rico Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 SHITBREAD aka Whitbread is the new scapegoat. you've already targeted him then?
AyewJoking Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 say for example we just couldnt shift the high earners, would we just buy them out as it were or is the FFP situation not as dire as one might presume?
Danno Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 SHITBREAD aka Whitbread is the new scapegoat.What's your problem with him?
GingerrrFox Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 What's your problem with him? Where do I start. 1) His legs are gone - he's easily the slowest CB we have. 2) He gives away stupid free kicks more than any other CB we have. But the main reason is this. We played 3-5-2 with him in the side against PV it's clear we need to keep posession in that system and not get impatient with the ball. Plenty of times he could have played a simple pass to keep the ball moving but instead tried some speculative 35 yard long ball or simply hoofed it down the line. He gave the ball away far too cheaply in comparison to Wes and SSL who looked to move with the ball and pass from the back. He is the player putting the 3-5-2 in jeopardy simply because he lacks the knowledge/patience/skill to play CB in a system that requires you to have players comfortable on the ball bring the play forward from the back. We would be much better off playing Konchesky or Taft (who I rate highly and think if he was given the opportunity would flourish) there instead of Whitbread and get Baka or Schlupp playing the attack minded LWB.
Danno Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Where do I start. 1) His legs are gone - he's easily the slowest CB we have. 2) He gives away stupid free kicks more than any other CB we have. But the main reason is this. We played 3-5-2 with him in the side against PV it's clear we need to keep posession in that system and not get impatient with the ball. Plenty of times he could have played a simple pass to keep the ball moving but instead tried some speculative 35 yard long ball or simply hoofed it down the line. He gave the ball away far too cheaply in comparison to Wes and SSL who looked to move with the ball and pass from the back. He is the player putting the 3-5-2 in jeopardy simply because he lacks the knowledge/patience/skill to play CB in a system that requires you to have players comfortable on the ball bring the play forward from the back. We would be much better off playing Konchesky or Taft (who I rate highly and think if he was given the opportunity would flourish) there instead of Whitbread and get Baka or Schlupp playing the attack minded LWB. So you have this deep hate of Whitbread where you must slate him in every post, yet you rate St Ledger. lol
indierich06 Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Where do I start. 1) His legs are gone - he's easily the slowest CB we have. 2) He gives away stupid free kicks more than any other CB we have. But the main reason is this. We played 3-5-2 with him in the side against PV it's clear we need to keep posession in that system and not get impatient with the ball. Plenty of times he could have played a simple pass to keep the ball moving but instead tried some speculative 35 yard long ball or simply hoofed it down the line. He gave the ball away far too cheaply in comparison to Wes and SSL who looked to move with the ball and pass from the back. He is the player putting the 3-5-2 in jeopardy simply because he lacks the knowledge/patience/skill to play CB in a system that requires you to have players comfortable on the ball bring the play forward from the back. We would be much better off playing Konchesky or Taft (who I rate highly and think if he was given the opportunity would flourish) there instead of Whitbread and get Baka or Schlupp playing the attack minded LWB. Is the same calm and composed SSL who couldn't even manage a simple sideways pass to Morgan against York? The bloke is a liability and I've no idea where this notion that he's comfortable on the ball, or that he's a technically good footballer, has come from.
GingerrrFox Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 So you have this deep hate of Whitbread where you must slate him in every post, yet you rate St Ledger. lol I don't think SSL is a world beater. Personally I would play Moore in the back 3 as he has more upside due to his age and talent. But I think Whitbread is easily our worst CB at the club. 1) Wes 2) Moore 3) SSL 4) Taft 5) Whitbread
GingerrrFox Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Is the same calm and composed SSL who couldn't even manage a simple sideways pass to Morgan against York? The bloke is a liability and I've no idea where this notion that he's comfortable on the ball, or that he's a technically good footballer, has come from. You need to watch the whole game, he played much better than Whitbread. Still think we need to sign a CB in an ideal world.
indierich06 Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 I don't think SSL is a world beater. Personally I would play Moore in the back 3 as he has more upside due to his age and talent. But I think Whitbread is easily our worst CB at the club. 1) Wes 2) Moore 3) SSL 4) Taft 5) Whitbread You might rate Taft, but there is absolutely nothing to prove or even suggest he's better than Whitbread. Whitbread's got PL experience and has bags of experience at this level. What's Taft ever done?
GingerrrFox Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 You might rate Taft, but there is absolutely nothing to prove or even suggest he's better than Whitbread. Whitbread's got PL experience and has bags of experience at this level. What's Taft ever done? Judging from current form in pre season, experience doesn't mean anything if you've lost it, he's nearly 30 now and with the injuries he's had he's not gonna do a Ryan Giggs. Having seen them both play at Leamington, Vale and York. Taft has impressed me much more for a 19 year old he looks very composed on the ball, is strong and very impressive physically for his age, again like Moore he has huge upside. Whitbread didn't impress me last season when he got his run in the team when SSL got injured and in pre-season he doesn't look 100% fit, looks slow and doesn't suit the passing style of football we are so good at.
indierich06 Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Judging from current form in pre season, experience doesn't mean anything if you've lost it, he's nearly 30 now and with the injuries he's had he's not gonna do a Ryan Giggs. Having seen them both play at Leamington, Vale and York. Taft has impressed me much more for a 19 year old he looks very composed on the ball, is strong and very impressive physically for his age, again like Moore he has huge upside. Whitbread didn't impress me last season when he got his run in the team when SSL got injured and in pre-season he doesn't look 100% fit, looks slow and doesn't suit the passing style of football we are so good at. Not being funny, but just because he looked good against York, Vale and Leamington does not at all indicate he's ready for the first team and comments from Jon Rudkin about him needing a spell on loan would seem to support that.
