Oldham (H) 18th February- League
Reports and reaction from the 2005-06 season as Walsall finished 24th (R) in League 1
-
amazing red - Posts: 77
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:55 pm
- Location: costa del ALDRIDGE!!!!!
-
shrewsbury saddler - UTS Legend
- Posts: 1466
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 6:06 pm
I agree with your post ,and about Standing sadddle sore.He is hit and miss but that whole team was "miss" yesterday.Not one of the reports I've read says anything about the appalling defending of the free-kick for Oldham's 2nd.2nd time in 3 games we got caught out with a simple plan from a free kick-all the more galling because no one has a clue at our set pieces,especially the corners which were awful yesterday.We had a load of free kicks at the edge of the box.did we get one on target?The merson malaise may be even deeper than even we thought on here.
-
King Crimson - Poet Laureate
- Posts: 8345
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:45 pm
- Location: In the Wake of Poseidon
We all seem to be in agreement that a 3-5-2 (or 5-3-2, whatever) does not suit us, despite the understandable desire to shoehorn three of our better players (Roper, Gerrard and Mills) into the team. I do think that if we continue to experiment with this formation, there needs to be someone who can either travel with the ball from midfield, or at least unlock the defence with a quality ball from midfield. In my mind, the holding role for central midfield would go to Keates (or possibly Mills from what I heard about Colchester), I'd have Wright on the right and Smith (3-5-2) or Ish (4-4-2) on the left, leaving a space for Osborn (in a 4-4-2) or Standing and Osborn (in a 3-5-2).
However, with the lack of experience up front, there is a good case I think for going 4-5-1, personnel permitting.
Christ, I'm clutching at straws here. Someone who knows something about footie come on here (or preferably drive to Delves Green Road) and sort us out. :(
I also agree with Geordie on another thread that some of the loanees seem to be here for a paycheque and little else. I think Mills plays for the club, and yesterday I thought James worked really hard. It was good to see him acknowledge our support for the team at the end of the game.
However, with the lack of experience up front, there is a good case I think for going 4-5-1, personnel permitting.
Christ, I'm clutching at straws here. Someone who knows something about footie come on here (or preferably drive to Delves Green Road) and sort us out. :(
I also agree with Geordie on another thread that some of the loanees seem to be here for a paycheque and little else. I think Mills plays for the club, and yesterday I thought James worked really hard. It was good to see him acknowledge our support for the team at the end of the game.
- sore saddler
4-5-1
King Crimson,
We seem to be in agreement. I think that with the players we have 4-5-1 is a good option.
I think that a standard back 4 with two wide men and two holding midfield players is going to give us a solid base.
I would then play Standing in front of the 2 holding players because from what I have seen he has the ability to beat people and make things happen (not really true of Ozzy). I would also tell him to stay in that position, and find space when we have the ball. Given our lack of a target man any balls thrown forward come back into that area anyway (most defenders in this league trap the ball over about 10 yards !). If he comes back into midfield it just congests everything and gives us no outletand as I have said he can't tackle anyway so theres no point.
I don't care too much about which players we play just as long as they have a clear idea of what they are supposed to do.
I have seen comments on this site about players being able to play in any position because they are professionals. The problem with that view is that no sane manager would play Michael Owen at centre half !!!
Blimey this sounds like a job application - which it isn't Jeff !! But it might be a decent question to ask some of the real applicants to see if they have any idea how to pick a football team.
We seem to be in agreement. I think that with the players we have 4-5-1 is a good option.
I think that a standard back 4 with two wide men and two holding midfield players is going to give us a solid base.
I would then play Standing in front of the 2 holding players because from what I have seen he has the ability to beat people and make things happen (not really true of Ozzy). I would also tell him to stay in that position, and find space when we have the ball. Given our lack of a target man any balls thrown forward come back into that area anyway (most defenders in this league trap the ball over about 10 yards !). If he comes back into midfield it just congests everything and gives us no outletand as I have said he can't tackle anyway so theres no point.
I don't care too much about which players we play just as long as they have a clear idea of what they are supposed to do.
I have seen comments on this site about players being able to play in any position because they are professionals. The problem with that view is that no sane manager would play Michael Owen at centre half !!!
Blimey this sounds like a job application - which it isn't Jeff !! But it might be a decent question to ask some of the real applicants to see if they have any idea how to pick a football team.
-
derbysaddler - Site Addict
- Posts: 5282
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:02 pm
- Location: Amber Valley sticks
-
Magic Man Fan - Site Addict
- Posts: 10977
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:30 pm
- Location: Warning. Some posts may cause offence...to the over sensitive or slow.
Hamstead Red wrote:Feck me ! spot on Geordie , apart from refering to me as your pal , still think you have a bit of an obsession with it though for some reason :wink:
Probably because the twerp who put us in this mess had an obsession with the place that meant he wasn't able to do his job.
Anyway,
James was involved in most things in the second half trying to get us going.
As for Barrowman, I counted nearly ten times where a ball was played up to him and he didn't even make an effort to jump or win the ball.
Get Nicholls and Atieno in until Constable is fit. At least they give a shyte about the club instead of these players coming to us because we were the only option they had. Nicholls will chase players down and force defenders into mistakes till the cows come home and looks far more effective than Barrowman or Fitzgerald. Atieno battles hard and can win balls in the air which we didn't do at all yesterday.
I wanted us to play the 3-5-2 but it was crazy to include Pead in there. He gets dizzy if he crosses the half way line and has the pace of a snail. We need to score goals to win the games to keep us up it should have been Wright as right wing back and Ishmel as left wing back who despite his temprament is one of the few match winners we have.
Ah well, there'll be some good nearby away trips next season and the opportunity to cross a few more grounds off my list.
Thanks Mr Bonser and Mr Merson.
-
Salop Saddler - UTS Veteran
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:17 am
- Location: The A 5
-
Magic Man Fan - Site Addict
- Posts: 10977
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:30 pm
- Location: Warning. Some posts may cause offence...to the over sensitive or slow.
Salop Saddler wrote:"Probably because the twerp who put us in this mess had an obsession with the place that meant he wasn't able to do his job. "
Wasn't aware that Bonser drank in the Old Swan.
He may well do. If he follows Merson around like the star struck fan he is then it wouldn't surprise me.
Bonser is to blame for many things including appointing Merson and keeping him in the job so long but there's no way you can say Merson is not to take some of the blame for the position we're in.
-
Salop Saddler - UTS Veteran
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:17 am
- Location: The A 5
I'll tell you why I absolve Merson from much of the blame. He never applied for the job it was thrust upon him, he tried to jack it in twice and was refused permission to do so, and he was instructed to flog the assets. Where you're utterly correct is when you say Bonser was star struck. That, I'm afraid is the only conclussion to the whole sorry episode. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
sj - Site Addict
- Posts: 2847
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:59 pm
- Location: The Pleck
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests