Some questions answered, some doubts still linger.

[Parky]

The Viduka question was well and truly answered today. For me he starts when fit with Owen untill he needs a rest or performs poorly. His close ball control for a big man was fully evident and came into its own as we played more along the ground today. Longer balls were more apparent as the team tired. This might sound harsh on Martins, but SA does look to have made his mind up and at the moment prefers to use the Nigerian as a super sub. Martins isn't looking particlularly happy about all this, but this is what being at a big club is all about and he'll have to fight his way back into the team.

 

Owen five or six times came deep to act as the link up man and kept re-cycling the ball beautifully and although he didn't score took up good positions and might have scored if Beye had picked him up on the overlap around the 36min. It looks like Owen is appreciating he can't perpetually goal hang and is prepared to come deep which is a good sign.

 

Zoggy for me was man of the match and had a hand in all our important moments and more importantly has developed a good understanding with Viduka and then later interchanged well with Martins. Zoggy saw everything before him as if he was a seasoned professional. Best player for us this season so far....Loads of promise to come as he moved up when Enrique came on and looks like he might get 8 or 10 goals this year.

 

Our problems are on the right and the cd partnership needs re-evaluating. One of Cacapa and Roze have come out of the pairing as together there isn't enought oomph there to counter ariel threats, especially at set pieces. Taylor back in there and Roze into mf as the DM is something we might try.

 

Lastly poor Smudger who I thought had a good game today and put himself about as well as playing some nice interchanges with the midfield and intelligently holding position as WH's main threats came down the left. But once Barton and Enrique start, I'd play Milner on the right and Zoggy on the left, so unless SA wants to go with a front three hogging the middle (doubtful) then he has to go to the bench. This will be the next test for SA who I feel will be reluctant to drop him. But it will have to happen as nearlyall we did today came down the left with Milner and Zoggy interchanges.

 

Also we need to chose between Butt and Geremi sooner rather than later. With both playing we set up too defensively and don't need to unless we have particularly difficult away games imo...One of them will have go when Barton gets back I should imagine.

 

 

[Optimistic Nut]

Viduka of today is what we've missed since the Shearer of the 2003-4 season.

[James]

What is happenning with the Allar-dice?

[Guest BooBoo]

1. Yep, Viduka showed today that he can offer five times what Shola can.

 

2. Update the Allar-dice on a regular basis or get rid.

[Yorkie]

Viduka of today is what we've missed since the Shearer of the 2003-4 season.

 

Yep, yep! Didn't see the game, but i said exactly this (possible word for word, actually ) the day he signed.

[Sparks]

Well I am still not seeing Smith contributing enough. Both he and Geremi are being carried somewhat at the moment, the latter was thoroughly outshone by Butt today and Smith again failed to get into the game.

[Yorkie]

Well I am still not seeing Smith contributing enough. Both he and Geremi are being carried somewhat at the moment, the latter was thoroughly outshone by Butt today and Smith again failed to get into the game.

 

Bellamy was shite on the wing n'all.

 

(Not that i think Smith is the same calibre of player as Bellers)

[Guest Knightrider]

Smith for me didn't play on the wing as such, he played more centrally and I thought he had a good game myself when he was involved, which admittedly wasn't that often especially in the first half. Did a ton of spade work off the ball for the team though and when he went up front he pressed and held things up well.

[Elliottman]

Well I am still not seeing Smith contributing enough. Both he and Geremi are being carried somewhat at the moment, the latter was thoroughly outshone by Butt today and Smith again failed to get into the game.

 

Did you watch the game? Smith and Gremi prob had their best games for us. Esescially Smith.

 

The team as a whole performed much better 2nd half, and a soon as Enrique went to left back i always fancied us to get the 3rd. Smith seemed to revel up front, albet it was for oly 10 minutes.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

One thing that grinded me today was how easily we could of made a real effective change by just simply swapping Smith and Geremi over.

