MattyFromLE Posted 31 October 2012 Share 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 Sort of see what you mean. But, we improved massively after Matty James came on - I don't think however that Dann's would have done a better job. Perhaps he could have added a bit of energy and spark to the midfield that in some parts Kingy & Drinkwater couldn't do. I wouldn't read too much into the palace defeat - for the most part we played ok, and heavily hindered by some horrific refereeing decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 Because the match day squad go through a fairly specialized training schedule that is tailored to get everyone, both physically AND TACTICALLY ready for the next game... and there is no point preparing some one so methodically for a game they wont be involved in. Just guessing like. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 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. Well decent is a step closer to the truth rather than some of the people on here saying he is rubbish. It's also no coincidence that his improvement in performance last season coincided with him being played in the correct position, rather than wide. In my opinion on a Footballing basis he deserves a place on the bench as an absolute minimum, especially as others who aren't playing that well are getting a lot of opportunity for first team game time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 Well decent is a step closer to the truth rather than some of the people on here saying he is rubbish. It's also no coincidence that his improvement in performance last season coincided with him being played in the correct position, rather than wide. In my opinion on a Footballing basis he deserves a place on the bench as an absolute minimum, especially as others who aren't playing that well are getting a lot of opportunity for first team game time. He isn't rubbish, and maybe he does deserve a place on the bench but not ahead of James, if we bring on James we keep our shape and style of play, if we bring on Danns we will change it, within the context of the game that may be a good thing, but if DD or King get injured James is a natural replacement, Danns isn't. If RDL is suspended and SSL injured, then perhaps he will get his chance, or maybe Taft will as we will have no defensive cover, don't know, either way I will support whoever gets the nod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 Well decent is a step closer to the truth rather than some of the people on here saying he is rubbish. It's also no coincidence that his improvement in performance last season coincided with him being played in the correct position, rather than wide. In my opinion on a Footballing basis he deserves a place on the bench as an absolute minimum, especially as others who aren't playing that well are getting a lot of opportunity for first team game time. So actually you think he should in the starting 11, but would settle for him having a place on the bench? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicesterpool Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 Danns is a good player, but our midfield as been so strong so far this season he can't fit in. Like I said in the past an injury to either Kingy or Drinky he'll be back in, in a shot. Saying that though Drinkwater did look tired on saturday could be due a rest anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobyfox Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 He’s a high energy player who puts everything into it. Chases down every lost cause and contributes with his fair share of goals. However, he’s not particularly strong in the tackle, his decision making is average, his passing is poor and his ball retention is very average. All in all a lot of wasted forum space talking about a player who is decidedly average and shouldn’t get into the team ahead of King, James, Drinkwater or even an in-form Wellens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfox Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 Who cares. Wellens will be coming back soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 Didn't someone in an interview ask Pearson if Danns and Beckford had futures at the club and he answered if they want to play for the club then yes they do? Since both were froze out the squad and we know Beckford requested to leave Danns may have voiced a simular request? It's clear Pearson only wants to be playing players who have a future at the club and seems to be working didn't Gally also tweet something about Danns off to Leeds but then the deal fell through? Sounds like he has been stitched up we know Danns is a Pearson type player because he wanted to sign him at Hull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 So actually you think he should in the starting 11, but would settle for him having a place on the bench? To clarify, I would start him yes. I would have done from the start of the season alongside Drinkwater. He provided great drive down the middle when played there last season, and whilst King has had a couple of good games I'd pick Danns over him. However the point I was making is that even if you disagree with my on that,it surely cant be argued that he doesn't at least deserve a place on the bench. He offers something different through the middle to the other players we have that could come in very handy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 To clarify, I would start him yes. I would have done from the start of the season alongside Drinkwater. He provided great drive down the middle when played there last season, and whilst King has had a couple of good games I'd pick Danns over him. However the point I was making is that even if you disagree with my on that,it surely cant be argued that he doesn't at least deserve a place on the bench. He offers something different through the middle to the other players we have that could come in very handy. It don't happen very often Mack but I'm with you on this. As I said before, my gut feeling is that Nige just doesn't like Danns. This is a feeling, I know no facts. I think it's a little daft that a player with the energy Danns has, AND having seen him play, he's not even considered an option from the bench when we need a quicker midfielder to break up opposition play and set up our attacks again. However, we are second... You gotta respect Pearson for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston. Posted 31 October 2012 Share 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? he's only 19? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 To clarify, I would start him yes. I would have done from the start of the season alongside Drinkwater. He provided great drive down the middle when played there last season, and whilst King has had a couple of good games I'd pick Danns over him. However the point I was making is that even if you disagree with my on that,it surely cant be argued that he doesn't at least deserve a place on the bench. He offers something different through the middle to the other players we have that could come in very handy. No, I disagree on both counts. I'd rather have Wellens on the bench than him, at least he can put a foot in and pass the ball when on form. The idea of starting him is utterly crazy, we're clearly a lot better with players who can pass and move, that's been the cornerstone of our success so far, I dont think King has always been the complete player some have made him out to be in the past but he's clearly a much better player than Danns. If we'd had Danns in from the start this season I'm confident we'd be several places lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 It's also no coincidence that his improvement in performance last season coincided with him being played in the correct position, rather than wide. Is it a coincidence our performances have improved with him nowhere near the team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 He provided great drive down the middle when played there last season, and whilst King has had a couple of good games I'd pick Danns over him. It's been more than a couple of good games for King, in fact it's probably been the same number of good games as Danns had in the whole of last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 we need a quicker midfielder to break up opposition play and set up our attacks again. The problem is how many times did he do the latter part? He'd run around and disrupt play, but they more often than not just give it away again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 Because he's bang average and our midfielders are playing well? Couldn't agree more, all style no substance. Passing and presence leaves a lot to be desired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 Couldn't agree more, all style no substance. Passing and presence leaves a lot to be desired. More like no style, no substance, no nothing. We haven't remotely missed him this season and I can't say I'd really be that bothered if he never played for us again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep blue Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 To clarify, I would start him yes. I would have done from the start of the season alongside Drinkwater. He provided great drive down the middle when played there last season, and whilst King has had a couple of good games I'd pick Danns over him. However the point I was making is that even if you disagree with my on that,it surely cant be argued that he doesn't at least deserve a place on the bench. He offers something different through the middle to the other players we have that could come in very handy. Don't you think Knockaert provides that, and a whole lot more, now then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FremantleFox Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 Few quick points 1) Ian the Fox - to comment on your earlier post (with respect) - they didn't play with 2 banks of 4, Palace played with 2 holding midfield players, 3 attacking midfield players (including their 2 wide men) and one up front. This is why Pearson brought James on to replace Dyer - to enable us to cease getting over-run. Personally, I would have taken Vardy off and put Marshall on and played Knocky behind Nugent. 2) Neil Danns was consistantly one of the best holding midfield players in the Championship with Palace. Pearson (in this particular case) has allowed his head-strong tendancy to rule football logic. I would have started with Danns & Drinkwater this season. However, Kings surprise burst of good form, coupled with some good solid team performances have - for the time being - rendered Danns as being outside the starting line up. I agree with previous posts, why he is not on the bench is beyond me. 3) We didn't need to sign James during the summer. You get promoted from the Championship with a few genuine quality players and a strong team structure. Even the old school Micky Adams understood this (he did loose the plot after promotion). In my view, Danns fits into this criteria perfectly well. 4) Although I am really happy with the start we've made, currently, I don't feel we will sustain it unless we take a good look at our attacking options. We didn't need to sign Vardy, Waghorn isn't good enough and on Saturday at 2-0 down, Futaks was still unused - which says to me that the Manager isn't sure if Futaks is good enough to come off the bench and make an impact - which in itself is concerning. Pearson has pushed Beckford out the picture but left himself open to fair criticism by leaving us with a collection of strikers who are not going to get us promoted. Some of you might also agree that Pearson appears to be quite awkward when questioned about possible loan striker signings. I can sympathise with Nugent if he might be feeling a bit isolated. In short, Danns should be included back in the fold, he's got a lot to contribute. Whilst I support Pearson and can totally see the development of a more passing game this season etc etc, I still feel he needs to be honest with himself over some of the signings he's made. Walshie (Snr) is clearly an excellent scout, but they cannot get it right all of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 It don't happen