BlueBlue Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Can someone tell me why Neil Danns is playing with the under 21's. Is it a form thing or a wage thing?
C-man Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Because he's bang average and our midfielders are playing well?
ozleicester Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Coz Jimmy Savile and Gar Glitter arent available
cc_star Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Because he's not good enough to be in the matchday 18 man squad. There's not room for someone who gives freekicks away on the edge of our box & can't pass for shit.
Bert Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 For the only truthful answer, you'll need to speak to Nigel Pearson or Danns himself.
ian the fox Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Because he's bang average and our midfielders are playing well? King & Dyer were very poor against Palace , they never put a tackle in , let Palace run through onto our back 4 too much ...... Dyer especially ! He left Konchesky completely exposed to the raiders on the Palace right ( Zaha & right-back) on numerous occasions They lost us the game
Mack Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 It's because our manager is and I quote "Highly principled" He said some things Pearson did'nt like and now he is toast. Just like Beckford... Mills... etc etc etc
RowlattsFox Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Hasn't he been injured as well? Sure I've seen him mentioning an injury on twitter. Be interested to see who gets on the bench this weekend..with De Laet suspended Moore starting will leave a spot on the bench and unless I am missing someone or Pearson goes for a youth player then it's either Danns or Gallagher.
indierich06 Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Can someone tell me why Neil Danns is playing with the under 21's. Is it a form thing or a wage thing? Because he's ****ing crap. He's not getting in the first team any time soon by the looks of things, he'll train with the first team during the week, but they split off for match preparation towards the end of the week apparently, so anyone not involved in the first team squad trains with the under-21 squad after that. I don't think there's been a fallout or anything, Pearson just prefers King, Drinkwater and James ahead of Danns, simple. He's no great loss at all to be honest. Big time Charlie who is nowhere near as good as he thinks he is.
Fox92 Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Because he's bang average and our midfielders are playing well? King & Dyer were very poor against Palace , they never put a tackle in , let Palace run through onto our back 4 too much ...... Dyer especially ! He left Konchesky completely exposed to the raiders on the Palace right ( Zaha & right-back) on numerous occasions They lost us the game I agree with the initial post which you seemed to quote. Danns is averge, he had one spell where he looked decent (towards the end of last season), but he still conceded the ball and fouls too much. However, I also agree that our midfield was overrun against Palace. I noticed that their number 8, just like when we played Wolves with their number 10, was too strong for our midfield, especially King who got knocked off of the ball a couple of times easily. I don't think bringing Danns back is the answer though, apart from Palace our midfield has looked comfortable again.
indierich06 Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 It's because our manager is and I quote "Highly principled" He said some things Pearson did'nt like and now he is toast. Just like Beckford... Mills... etc etc etc Quote who? If these players think they're bigger than the club, think they know better than the manager, or don't want to play for the club then I'm happy for them to be bombed out. I'm convinced a lot of our current run is down to the positive atmosphere around the place and the removal of negative influences.
C-man Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Because he's bang average and our midfielders are playing well? King & Dyer were very poor against Palace , they never put a tackle in , let Palace run through onto our back 4 too much ...... Dyer especially ! He left Konchesky completely exposed to the raiders on the Palace right ( Zaha & right-back) on numerous occasions They lost us the game Yes, they didn't play to their potential in the last game. They had been playing well prior to Palace and as such they deserved their place in the team. As for them losing us the game well you must have forgotten Schmeichel dropping the ball and Zak Shortbread (ha, nice autocorrect that) letting Ramage walk past him to head in. I'd be happy if Danns was moved on tomorrow. He's a liability defensively and his passing is utterly chronic. He has a song though so I can see why some want him in the team.
indierich06 Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Because he's bang average and our midfielders are playing well? King & Dyer were very poor against Palace , they never put a tackle in , let Palace run through onto our back 4 too much ...... Dyer especially ! He left Konchesky completely exposed to the raiders on the Palace right ( Zaha & right-back) on numerous occasions They lost us the game That's funny, I thought it was poor defending against two set pieces? They might not have had the best game against Palace but our midfield, for the most part, has been outstanding recently - King and Dyer have been a massive part of that too. The last thing we need is Neil Danns coming back into the side; a player who can't pass a ball, a player who can't retain possession for more than a couple of seconds, a player who gives away needless free kicks and collects cards like it's his birthday due to his inability to time or execute a challenge, a player who often seems to have no spacial awareness or any idea of what he should be doing off the ball. All huff and puff, no real ability as a footballer. No, we don't need Neil Danns in our midfield. Cue about ten people claiming he was our 'best player' last season...
