Keefaz Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 While I agree with everything--players out of position, not using target men effectively, etc.--the truth is that if we had played the entire match with the same endeavour and passing game we showed in the second half, we would've won that match. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Haven't read the thread, so sorry if some of my thoughts have been repeated previously. Firstly, I had no idea how close The City Ground, Meadow Lane and Trent Bridge were to each other. We arrive quite early so we walked around Trent Bridge and had a lookk at the Trent river, which both looked pretty good. The match felt like we were in the Premiership again, facing the likes of Wigan; they would have all the possesion and chances, we'd have the occasional chance and then they'd score at an annoying time (I know nearly every time the opposition score, it's annoying), we would then dominate the second half but never reaqlly create anything. Thought the referee was pretty poor and I haven't seen the penalty or offside decisions yet, so I an't really comment on that. Strangely, I think our offside goal was the only offside in the game. Players wise, I thought Enrique was excellent and their right winger didn't get past him all evening. Harewood was poor, so waas Lovenkrands. Jonas needs to stop shooting, Simpson isn't a centre back. Zurab I thought looked composed though, despite the yellow card Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dover Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I think we have to lay some blame at Hughtons door for yesterdays defeat, with 2 central defenders missing we should have played 4-5-1, that way Guthrie could have played more centrally and we give more protection to the back four. Jonas and nolan upporting the lone striker on counter attacks. The 4-4-2 sytem yesterday meant playing guthrie, simpson, lovenkrands, and taylor out of position and it showed. He took too long to bring ranger on, and it should have been for carrol not harewood. We finished the game with an unproven central defence and unproven strike team, a makeshift right back and a make shift right wing, just so we cold play 4-4-2. Stupid decisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 While I agree with everything--players out of position, not using target men effectively, etc.--the truth is that if we had played the entire match with the same endeavour and passing game we showed in the second half, we would've won that match. As the former England manager who played the much talked about England all Goalkeeping side of 2009 you know playing players out of position is not going to work long term. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 That's a bit harsh on Smith. He wasn't great today but he was still better than Nolan and Guthrie combined. See how Smith does being played out of position like Guthrie has been. Smith has been played out of position, he's a forward by trade, albeit a bad one. I think this focus on Smith is misplaced, he's not a great midfielder and no one is pretending that he is,but the problems are in other areas of the pitch and that's where we are struggling imo. He hasn't been a forward since his days at Man Utd though. I'd say he's a central midfielder now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 That's a bit harsh on Smith. He wasn't great today but he was still better than Nolan and Guthrie combined. See how Smith does being played out of position like Guthrie has been. Smith has been played out of position, he's a forward by trade, albeit a bad one. I think this focus on Smith is misplaced, he's not a great midfielder and no one is pretending that he is,but the problems are in other areas of the pitch and that's where we are struggling imo. He hasn't been a forward since his days at Man Utd though. I'd say he's a central midfielder now. He played as a forward for us as well as on the right wing under Allardyce, it is only this season he has played in the centre of midfield regularly at Newcastle. It's beside the point anyway, like i said, i think our problems are in other areas of the pitch rather than Smith's role. I doubt playing Butt instead would improve matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 That's a bit harsh on Smith. He wasn't great today but he was still better than Nolan and Guthrie combined. See how Smith does being played out of position like Guthrie has been. i'm not 100% sure guthrie is being played out of position as he played wide a lot for bolton. sometimes this playing out of position is being used as an excuse. a forward playing in defence ort'other way round maybe but a player playing slightly to one side of his normal position is no excuse for being so anonymous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 That's a bit harsh on Smith. He wasn't great today but he was still better than Nolan and Guthrie combined. See how Smith does being played out of position like Guthrie has been. i'm not 100% sure guthrie is being played out of position as he played wide a lot for bolton. sometimes this playing out of position is being used as an excuse. a forward playing in defence ort'other way round maybe but a player playing slightly to one side of his normal position is no excuse for being so anonymous. I would just like to see him given a consistent run in the middle of the park. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 To think people were having a go at the few who dared question the Harewood signing. He's woeful, and always has been. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 To think people were having a go at the few who dared question the Harewood signing. He's woeful, and always has been. This Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 To think people were having a go at the few who dared question the Harewood signing. He's woeful, and always has been. This At least we didn't pay £4m for him and can send him back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 To think people were having a go at the few who dared question the Harewood signing. He's woeful, and always has been. Is there any need for such blatant Ronaldo baiting on a Sunday? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 When we hit the post, was it directly from the freekick or did Harewood get a touch on it? If it was the former, was Harewood anywhere near it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I think he got a touch but it barely changed the direction of the ball. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I don't think he got a touch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 He touched it didn't he? I'm sure he did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 One of the most frustrating things for me was when we get the ball into a good position in and around the box, our players seem to have to stop and think before making a pass or shooting giving the opposition plenty of time to nick the ball or get back in position. If we had an instinctive striker, we could have won that game even if we didn't deserve it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 While I agree with everything--players out of position, not using target men effectively, etc.--the truth is that if we had played the entire match with the same endeavour and passing game we showed in the second half, we would've won that match. Even in the 2nd half, we couldn't hit a barn door from 3 paces though. For strikers they're not striking well. Like a wet match, when it comes to "striking" in fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 To think people were having a go at the few who dared question the Harewood signing. He's woeful, and always has been. He only came in because we didn't want to rely on Carroll and Ranger all season. After watching Carroll's pointless header's into empty space yesterday I'm not confident he's going to produce much either, other than nuisance value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 To think people were having a go at the few who dared question the Harewood signing. He's woeful, and always has been. He only came in because we didn't want to rely on Carroll and Ranger all season. After watching Carroll's pointless header's into empty space yesterday I'm not confident he's going to produce much either, other than nuisance value. They're both as bad as each other. Carroll's flick-ons were mostly poor all game long, but the odd good one he did manage to do, Harewood was making the wrong run or coming back from an offside position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 To think people were having a go at the few who dared question the Harewood signing. He's woeful, and always has been. He only came in because we didn't want to rely on Carroll and Ranger all season. After watching Carroll's pointless header's into empty space yesterday I'm not confident he's going to produce much either, other than nuisance value. They're both as bad as each other. Carroll's flick-ons were mostly poor all game long, but the odd good one he did manage to do, Harewood was making the wrong run or coming back from an offside position. Harewood looks to me like he'd be more effective running onto passes rather than fighting for high balls, although his attitude in general was shocking. Carroll was falling over his own feet at times and both of them had the first touch of a senile rhino. The big forest lad playing up front on his own put the wto of them to shame Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Harewood never even bothers to jump for the high balls, something I've noticed in both the Bristol City game and this one too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Had enough possession in 2nd half to win 3 games ; failed because of 2 problems which will continue to bedevil the side's progress until they are addressed - 1. 2 strikers(whichever combo plays up front)who are too similar - a quick agile player is needed alongside the likes of Carroll in order to take advantage of knock-downs etc. 2. Poor supply from the wings - balls slung in from midway between halfway line and by-line are useless ; meat & drink to defenders, and Forest's won most of them in the box. Jonas is NOT a good winger ; he LOOKS good when he gets the ball around the halfway line, but doesn't create danger in the last quarter of the field where it matters. He carries the ball well, but cannot cross either accurately or speedily to save his life and he lacks that killing burst of pace which gets the best flank men past the fullback and then deliver a dangerous, swinging cross into the forwards. In short, he is not direct enough. Sadly, he is the only winger of any consequence which the club has, so he is the one on whom the spotlight inevitably falls when the subject of supply to the forwards is discussed. Back in the 70s, there was a common joke about Stewart Barrowclough, the side's winger in the Supermac days ; fans used to say 'open the gates and he'll run straight through' because Barrowclough tended to use his pace all the time...however, whilst he had his faults, he was still far more dangerous than Jonas ever is, and we beat some great teams by using his pace and directness, Leeds and Liverpool among them. We will not see the best of Carroll & Co until they start getting DECENT crosses into the box from the by-line - I cannot see this happening with the current personnel, and we will continue to lose or draw games that should be won because if it. Scunthorpe will be another tough test..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Although some players are looking terrible I don't really see the merits in blaming individuals. I don't really rate Harewood or Lovenkrands but if we had a decent manager and a decent gameplan even our worst players would look decent. Too many people were too quick to praise Hughton this season, saying rubbish like 'he can motivate the players better than Shearer!', did no-one watch our team under Hughton last season? We were woeful, even Kinnear was an improvement. Hughton is doing the best job he can so we can't really have a go but despite what people have been saying we do have the best squad in the league and we should be bloody top. Keegan showed when he was here that you can make average players play with the best, Robson managed to get a team into the Champions League with a defence of Griffin-O'Brien-Bramble-Bernard , good managers will make a team look good, it's no wonder our play is so disjointed, not fluid, and the players don't seem to be on the same wavelength, this isn't because they're rubbish (no worse than any other players in this league anyway) it's because we have two coaches 'managing' a team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now