[Elliottman]

One thing that grinded me today was how easily we could of made a real effective change by just simply swapping Smith and Geremi over.

 

agreed. Bizzare decision. Must be a reason behind it though...

[Guest Knightrider]

One of Cacapa and Roze have come out of the pairing as together there isn't enought oomph there to counter ariel threats, especially at set pieces. Taylor back in there and Roze into mf as the DM is something we might try.

 

That was my original opinion but when they dropped off they won almost all the second balls and defended well as a pair. In Ashton and Cole West Ham carried a goal threat, pace, power and strength, with Ashton's creativity too. We restricted that to a few chances. Cacapa and Rozenhal won't face such rounded (in terms of attributes) strike pairings every week so I'm going to give them as a partnership the benefit of the doubt or rather the time needed to develop an understanding and then take things from there.

 

Just because you have a brute up front in Ashton doesn't mean you have to fight fire with fire.

 

I mean we don't want to fall into that trap anyway. I.e. a strong man at the back will solve all our problems (or whatever we've been punished by in a game). Correct defending as a unit will always take precedence over personal attributes and skills.

 

In short one man does not make a defence.

[Guest Knightrider]

Aye Geremi was very good too I thought, much more snappier and accurate on the ball, although set play was once again disappointing. He also nicked a few balls and his energy and running helped too. However I though Butt's performance overshadowed both. He was excellent for me, at both ends. Only really disappointing player was Milner.

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

What Mark Viduka can do is the reason why Shola should be nowhere near our starting eleven.

[johnnypd]

One of Cacapa and Roze have come out of the pairing as together there isn't enought oomph there to counter ariel threats, especially at set pieces. Taylor back in there and Roze into mf as the DM is something we might try.

 

That was my original opinion but when they dropped off they won almost all the second balls and defended well as a pair. In Ashton and Cole West Ham carried a goal threat, pace, power and strength, with Ashton's creativity too. We restricted that to a few chances. Cacapa and Rozenhal won't face such rounded (in terms of attributes) strike pairings every week so I'm going to give them as a partnership the benefit of the doubt or rather the time needed to develop an understanding and then take things from there.

 

Just because you have a brute up front in Ashton doesn't mean you have to fight fire with fire.

 

I mean we don't want to fall into that trap anyway. I.e. a strong man at the back will solve all our problems (or whatever we've been punished by in a game). Correct defending as a unit will always take precedence over personal attributes and skills.

 

In short one man does not make a defence.

 

it is true that they did better in the second half, by holding a high line up the pitch, and backing off ashton rather than following him deep and directly challenging. though it still wasn't good enough, and you can't simply back off whenever there is a player good in the air or strong, that will make us totally predictable. Curbishley, responding to this, took off cole, who had sliced through the defence in the first half, and replaced him with Camara, who could then exploit the space left behind by pushing up, and he promptly went and put a through ball across the face of the goal. west ham still had chances in the second half so you can't really say the tactic was entirely successful, or can be regularly used in the future.

[Guest Knightrider]

One of Cacapa and Roze have come out of the pairing as together there isn't enought oomph there to counter ariel threats, especially at set pieces. Taylor back in there and Roze into mf as the DM is something we might try.

 

That was my original opinion but when they dropped off they won almost all the second balls and defended well as a pair. In Ashton and Cole West Ham carried a goal threat, pace, power and strength, with Ashton's creativity too. We restricted that to a few chances. Cacapa and Rozenhal won't face such rounded (in terms of attributes) strike pairings every week so I'm going to give them as a partnership the benefit of the doubt or rather the time needed to develop an understanding and then take things from there.

 

Just because you have a brute up front in Ashton doesn't mean you have to fight fire with fire.

 

I mean we don't want to fall into that trap anyway. I.e. a strong man at the back will solve all our problems (or whatever we've been punished by in a game). Correct defending as a unit will always take precedence over personal attributes and skills.

 

In short one man does not make a defence.