GingerrrFox Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Not being funny, but just because he looked good against York, Vale and Leamington does not at all indicate he's ready for the first team and comments from Jon Rudkin about him needing a spell on loan would seem to support that. What's the point of playing pre-season games if performance within those games isn't taken into account when selecting for the first game against Middlesborough? Waghorn has scored 2 goals in pre-season does that mean nothing and instead of that we should pick Nugent ahead of him even though Waghorn has the better form? Granted majority opinion is that Nugent is the better player but Waghorn scored against Vale and Nugent didn't against York. People say pre-season doesn't mean anything but it does, it's not the be all but it counts. Exactly the same for Taft and Whitbread, 1 has played well and the other hasn't.
indierich06 Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 What's he point of playing pre-season games if performance within those games isn't taken into account when selecting for the first game against Middlesborough? Waghorn has scored 2 goals in pre-season does that mean nothing and instead of that we should pick Nugent ahead of him even though Waghorn has the better form? Granted majority opinion is that Nugent is the better player but Waghorn scored against Vale and Nugent didn't against York. People say pre-season doesn't mean anything but it does, it's not the be all but it counts. Friendlies aren't about deciding what team is the best, it's about getting your squad fit and sharp, ready for the games that actually matter. Again, Waghorn scoring goals against a bunch of lower league oppo doesn't mean he's going to do it in the Championship. The manager and his team see these players in training more or less every day - they will be well aware of their strengths and limitations, they don't need to see them against lower league sides to know who their best players are. If we were picking the side based on preseason, we'd probably have a strike force of Waghorn and Vardy. Do you really think they're better than Wood and Nugent after a couple of friendlies?
5waller5 Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Friendlies aren't about deciding what team is the best, it's about getting your squad fit and sharp, ready for the games that actually matter. Again, Waghorn scoring goals against a bunch of lower league oppo doesn't mean he's going to do it in the Championship. The manager and his team see these players in training more or less every day - they will be well aware of their strengths and limitations, they don't need to see them against lower league sides to know who their best players are. If we were picking the side based on preseason, we'd probably have a strike force of Waghorn and Vardy. Do you really think they're better than Wood and Nugent after a couple of friendlies?
MC Prussian Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Here's a rhetorical question for you: Imagine you're the manager half an hour away from the first game of the season. You're picking your players.Do you: a) choose the ones that had a brilliant pre-season, but have taken a knock or are injured or b) choose the ones that didn't shine in pre-season, but are injury-free?
GingerrrFox Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Friendlies aren't about deciding what team is the best, it's about getting your squad fit and sharp, ready for the games that actually matter. Again, Waghorn scoring goals against a bunch of lower league oppo doesn't mean he's going to do it in the Championship. The manager and his team see these players in training more or less every day - they will be well aware of their strengths and limitations, they don't need to see them against lower league sides to know who their best players are. If we were picking the side based on preseason, we'd probably have a strike force of Waghorn and Vardy. Do you really think they're better than Wood and Nugent after a couple of friendlies? I'd rather pick players on form. Otherwise what happens to squad morale? "Sorry Martyn you've looked sharp, played well and scored goals in pre season but I'm going to select David on form from 3 months ago". You get players who train like absolute shit but when it comes to matches they come to life and give the goods. On the other hand you have model professionals who are perfect in training but who are just solid players on match day. What you do in pre-season counts and you never pick a team on experience and previous form, always pick your best 11 at the current time.
GingerrrFox Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Here's a rhetorical question for you: Imagine you're the manager half an hour away from the first game of the season. You're picking your players. Do you: a) choose the ones that had a brilliant pre-season, but have taken a knock or are injured or b) choose the ones that didn't shine in pre-season, but are injury-free? Surely those 2 questions should be reversed. How do you shine in pre-season when you are injured? Waghorn and Nugent are the perfect example or Whitbread and Taft. 9/10 fans will say Nugent and Whitbread are better players but currently Waghorn and Taft are showing better form.
Happy Fox Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Surely those 2 questions should be reversed. How do you shine in pre-season when you are injured? Waghorn and Nugent are the perfect example or Whitbread and Taft. 9/10 fans will say Nugent and Whitbread are better players but currently Waghorn and Taft are showing better form. In pre season great indicator NOT.
5waller5 Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Here's a rhetorical question for you: Imagine you're the manager half an hour away from the first game of the season. You're picking your players. Do you: a) choose the ones that had a brilliant pre-season, but have taken a knock or are injured or b) choose the ones that didn't shine in pre-season, but are injury-free? It's a difficult question to answer ... are they my only options out of a whole squad??? I'd pick my best team ...... made up of the best players that were in-form. Some players will have trained throughout the summer and made the break their way of getting back into reckoning ..... others may have been eating donuts on the beach .... if you don't distinguish there's not much point in having a pre season at all???
GingerrrFox Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 In pre season great indicator NOT. So what you don't pick players that are currently performing better than others. That's the whole point of having a squad of players and that's what you call good management. You play bad in pre-season games and someone plays better than you, they deserve to be picked come the start of the season. Whether that be a 19 year old CB in Taft or Waghorn up front.
Babylon Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Friendly form should and does count, that's how Beckford started last season as he was bright with Vardy against Sunderland.
Dickov22 Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 If Waghorn starts the first game of this season I'll be absolutely gutted. It'll show we've not progressed in 4 years if that happens. Please no
GingerrrFox Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 If Waghorn starts the first game of this season I'll be absolutely gutted. It'll show we've not progressed in 4 years if that happens. Please no He's not that bad. Played well before we bought Wood last season. I don't care who gets picked as long as they are playing well and selection is fair.
5waller5 Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Friendly form should and does count, that's how Beckford started last season as he was bright with Vardy against Sunderland. Beckford had good attitude shocker!!!!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.