very often Mack but I'm with you on this. As I said before, my gut feeling is that Nige just doesn't like Danns. This is a feeling, I know no facts. I think it's a little daft that a player with the energy Danns has, AND having seen him play, he's not even considered an option from the bench when we need a quicker midfielder to break up opposition play and set up our attacks again. However, we are second... You gotta respect Pearson for this. Think JH answers this which I've quoted below. I don't think it's a question of not liking... He was sniffing around the edges of the matchday squad, let himself down at Blackburn & Burton when given a chance though, but then something seemed to change & it was probably that they indicated themselves didn't want to play. I'd add my feelings (not facts) into the equation and just say he's a 'living the dream' type player & not being first choice is probably some way from his dream and he's indicated he wants to leave just like Beckford did, sadly when Danns was given a chance he not only didn't take it, but he completely fecked it up too. Didn't someone in an interview ask Pearson if Danns and Beckford had futures at the club and he answered if they want to play for the club then yes they do? Since both were froze out the squad and we know Beckford requested to leave Danns may have voiced a simular request? It's clear Pearson only wants to be playing players who have a future at the club and seems to be working didn't Gally also tweet something about Danns off to Leeds but then the deal fell through? Sounds like he has been stitched up we know Danns is a Pearson type player because he wanted to sign him at Hull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 All these people claiming that Pearson doesn't like Danns and he's got some kind of problem with him... aren't you forgetting he played him dozens of times last season? If he's out of the team now it's because a) Pearson doesn't think he's good enough (probable) b) his poor performances early in the season mean he's out of the team (fair enough) c) he's done something we don't know about to convince Pearson that he doesn't want him anywhere near the first team, be it a poor attitude, not wanting to play for the club... whatever. To all the people saying he should be on the bench - Pearson, for whatever reason, prefers James. There's no point in having two CMs on the bench. At the minute, our bench is usually: Logan - fair enough Moore - defensive cover Marshall - wing cover James - cm cover Waghorn - fw cover who offers something different to Futacs Futacs - fw cover who offers something different to Waghorn Schlupp - utility man There's no-one on there I'd swap for Danns, especially when I think what he does bring to our side is absolutely minimal. EDIT: If anything, I'd rather we had another defender on there than another CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 Danns will be moved on as soon as there's a taker for him IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 I'd rather have Danns instead of King, despite him running around a lot, giving the ball away too much, not being as prolific a goalscorer, not as good a defender and also to break up the promising partnership with Drinkwater because of one poor game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 31 October 2012 Share Posted 31 October 2012 Few quick points 1) Ian the Fox - to comment on your earlier post (with respect) - they didn't play with 2 banks of 4, Palace played with 2 holding midfield players, 3 attacking midfield players (including their 2 wide men) and one up front. This is why Pearson brought James on to replace Dyer - to enable us to cease getting over-run. Personally, I would have taken Vardy off and put Marshall on and played Knocky behind Nugent. 2) Neil Danns was consistantly one of the best holding midfield players in the Championship with Palace. Pearson (in this particular case) has allowed his head-strong tendancy to rule football logic. I would have started with Danns & Drinkwater this season. However, Kings surprise burst of good form, coupled with some good solid team performances have - for the time being - rendered Danns as being outside the starting line up. I agree with previous posts, why he is not on the bench is beyond me. 3) We didn't need to sign James during the summer. You get promoted from the Championship with a few genuine quality players and a strong team structure. Even the old school Micky Adams understood this (he did loose the plot after promotion). In my view, Danns fits into this criteria perfectly well. 4) Although I am really happy with the start we've made, currently, I don't feel we will sustain it unless we take a good look at our attacking options. We didn't need to sign Vardy, Waghorn isn't good enough and on Saturday at 2-0 down, Futaks was still unused - which says to me that the Manager isn't sure if Futaks is good enough to come off the bench and make an impact - which in itself is concerning. Pearson has pushed Beckford out the picture but left himself open to fair criticism by leaving us with a collection of strikers who are not going to get us promoted. Some of you might also agree that Pearson appears to be quite awkward when questioned about possible loan striker signings. I can sympathise with Nugent if he might be feeling a bit isolated. In short, Danns should be included back in the fold, he's got a lot to contribute. Whilst I support Pearson and can totally see the development of a more passing game this season etc etc, I still feel he needs to be honest with himself over some of the signings he's made. Walshie (Snr) is clearly an excellent scout, but they cannot get it right all of the time. Baffling that you stand up for two signings who had us midtable, yet deem those who have got us in the top two, and actually performing at a much higher level unnecessary. You claim we have strikers who will not get us promoted when we actually already sit in the top two. You blame Pearson over Beckford (who was given more than a fair chance) when Beckford stated he wanted to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.