 

it is true that they did better in the second half, by holding a high line up the pitch, and backing off ashton rather than following him deep and directly challenging. though it still wasn't good enough, and you can't simply back off whenever there is a player good in the air or strong, that will make us totally predictable. Curbishley, responding to this, took off cole, who had sliced through the defence in the first half, and replaced him with Camara, who could then exploit the space left behind by pushing up, and he promptly went and put a through ball across the face of the goal. west ham still had chances in the second half so you can't really say the tactic was entirely successful, or can be regularly used in the future.

 

I think you simply have to concede ground if for example you can't compete with a player in the air, that is good and correct defending. Likewise you drop off a tad if you're facing a quick striker. Lets not forget, you can't prime a defender or any player with 100% correct instructions all the time because the game is so unpredictable and anything can happen. Therefore you get the basics right. Do that and you'll defend correctly 90% of the time. Don't get me wrong I see your point but you have to drop off a player like Ashton if you can't compete with him in the air. What we should have done also, when Curbishley changed things, was drop one man back a little more, which to be fair to us, we did not long after which again is correct defending.

 

Anyway, it makes a change. How many times have a NUFC back-four started the game badly defensively, only to go on and become stronger? It's usually the opposite way, we start well then fall to pieces.

 

All encouraging and really good to see.

[Yorkie]

Faye/Rozehnal for Arsenal uy reckans.

 

Faye to combat the aerial threat of Adebayor (assuming he plays; the theory works for Da Silva anyway), and Rozehnal to counter whichever pacy striker they play.

[johnnypd]

One of Cacapa and Roze have come out of the pairing as together there isn't enought oomph there to counter ariel threats, especially at set pieces. Taylor back in there and Roze into mf as the DM is something we might try.

 

That was my original opinion but when they dropped off they won almost all the second balls and defended well as a pair. In Ashton and Cole West Ham carried a goal threat, pace, power and strength, with Ashton's creativity too. We restricted that to a few chances. Cacapa and Rozenhal won't face such rounded (in terms of attributes) strike pairings every week so I'm going to give them as a partnership the benefit of the doubt or rather the time needed to develop an understanding and then take things from there.

 

Just because you have a brute up front in Ashton doesn't mean you have to fight fire with fire.

 

I mean we don't want to fall into that trap anyway. I.e. a strong man at the back will solve all our problems (or whatever we've been punished by in a game). Correct defending as a unit will always take precedence over personal attributes and skills.

 

In short one man does not make a defence.

 

it is true that they did better in the second half, by holding a high line up the pitch, and backing off ashton rather than following him deep and directly challenging. though it still wasn't good enough, and you can't simply back off whenever there is a player good in the air or strong, that will make us totally predictable. Curbishley, responding to this, took off cole, who had sliced through the defence in the first half, and replaced him with Camara, who could then exploit the space left behind by pushing up, and he promptly went and put a through ball across the face of the goal. west ham still had chances in the second half so you can't really say the tactic was entirely successful, or can be regularly used in the future.

 

I think you simply have to concede ground if for example you can't compete with a player in the air, that is good and correct defending. Likewise you drop off a tad if you're facing a quick striker. Lets not forget, you can't prime a defender or any player with 100% correct instructions all the time because the game is so unpredictable and anything can happen. Therefore you get the basics right. Do that and you'll defend correctly 90% of the time. Don't get me wrong I see your point but you have to drop off a player like Ashton if you can't compete with him in the air. What we should have done also, when Curbishley changed things, was drop one man back a little more, which to be fair to us, we did not long after which again is correct defending.

 

Anyway, it makes a change. How many times have a NUFC back-four started the game badly defensively, only to go on and become stronger? It's usually the opposite way, we start well then fall to pieces.

 

All encouraging and really good to see.

 

it is definitely encouraging, it shows that Allardyce can react to what is happening in the game. the problem with combating a strong player, or one good in the air, by pushing up and backing off, is that it creates a lot of space behind the back four which can be troublesome if the opposition have pacy players. and there's the fact that it unneccessarily restricts how you play, the team can't sit deep and weather pressue and play the counter-attack as much, cos the defenders can't be relied upon to defend deep. furthermore the defence is not always in control of how high it pushes up the pitch, when playing away the home team often decide territorial makeup of a game and the opposition is often forced deep. in this case we have to have someone who fight fire with fire. then there's corners and set pieces, you can't push up for these either and have to play on their terms. it is a good tactic to use, especially for our plauers but it only one approach and not a long-term answer that means Rozehnal and Cacapa have formed a partnership.

[Guest Knightrider]

One of Cacapa and Roze have come out of the pairing as together there isn't enought oomph there to counter ariel threats, especially at set pieces. Taylor back in there and Roze into mf as the DM is something we might try.

 

That was my original opinion but when they dropped off they won almost all the second balls and defended well as a pair. In Ashton and Cole West Ham carried a goal threat, pace, power and strength, with Ashton's creativity too. We restricted that to a few chances. Cacapa and Rozenhal won't face such rounded (in terms of attributes) strike pairings every week so I'm going to give them as a partnership the benefit of the doubt or rather the time needed to develop an understanding and then take things from there.

 

Just because you have a brute up front in Ashton doesn't mean you have to fight fire with fire.

 

I mean we don't want to fall into that trap anyway. I.e. a strong man at the back will solve all our problems (or whatever we've been punished by in a game). Correct defending as a unit will always take precedence over personal attributes and skills.

 

In short one man does not make a defence.

 

it is true that they did better in the second half, by holding a high line up the pitch, and backing off ashton rather than following him deep and directly challenging. though it still wasn't good enough, and you can't simply back off whenever there is a player good in the air or strong, that will make us totally predictable. Curbishley, responding to this, took off cole, who had sliced through the defence in the first half, and replaced him with Camara, who could then exploit the space left behind by pushing up, and he promptly went and put a through ball across the face of the goal. west ham still had chances in the second half so you can't really say the tactic was entirely successful, or can be regularly used in the future.

 

I think you simply have to concede ground if for example you can't compete with a player in the air, that is good and correct defending. Likewise you drop off a tad if you're facing a quick striker. Lets not forget, you can't prime a defender or any player with 100% correct instructions all the time because the game is so unpredictable and anything can happen. Therefore you get the basics right. Do that and you'll defend correctly 90% of the time. Don't get me wrong I see your point but you have to drop off a player like Ashton if you can't compete with him in the air. What we should have done also, when Curbishley changed things, was drop one man back a little more, which to be fair to us, we did not long after which again is correct defending.

 

Anyway, it makes a change. How many times have a NUFC back-four started the game badly defensively, only to go on and become stronger? It's usually the opposite way, we start well then fall to pieces.

 

All encouraging and really good to see.

 

it is definitely encouraging, it shows that Allardyce can react to what is happening in the game. the problem with combating a strong player, or one good in the air, by pushing up and backing off, is that it creates a lot of space behind the back four which can be troublesome if the opposition have pacy players. and there's the fact that it unneccessarily restricts how you play, the team can't sit deep and weather pressue and play the counter-attack as much, cos the defenders can't be relied upon to defend deep. furthermore the defence is not always in control of how high it pushes up the pitch, when playing away the home team often decide territorial makeup of a game and the opposition is often forced deep. in this case we have to have someone who fight fire with fire. then there's corners and set pieces, you can't push up for these either and have to play on their terms. it is a good tactic to use, especially for our plauers but it only one approach and not a long-term answer that means Rozehnal and Cacapa have formed a partnership.

 

Oh of course, but dealing on a game to game basis it's the best way to work. In time the idea will be to arm each individual and the team as a whole with enough knowledge to adapt to game situations, with the manager and coaching staff aiding from the bench when need be. Right drop off big man, compete for second ball. Check, learned. Oh that leaves us open for pace though. Find solution, check, learned. Etc. etc.

[TRon]

Isaid a few games back when everyone was complaining about Viduka that he was a player who does well when the ball is played to his feet. Today we passed better and it became evident just how strong and clever he is when he's not having to header 50 yd punts down the field. I think Smith looked much better up front as well, but then a few others have been making that observation last fewe games, that we should use him up there more.

[Parky]

Well I am still not seeing Smith contributing enough. Both he and Geremi are being carried somewhat at the moment, the latter was thoroughly outshone by Butt today and Smith again failed to get into the game.

 

Did you watch the game? Smith and Gremi prob had their best games for us. Esescially Smith.

 

The team as a whole performed much better 2nd half, and a soon as Enrique went to left back i always fancied us to get the 3rd. Smith seemed to revel up front, albet it was for oly 10 minutes.

 

 

 

 

Smith had a good game today especially his reading of the game and coming inside to shore up the midfield and also his interchanging was good with Geremi...But we just can't leave him out there wide right..

[Sparks]

Well I am still not seeing Smith contributing enough. Both he and Geremi are being carried somewhat at the moment, the latter was thoroughly outshone by Butt today and Smith again failed to get into the game.

 

Did you watch the game? Smith and Gremi prob had their best games for us. Esescially Smith.

 

The team as a whole performed much better 2nd half, and a soon as Enrique went to left back i always fancied us to get the 3rd. Smith seemed to revel up front, albet it was for oly 10 minutes.

 

As soon as we win Smith and Geremi suddenly start playing well in some people's eyes, had those two put in the same performance today and we had lost people would be going crazy at them.

 

But like the game against Bolton both did OK, nothing more, but because we win people automatically overate them and don't see the faults.

[Guest Knightrider]

Well I am still not seeing Smith contributing enough. Both he and Geremi are being carried somewhat at the moment, the latter was thoroughly outshone by Butt today and Smith again failed to get into the game.

 

Did you watch the game? Smith and Gremi prob had their best games for us. Esescially Smith.

 

The team as a whole performed much better 2nd half, and a soon as Enrique went to left back i always fancied us to get the 3rd. Smith seemed to revel up front, albet it was for oly 10 minutes.

 

As soon as we win Smith and Geremi suddenly start playing well in some people's eyes, had those two put in the same performance today and we had lost people would be going crazy at them.

 

But like the game against Bolton both did OK, nothing more, but because we win people automatically overate them and don't see the faults.

 

Or perhaps people accept they are not great footballers or 100% perfect and instead of pissing and moaning about a few misplaced passes or whatevere prefer to focus on the good. We won and we won because the team played well. Who plays better than others or worse doesn't really matter. Both Smith and Geremi contributed to the win therefore get a few thumbs up.

 

We have become hyper critical as fans and always seem to focus on negatives, or rather some fans do. This is a new era where there is so much positive to look forward to and reflect on dwelling on the negatives just seems, well, morbid. Fair enough under Souness as that was all we had to look forward to, there were no real positives, but there are lots today and fans need to snap out of this pissy moaning all the time attitude and get a bit of joy in them for once.

 

And before anyone starts I'm sure we all know Smith's weaknesses (and the team's and other players) and that he didn't have the world's best game, but  so fucking what. I see 3 points, 6th in the table and lots of positives, that far outweigh any negatives.

 

Get some head lice shampoo, rid yourself of them nits.

[Sparks]

I'm just trying to keep things in perspective, I don't crazy after a win and I don't slit my wrists after a defeat.

[Guest Knightrider]

I'm just trying to keep things in perspective, I don't crazy after a win and I don't slit my wrists after a defeat.

 

And to my mind no-one has went crazy following this win, no-one is going daft over Smith or Geremi too. In fact I can't think of two less 'meh' type of players in our team where fans' opinion of them are concerned.