a challenge, and not shirk away from all the brutal thugs in opposing championship teams!

Right and what I was saying is that today, when that wasn't an option, King and Drinkwater approached the game in the right way.

I'd rather see us attempt to play the ball constructively than have 2 brutes in the centre of the park, even if the results aren't as good.

But I take the point, perhaps we need a plan B.

[Cafox1970]

I can't make my mind up. I don't want Pearson sacked from the point of view that a season without a managerial change would be a nice novelty. And he did well last time he was here, proving that he is capable of leading a side to a promotion challenge at this level.

But on the other hand, if I ask myself whether I really believe Pearson can get us promoted this season then the answer is no. If he doesn't do so he will probably lose his job anyway, so why not just get the upheaval out of the way now? I also think there are some decent options about to replace him with.

Not sure about replacing him either bcoz of the upheaval but long term I can't see him getting us promoted or keeping us in the prem if he does

[RonnieTodger]

Wolves are in no-way "crap". They've made more signings than us, but when we did it, we had to wait for them to "gel". It's not a disaster losing to them, but given the goals, no we shouldn't have.

Surprised by the Waghorn change and maybe if King didn't get injured it'd have been a different story.

[kingfox]

Well if you want to talk about Moore - I've seen him in 2 games and he's looked dreadful. People will be frustrated if he's playing this badly.

Drinkwater was ok against Blackpool, but again, he didn't really make a big impact on the game. I'm not saying he plays like today every game, but when you have games as bad as today, you need to balance them out with games where you control the game as you say. I realise I didn't see the first 3 games but I've seen the last two and plenty last season, and I've not once seen it once from him. So he's still got a lot to do to convince me.

2 games...2 games shut up then and just don't comment about the lad.

He was excellent against Peterborough, did ok at Blackburn and was excellent against Blackpool, can't comment on Charlton because didn't see it.

He has been one of our best players in our opening five games, just lay off him.

Drinkwater is overrated, but I stick by him so far this season, he looks a changed player in a good way not bad way, he is a midfield general not an attacking one or a defensive one, he links up well and his tempo has been very good so far this season. However today he struggled, but like I said you can't play well every game.

[i luv u foxes]

You must be joking. How you can possibly guess that someone isn't fit enough to ever play 90 minutes. Knockaert is a professional footballer, he hasn't got where he is by playing in short second half cameos! Nothing to do with defenders running out of steam.

All the chances we created in the second half were more positive than any in the first, largely down to a very impressive Knockaert display. Just baffled how you can suggest a player will burn out and shouldn't start therefore. But the fact is, he's fully fit and now should start games for us.

Spot on

[crisp packet]

We must take our chances!!!!!

[kingfox]

How would having a defensive midfielder playing today have helped? We lost due to our inability to mark properly twice on set pieces not because we were over run in midfield.

Doumbia and Henry won balls, Henry got MOTM, Doumbia was crunching into tackles.

We had no ball winners like they had today, Drinkwater, King and James were not physical enough, therefore in games like today you need someone who can match up to players like Doumbia and Henry, Drinkwater, James and King were not capable, that is why in some games I think a defensive midfielder would work better, instead of seeing our midfield get beat to a pulp and get controlled and look lightweight.

[undey]

I don't think Vardy is up to it *yet* all he has done for us .so far is dive and win us a penalty! Yes he chases down and looks passionate but seems to go missing for lengthy periods..

[Kitchandro]

You can't expect a right-back to deliver a peach every time, can you? At least he made a few good crosses which is more than Ben Marshall, our supposed specialist, managed all game (and even then, he nearly scored with a fluke one). And you clearly looked away for the best part of the second half if you thought Konch gave it away all match. Peczko did squat all second half, because Konch had him in his pocket. He carried the ball forward and passed it to a team-mate on most occasions second half, how did you miss this? I understand feelings getting carried away and clouding judgement, but give these guys a break!

This is what I mean with frustration getting the better of you. I don't blame you for it, I think it was frustrating as hell too, particularly when we showed second half that the players have the quality to play good attacking football, even if the finishing leaves a lot to be desired!! I've not been making any excuses here, I'm just calling it as I see it. Admittedly, I'll be somewhat less biased as I can only see the games on TV.

We created at least a couple more chances though: Waggy's mistimed header (the cross was begging to be nodded in), Nuge's woeful cross first half when Vardy was alone in the box and both players had somewhere between 5-10 yards of space to the nearest defender and Nuge's odd backward header from a couple of yards out that Knocky then recovered to swivel into a defender. Three chances that would've likely been put away had they not been majorly c*cked up.

Drinky certainly upped his game markedly second half. He was the one that most often set up Knocky and De Laet. He had a few poor passes still, but he kept trying to pass it forward, so that is expected. Obviously his first half performance was atrocious, so he was always going to be tarnished with that for the rest of the game.

And first half we were poor, but we still made good runs and created openings only to let ourselves down with terrible passing with the aforementioned DD being one of the main culprits. We still created more after their second goal than they did.

We had massive defensive problems on set pieces, but the backline dealt with most of the rest rather well. Morgan put in a good performance, recovering to make a great tackle on Doyle first half and after one of his careless misplaced passes. Moore struggled, but ultimately Wolves created little else because the backline upped their game.

You're absolutely spot on though that we blew it ourselves. Poor defending for their goals and poor up front when we created chances. And frankly, I'm more worried about the latter...

I'll give you the Nugent header, I forgot about that one. I'll have to look at the Waghorn header again but to me, it looked a bit to high for him, in which case I wouldn't consider it a proper chance. Nugent's cut out cross to Vardy isn't a chance, it's an opening to create a chance which never came. The opening came from a long ball if I remember right, and it didn't become a chance because Nugent lacked the quality to put a good ball in.

