|
height
Dec 15, 2003 2:08:56 GMT 1
Post by ianwhit on Dec 15, 2003 2:08:56 GMT 1
after reading all the posts about qiunn starting one thing struck me that people are missing, it's not all about attacking.
it's also about defending and creating.
take the goals, first one quinn flicks on for lowe, could rodgers and banim have done that?
the second free-kick comes in quinn gets a header to it and moss clears down field, which banim then converts.
also a lot or margates arial attacks from set-pieces, it was quinn's head that was there clearing.
i'm not saying what's right or not, but it's something else to think about.
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 2:15:40 GMT 1
Post by Pilch on Dec 15, 2003 2:15:40 GMT 1
when i heard darby was out i would have bet my life on quinn banim and rodgers starting with 3 up front and rightly so
3-4-3 or 4-3-3 i expected
and even more so at the start of the second half
ps
quinn also set up a goal for street that was wrongly flagged for offside (i was sitting dead level) and street was also dead level with the last defender
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 8:37:51 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2003 8:37:51 GMT 1
It was Rogers who had the goal disallowed
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 9:14:24 GMT 1
Post by MartinB on Dec 15, 2003 9:14:24 GMT 1
after reading all the posts about qiunn starting one thing struck me that people are missing, it's not all about attacking. it's also about defending and creating. take the goals, first one quinn flicks on for lowe, could rodgers and banim have done that? the second free-kick comes in quinn gets a header to it and moss clears down field, which banim then converts. also a lot or margates arial attacks from set-pieces, it was quinn's head that was there clearing. i'm not saying what's right or not, but it's something else to think about. Take your point Ian, however it's how you use height. It's interesting to look at the chances that were created yesterday. 1) Penalty came from getting the ball down and Sammy running at their player. 2) JQ miss, again ball on deck Sammy running and interchanging passes. 3) Potter shot, ball was played around on the deck. 4) Disallowed goal, ball passed around good cross, not aimless punt. 5) 1st goal- long ball and for the only time I can remember in the match a forward player was within 5 yards of JQ when he won the header. 6) 2nd goal, defensive clearance, good battling by Banim, goal thanks to keepers positioning. I have said this year I don't care how we play provided we win and get promotion. The prefered style of play appears to be the long ball hump. In order for this to be effective the two forwards need to be within 5-10 yards of each other. Whoever plays up front they appear to want to be 25-30 yards apart. That is my concern. We got very lucky yesterday, I don't want to relie on luck
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 11:59:18 GMT 1
Post by True_Shrew on Dec 15, 2003 11:59:18 GMT 1
I agree Whitters, without some kind of height all the play has to be on the ground at that is near-on impossible in this league. When will people get over the fact that Qunniy playing is a short term solution? That's why he has brought in two big strikers so he doesn't have to play himself, why cannot people see this? ? Both strikers we unavalible so he HAS to play himself, football is a team game so please stop criticsing Jimmy Quinn- the fact is that you need height in a team. Would you have to short centre backs?
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 12:02:14 GMT 1
Post by Ade Plimmer on Dec 15, 2003 12:02:14 GMT 1
Know what your saying E. Have we then really replaced Watts? Banim is obviously going to replace Rodgers in the end. Was Darby supposed to be Watts replacement. If not as you say, we are lacking in height up front.
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 12:10:44 GMT 1
Post by ianwhit on Dec 15, 2003 12:10:44 GMT 1
Darby was injured so couldn't play, if he'd been fit Quinn wouldn't have played, he said that in the postmatch.
whether this answers the question has wattsey been replace with darby coming in, that's a whole different thread.
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 20:38:19 GMT 1
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 15, 2003 20:38:19 GMT 1
Excluding Quinn, yesterday's starting XI included seven players who are 6' or taller, plus Moss who is also good in the air
How much height does a team need?
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 21:26:00 GMT 1
Post by ianwhit on Dec 15, 2003 21:26:00 GMT 1
who got most headers on the clearances from set-pieces?
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 21:28:13 GMT 1
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 15, 2003 21:28:13 GMT 1
Don't know, wasn't there, but isn't a 6'2" keeper, two 6' centre backs and a 6'1" left back enough to defend set pieces?
Sedgemore was also in there too plus Moss who is great in the air
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 21:29:59 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2003 21:29:59 GMT 1
I guess it depends how many tall/ good headers of the ball they had in their team doesn't it Prof?
We defended set pieces very well yesterday although I was dissapointed again with our lack of creativity from our own set-pieces.
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 21:30:49 GMT 1
Post by ianwhit on Dec 15, 2003 21:30:49 GMT 1
all i'm saying is what i see, and in games quinn plays in he gets a hell of a lot of clearances from set-pieces.
maybe i see games difference from other people.
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 21:35:03 GMT 1
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 15, 2003 21:35:03 GMT 1
Ian, I don't disagree that he offers plenty defensively, I just wonder if we already have enough in that department without him playing
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 21:42:10 GMT 1
Post by shrewforever on Dec 15, 2003 21:42:10 GMT 1
Interesting and genuinely see both sides of the debate..................
however there does seem in my view to be an obsession with a big un up front.........
someone explain to me for instance why at Scarborough against without doubt one on the slowest centre halfs on the planet but a defender who in my view is as good as any at this level at defending in the air,we play Quinn against Redders and not Luke who surely would have run him into the ground.