ian the fox Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Yes, they didn't play to their potential in the last game. They had been playing well prior to Palace and as such they deserved their place in the team. As for them losing us the game well you must have forgotten Schmeichel dropping the ball and Zak Shortbread (ha, nice autocorrect that) letting Ramage walk past him to head in. I'd be happy if Danns was moved on tomorrow. He's a liability defensively and his passing is utterly chronic. He has a song though so I can see why some want him in the team. Pressure .....any defence will concede eventually , King & Dyer never defended the back four enough ..... The Palace goals were over due by then
indierich06 Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Pressure .....any defence will concede eventually , King & Dyer never defended the back four enough ..... None of that matters at all when we lost because of poor defending from two set pieces. That was the reason we lost, absolutely nothing to do with King or Dyer. What lost us the game was some absolute schoolboy defending from two corners, nothing else. At least King got on the score sheet too, he did more to try and get us back in the game than anyone else did.
Guest Col city fan Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 I'm with the boss all the way but I can't for the life of me understand why Danns isn't even on the bench. Before the tit got sent off last season he was having a super spell in the team which coincided with a period, albeit brief, of good form for the team per se. I'm if being honest, my guy feeling is that Pearson just doesn't like him. I'm sure he's off in January...
mitch_lcfc_1993 Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 The reason Danns has been out is because he has been injured. Having said that, still doesn't mean he will be part of NP's team once fully fit again. Player's play with the U21's to get match fitness. Waggy/Schlupp both played in the game, yet they have both been in the first team in recent weeks, albeit through the injury of Vardy, so not too sure that people should jump to the conclusion he will never play again. He is a good midfielder, just needs to return to match fitness.
Mack Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Quote who? If these players think they're bigger than the club, think they know better than the manager, or don't want to play for the club then I'm happy for them to be bombed out. I'm convinced a lot of our current run is down to the positive atmosphere around the place and the removal of negative influences. Ian Stringer said that in the q&a on here. You have no idea he thinks he is better than the club or that he thinks he knows better. However what I do know is that he was superb in the latter half of last season. Nose off to spite face for me, but as I have said before it's Pearson decision and his neck on the line so that's that.
ian the fox Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 None of that matters at all when we lost because of poor defending from two set pieces. That was the reason we lost, absolutely nothing to do with King or Dyer. What lost us the game was some absolute schoolboy defending from two corners, nothing else. At least King got on the score sheet too, he did more to try and get us back in the game than anyone else did. Clearly you arent capable of seeing both sides ... From the first whistle Palace had 2 banks of 4 racing away from our midfield towards our goal & using the Zaha to great effect wide right for the crossing .... Our midfielders never shackled enough , a point both Alan Young & Pearson admitted after the game on the radio .............. Palace eased off after the second goal & Kings goal was little more than a consolation ... We lost the game in the middle .....nothing to do with set pieces FFS
Captain... Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Ian Stringer said that in the q&a on here. You have no idea he thinks he is better than the club or that he thinks he knows better. However what I do know is that he was superb in the latter half of last season. Nose off to spite face for me, but as I have said before it's Pearson decision and his neck on the line so that's that. He was not superb in the second half of last season he was decent for about 10 games in a row then got sent-off then injured. This idea he was amazing second half of last season is just wrong it was a spell of 10 games at most, where he played better than he had been and better than the other players on the pitch. But even during that spell he gave the ball away cheaply and gave away soft free kicks, and we just can't afford that in this new style of play. Danns is not a bad player, not at all but his style of play sums up how we played last season, erratic, inconsistent, swinging between brilliant and awful with alarming regularity, much like Beckford. We can't build pressure and play passing football if one of our midfielders can't pass.
indierich06 Posted 31 October 2012 Posted 31 October 2012 Clearly you arent capable of seeing both sides ... From the first whistle Palace had 2 banks of 4 racing away from our midfield towards our goal & using the Zaha to great effect wide right for the crossing .... Our midfielders never shackled enough , a point both Alan Young & Pearson admitted after the game on the radio .............. Palace eased off after the second goal & Kings goal was little more than a consolation ... We lost the game in the middle .....nothing to do with set pieces FFS So becuase we didn't defend enough in midfield during open play we lost the game, nothing to do with the two goals we conceded from two corners? Are you joking? It is a fact that we lost because we defended poorly from two set pieces. This is an absolute fact. They didn't score from anything other than set pieces, so if we had defended them properly, we would have won the game 1-0. I don't see how you can argue with this in any way, shape or form. If we'd conceded from open play, you'd probably have a fair point. But we didn't - two poorly defended corners, two goals, game lost. We didn't have a good game in midfield, but this didn't contribute to the two goals that led directly to our defeat - that's just a blatantly obvious fact.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.