I lost count of the amount of time De Laet and Konchesky lost control, or passed it to the opposition, or put in a floaty cross that went out of play or the goalkeeper collected. And Konchesky also got turned a lot when they tried to hit us on the break.

We do have it in us to create chances, but not from enough sources. Drinwater and King don't really create, Dyer doesn't, James doesn't, Our full backs don't generally, Nugent, Vardy and Beckford have been below par and in any case it's not really their job to create. The only players who truly look a creative threat are Knockaert and Marshall - one was on the bench today and the other played poorly. And, as I said, creating things from out wide wasn't really a good option today because we weren't going to bury any headers against this lot. So in that situation, we have very, very little, and it showed. For the amount of possession we had second half, our chance (and I mean real chances, not half chances or openings) creation rate was poor.

At least we both agree it's worrying, worst of all is we just didn't look up for it today, we really needed a performance to start moving us up the table early, but not only did we show up our weaknesses at the back and in the final 3rd, we didn't show enough desire in the first half. And I just knew, as soon as we conceded the first goal, there was no way back.

Deja fvkcing vu.

[hornyhollthefox123]

Doumbia and Henry won balls, Henry got MOTM, Doumbia was crunching into tackles.

We had no ball winners like they had today, Drinkwater, King and James were not physical enough, therefore in games like today you need someone who can match up to players like Doumbia and Henry, Drinkwater, James and King were not capable, that is why in some games I think a defensive midfielder would work better, instead of seeing our midfield get beat to a pulp and get controlled and look lightweight.

Henry was never MOTM though, don't quite know how he got that. He was a passenger second half .

I had a very similar opinion during the game in terms of us lacking physicality, but it's only an issue when we play poorly, which we did first half.

Second half the size and physicality of the midfield was completely irrelevant. We completely bossed the game for the last 30 minutes, and their midfield had no real answer.

Overall very disappointing we lost, and it is the same old if this had happened and that etc we would have won, but we need to start playing from the off, and not just in passages of play.

[inckley fox]

I'm not calling for Pearson to be sacked - but if he is I'll be bloody delighted.

Anybody who gets shot of all the defensive options during the close season clearly has no long term plan beyond getting a pay-off for his contract. Pearson's sides evoke one emotion in me - boredom. I've had enough, he produces misfiring and tedious sides oozing inconsistency just like he did during our L1 days. No side he puts out seems to be able to produce a full 90minute performance. No player seems to be able to translate a performance from one match to the next.

There's bad luck and then there's simple ineptitude. He doesn't learn from his mistakes, he repeats them over and over...and then over again.

Were we really inconsistent in L1? Didn't we get more points than anyone else in the entire league that season?

But yes, it's getting hard to defend Pearson if he persists with Dyer, keeps playing Moore at CB when Whitbread is now supposedly fit and refuses to shake up the forwards until the 70th minute. It would be the dumbest of ways to lose your job; repeatedly selecting Dyer ahead of Knockaert.

Only five games gone, but this is his defence and they look, frankly, ****ing awful. His new look team and, two years on, we're still playing Dyer. I'm getting worried.

[Kitchandro]

2 games...2 games shut up then and just don't comment about the lad.

He was excellent against Peterborough, did ok at Blackburn and was excellent against Blackpool, can't comment on Charlton because didn't see it.

He has been one of our best players in our opening five games, just lay off him.

Drinkwater is overrated, but I stick by him so far this season, he looks a changed player in a good way not bad way, he is a midfield general not an attacking one or a defensive one, he links up well and his tempo has been very good so far this season. However today he struggled, but like I said you can't play well every game.

No I said I'd seen plenty of him last season as well.

I could easily say (assuming he was a completely different player to the one I've seen since January) 3 games...3 games and you're convinced he's quality.

He may well prove me wrong, but all I'm saying is at this point, I'm not convinced by him. Just as I'm far from convinced about us as a team.

EDIT: Sorry, misread your post, thought the first part was also about Drinkwater. But still, you're saying he's been good in 3 games, I'm saying he's been shit in 2. Extremely shit. I'm not saying he'll never be a good player, but for now he's not looking nearly good enough to me.

[kingfox]

No I said I'd seen plenty of him last season as well.

I could easily say (assuming he was a completely different player to the one I've seen since January) 3 games...3 games and you're convinced he's quality.

He may well prove me wrong, but all I'm saying is at this point, I'm not convinced by him. Just as I'm far from convinced about us as a team.

EDIT: Sorry, misread your post, thought the first part was also about Drinkwater. But still, you're saying he's been good in 3 games, I'm saying he's been shit in 2. Extremely shit. I'm not saying he'll never be a good player, but for now he's not looking nearly good enough to me.

What two would they be?

Charlton and Wolves?

[smudger63]

Right and what I was saying is that today, when that wasn't an option, King and Drinkwater approached the game in the right way.

I'd rather see us attempt to play the ball constructively than have 2 brutes in the centre of the park, even if the results aren't as good.

But I take the point, perhaps we need a plan B.

What we need is different types of midfielders to cover for different types of games,

Some teams will give you time on the ball and let you play, and that suits the likes of our midfielders, but other teams, in this division especially, get in your face and want to mix it, but i don`t think we have any midfielders at the club that are comfortable with that.

They are all a bit lightweight, and it`s been a problem we`ve had for a number of seasons, not just under Pearson, but it`s never been addressed, and until it is, i just think there are times we are going to get bullied out of games.