Never been able to understand that one since it happened.....................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 21:50:06 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2003 21:50:06 GMT 1
Rodgers was injured for the Scarborough game.
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 21:55:06 GMT 1
Post by shrewforever on Dec 15, 2003 21:55:06 GMT 1
allegedly....................and I have that on good authority................
but you are right Ant i had forgotten thats what had been given as the excuse(sorry I mean reason)for Luke not playing....................
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 23:39:08 GMT 1
Post by ianwhit on Dec 15, 2003 23:39:08 GMT 1
allegedly....................and I have that on good authority................ and the good authority is? please post who this is? this whole luke's not injured thing really gets to me!
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 23:44:50 GMT 1
Post by Pilch on Dec 15, 2003 23:44:50 GMT 1
re luke at scarboro
u really should come and watch the town now and again pat ;D
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 23:48:11 GMT 1
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 15, 2003 23:48:11 GMT 1
Some of us have to work for a living owd lad, I wish I could go more often, but 8 home games and 4 away games ain't too bad Why, are you missing a photo you'd like to get?
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 23:52:05 GMT 1
Post by shrewforever on Dec 15, 2003 23:52:05 GMT 1
Thaks like asking a copper to snitch on his snitches mate....
Tell you what gets me though Ian is this whole thing Lukes injured,when he isnt stuff...................and not just once this season either...........
allegedly of course...............
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 23:53:38 GMT 1
Post by ianwhit on Dec 15, 2003 23:53:38 GMT 1
so i talk to luke today when he's sat on the treatment table getting treated by rach, do you believe me?
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 23:55:55 GMT 1
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 15, 2003 23:55:55 GMT 1
In all fairness Ian are you really in a position to post anything contrary to the club's line on things, even if you wanted to?, surely that'd get you in hot water?
|
|
|
height
Dec 15, 2003 23:58:43 GMT 1
Post by Pilch on Dec 15, 2003 23:58:43 GMT 1
did you ask him if he missed that pen on purpose ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
height
Dec 16, 2003 0:05:20 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2003 0:05:20 GMT 1
In all fairness Ian are you really in a position to post anything contrary to the club's line on things, even if you wanted to?, surely that'd get you in hot water? There's a difference between 'no comment' and bare faced lies. Whitters is not the kind of person that would lie about something on a messageboard - whether it supports the official club line is irrelevant.
|
|
|
height
Dec 16, 2003 0:06:26 GMT 1
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 16, 2003 0:06:26 GMT 1
I'm not suggesting he lies!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
height
Dec 16, 2003 0:09:15 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2003 0:09:15 GMT 1
Sorry PPP that came across badly.
I'm just saying that if Whits does agree with the 'party line' then he's telling it as it happened.
|
|
|
height
Dec 16, 2003 0:14:29 GMT 1
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 16, 2003 0:14:29 GMT 1
Fair enough, you obviously know the lad and I don't, it's good that he posts on here but I think he maybe puts himself in a difficult position sometimes as a result
|
|
|
height
Dec 16, 2003 0:17:16 GMT 1
Post by ianwhit on Dec 16, 2003 0:17:16 GMT 1
the thing i always like is the 'source', if it's that good then say 'luke said' or 'bavo said'.
if luke or rach told you he's not injured then fair play.
it's just all this none believing thing, why?
i don't put things out that are lies, i put out stories based on the people involved i.e. luke, rach and jimmy.
you have to remember that players want to play, so you ask them are you injured and 99% of the time they will say no, even though it's not best that they play. look at gregor earlier in the season, came back from a hamstring, wanted to play and then lasted about 15-minutes and missed the next few games.
|
|
|
height
Dec 16, 2003 0:18:24 GMT 1
Post by ianwhit on Dec 16, 2003 0:18:24 GMT 1
Fair enough, you obviously know the lad and I don't, it's good that he posts on here but I think he maybe puts himself in a difficult position sometimes as a result that's why i've tended to stay away, probably a wise decision.
|
|
|
height
Dec 16, 2003 0:23:42 GMT 1
Post by shrewforever on Dec 16, 2003 0:23:42 GMT 1
Of course I believe you Ian who said anything about today or yesterday I dont see the relevance of that remark at all. I'm not asking you to believe me,this isnt I'm right your wrong..........let me put it this way do you know who I talk to? ...............do you know what friends I have in and around the Club after following them for 39 years? ?? No,you dont ,anymore than I know anything about who you talk to or how you spend you're day.With that in mind I dont think either of us are in any position to pass judgement on each others comments and dismiss them out of hand just because they might annoy one of us. No better to simply hear each others views in my opinion and make our subsequent judgements on our own and perhaps keep them to ourselves,or certainly keep them private. No worries mate....................... but information is becoming a global product and is certainly no longer the preserve of the privaledged few.................
|
|