Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

In here you'll find all the moaning, groaning and excitement that comes with following a live game.

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Andy Waller
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:05 pm

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by Andy Waller » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:01 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:08 pm
Tombwfc wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:16 pm
It is a bit bizarre that you've gone from slating Zachariah and saying you'd happily swap him to have ALF and Ameobi on loan, to now saying we really miss Clough and Le Fondre is a waste of skin.

I'm not really convinced that there has ever been a sustained period where we looked like waltzing our way through this division. It's been a grind from the start. We might have played with a swagger against Gillingham at home on Sky for example, but then we immediately went and lost to second bottom Chesterfield. We showed great spirit to beat Scunthorpe, but then needed a last minute goal to salvage a draw against doomed Coventry.

Where I will agree however, is that scoring first at home and not winning (which has happened in four of our six games at the Macron this year) is visibly taking a toll, but then that goes back to us not being able to regularly score more than one goal per game.
I'd have taken Ameobi and Le Fondre all day, to be honest.

The problem is we have Le Fondre and nobody to create chances for him. I do think Le Fondre is a bit off the pace still which is disappointing to be honest.

My main points re. Clough AND Le Fondre is they get away with a lot more than Madine.

Madine has been doing the business of getting the ball in the net recently alongside battling the centre halves. Yet is given criticism for blazing one over from 30 yards. Le Fondre (or Clough when he was here) can be awful but everyone just ignores it.

The agenda against particular players, especially when they are so patently and demonstrably critical to us as a team, has to stop.

Its like LoV having a pop at Vela. Vela works as hard as any player I can remember. Does it always pay off? No. But based on this season it is hard to criticise him that much. I've been no fan of Vela or Madine but can see the work they put in. They may in their own ways, be 'not good enough' (though I'd argue that is more what is around them doesn't always offer), but I can't say either isn't grafting.

I take your point re pre Christmas, but I don't think any side is walking many games in this league. We were grinding enough results out with that team. Had we maintained that form even with the occasional poor away result we'd be clear in second now, given what has happened to others.
I wasn't having a go at Madine, he had another good game and scored a good goal, it's just that effort was unbelievably plop.
What a hero, What a man...... Ooooh, what a bad foul...

bristol_Wanderer3
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:53 pm

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by bristol_Wanderer3 » Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:13 pm

Disappointing result, and a fair result even if we edged the game slightly on points.

I must admit missing a lot of the pre-match announcement of the teams due to being shocked at hearing the name of Dorian Dervite in the starting line up. As the teams came out, and upon seeing the names Thorpe and Osede in the team, as well as Dervite, Wheater and Beevers, it occurred to me we had five centre halves in the team. Clearly we were prepared for a physical, presumably aerial battle.

We started well with Wheater missing a sitter inside the first five minutes, and deserved our well taken goal from Madine. Unfortunately we have a habit of sitting back when 1-0 ahead, and so it proved again. Wimbledon totally dominated the last 25 minutes of the first half. Not many people were talking about Jake Reeves before the game started, but we made any passing resemblance he might have with Luca Modric come true from a footballing perspective, as he ran the game purely down to the fact that he was the only midfielder on show prepared to play short passes and look to receive the ball back. Little sign of the old crazy gang style of football that we were led to expect, at least from them. After a few dangerous moments in our penalty area their goal was a simple one, with their 6ft4 centre forward outjumping our equally tall defenders to score with a textbook header from a textbook right wing cross.

Half time 1-1, but if this was a boxing game I would have scored it 6-4 to them.

We started the second half as brightly as the first. Morais was unlucky when it appeared that the keeper tipped his 25 yard free kick onto the bar. After that we continue to have slightly the better of things without creating many chances, until Morais, now in an advanced central midfield role, after Henry came on for Thorpe, missed the best chance of the game, losing all composure from 8 yards out and clear through on the keeper. And that was that 1-1. 6.5-3.5 to us on points for the 2nd half imho fwiw, which is nothing. We get 1 point in the table when we desperately needed 3, and the slightly uncharitable boos at the end reflected that disappointment.

I feel we are being let down at the moment because no one in our midfield wants to pass and keep the ball. I feel it was a big mistake to start with Thorpe and Derik in the midfield. They were not a long ball side as we were led to believe before the game started, and if that was the reason for the team selection then the scouts and management team need to up their game. We were slightly better when Henry came on to the right wing back position and Morais got on the ball more in central positions, but the quality we had last time I saw us play has sadly gone with Ameobi. On the basis of this we will not be winning many more games this season. Madine and Le Fondre don't look like scoring or creating many, and we look vulnerable enough in the 3-5-2 formation to not keep many clean sheets.

officer_dibble
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8503
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by officer_dibble » Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:52 pm

Cant see Trotter getting a game for us ever again, particularly if we sign that Turkish geezer.

officer_dibble
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8503
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by officer_dibble » Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:05 pm

Tombwfc wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:48 pm
I've no time at all for LoV or Batman, but to be fair it's not as if they were actively tweeting @JoshVela (or whatever his handle is) and calling him out. If Vela wants to click through to a fan site, he can't expect to like everything he reads, same as if he logged on here.

Josh will deservedly win player of the season and he's made huge strides this year, but he needs to grow up a bit.
All very true but they don't half write some drivel aimed at the white van man.

Oooo its Dervite/Trotter/Moxey 0/10 better to play a potatoe instead etc etc.

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 17164
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:58 pm

bristol_Wanderer3 wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:13 pm
I feel we are being let down at the moment because no one in our midfield wants to pass and keep the ball. I feel it was a big mistake to start with Thorpe and Derik in the midfield. They were not a long ball side as we were led to believe before the game started, and if that was the reason for the team selection then the scouts and management team need to up their game.
I didn't hear or read anything pre-match about Wimbledon being long-ball. Well, unless by "pre-match" we mean "the 1990s".

Trouble is, who else could we have picked? Trotter? Really? Given that Wabara wasn't fit, we either had to play a back three or risk someone at right wing-back who might not have the full skillset (e.g. Henry). It's alright taking a risk on that type of player when chasing the game, but if we start that way we might just get picked off.

Despite the predictable barbs I'm sure PP wouldn't prefer to start with five centre-backs, and wouldn't choose to start with Thorpe and Derik in midfield at the same time. All being well, he might choose to start with a central midfield three of Spearing, Pratley and Mavies, but it just hasn't been that sort of season.

bristol_Wanderer3
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:53 pm

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by bristol_Wanderer3 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:09 am

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:58 pm
bristol_Wanderer3 wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:13 pm
I feel we are being let down at the moment because no one in our midfield wants to pass and keep the ball. I feel it was a big mistake to start with Thorpe and Derik in the midfield. They were not a long ball side as we were led to believe before the game started, and if that was the reason for the team selection then the scouts and management team need to up their game.
I didn't hear or read anything pre-match about Wimbledon being long-ball. Well, unless by "pre-match" we mean "the 1990s".

Trouble is, who else could we have picked? Trotter? Really? Given that Wabara wasn't fit, we either had to play a back three or risk someone at right wing-back who might not have the full skillset (e.g. Henry). It's alright taking a risk on that type of player when chasing the game, but if we start that way we might just get picked off.

Despite the predictable barbs I'm sure PP wouldn't prefer to start with five centre-backs, and wouldn't choose to start with Thorpe and Derik in midfield at the same time. All being well, he might choose to start with a central midfield three of Spearing, Pratley and Mavies, but it just hasn't been that sort of season.
I was thinking of these quotes by Steve Parkin pre match, plus what PP said about them before we played them at their place. To me, yes they had a big strong centre forward, but they were every bit a neat and tidy typical L1 team. More like a Scunthorpe than anything else.
They have a good manager, they have a system which works, and they have got strong, physical front players who can mix it up.

It was a tough game at their place on a really hot day but our lads stood up to the physicality on that day and they have to do that again.
I think there are enough alternative options there with Henry and Solomon. Henry has played centrally as well as wide right, Morais also. Solomon could play in an advanced midfield role or at a real stretch the wing back role. I do agree though that we are stretched and I am by no means intending to be generally critical of PP and his team, who I think have done an outstanding job. Thorpe and Derik in midfield was the main problem for me, however.

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 17164
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:46 am

bristol_Wanderer3 wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:09 am
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:58 pm
I didn't hear or read anything pre-match about Wimbledon being long-ball. Well, unless by "pre-match" we mean "the 1990s".
I was thinking of these quotes by Steve Parkin pre match, plus what PP said about them before we played them at their place. To me, yes they had a big strong centre forward, but they were every bit a neat and tidy typical L1 team. More like a Scunthorpe than anything else.
They have a good manager, they have a system which works, and they have got strong, physical front players who can mix it up.

It was a tough game at their place on a really hot day but our lads stood up to the physicality on that day and they have to do that again.
Fair enough. I saw those quotes but they didn't make me think long-ball, necessarily; Ibrahimovic is a "physical front player" and Pogba has "physicality" but United aren't long-ball – well, not until they're desperate enough to trundle Fellaini on :D
bristol_Wanderer3 wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:09 am
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:58 pm
Trouble is, who else could we have picked? Trotter? Really? Given that Wabara wasn't fit, we either had to play a back three or risk someone at right wing-back who might not have the full skillset (e.g. Henry). It's alright taking a risk on that type of player when chasing the game, but if we start that way we might just get picked off.

Despite the predictable barbs I'm sure PP wouldn't prefer to start with five centre-backs, and wouldn't choose to start with Thorpe and Derik in midfield at the same time. All being well, he might choose to start with a central midfield three of Spearing, Pratley and Mavies, but it just hasn't been that sort of season.
I think there are enough alternative options there with Henry and Solomon. Henry has played centrally as well as wide right, Morais also. Solomon could play in an advanced midfield role or at a real stretch the wing back role. I do agree though that we are stretched and I am by no means intending to be generally critical of PP and his team, who I think have done an outstanding job. Thorpe and Derik in midfield was the main problem for me, however.
Yep, I get that but I'm still not understanding what exactly the alternative XI was, Brizzle. If we're playing 3-5-2 (unless you disagree with that?) then are you saying we should start with Henry, who started the previous two, very disappointing, games? Would you be happy with relegating Vela, whose goal was one of the few midweek highlights, back into a more defensive role in order to cover the flatter-to-deceive Wolves loanee or wet-eared Birmingham teenager? I agree that Morais could play there, but if so who goes right wingback - the Brummie kid, "at a real stretch"?

To be clear, I'm not having a pop at you particularly, just noting that it's easy to say "we should/shouldn't play X" without going through the alternatives. For instance, Ian Wright's always on MOTD banging on about how Wenger should start Sanchez or Oxlade-Chamberlain or Walcott or Iwobi "in every game", but he never suggests exactly which multimillion-pound purchase he'd drop. I'm just saying, as someone who has to pick and rotate an XI from an expectant squad of 16 young players every weekend, that every selection decision has an effect elsewhere.

Just as an aside on Henry, by the way: we've only won one league game he's started - Swindon away. Might not be his fault that our returns plummet when he's in the team, and I'd dearly love him to do well, but we're definitely getting a big enough dataset for a clear correlation, if not causation. (Numbers, left to right, are Won-Drawn-Lost with him starting and not starting.)
Attachments
Screen Shot 2017-03-07 at 11.47.13.png
Screen Shot 2017-03-07 at 11.47.13.png (18.78 KiB) Viewed 908 times
Screen Shot 2017-03-07 at 11.51.29.png
Screen Shot 2017-03-07 at 11.51.29.png (152.28 KiB) Viewed 908 times
Screen Shot 2017-03-07 at 11.51.42.png
Screen Shot 2017-03-07 at 11.51.42.png (145.81 KiB) Viewed 908 times

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25837
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:03 pm

See the league are blocking us from registering a youth player on a pro contract. And also blocking the Karacan move. Plus we "de-registered" Pratley thinking he'd be out long term and we'd need special permission from the league to re-register him.

How you can expect a club in those circumstances to mount a promotion campaign is beyond me - it might be ok if said club didn't receive injuries. But this is BWFC we're talking about. I still think we will do well to make the play-offs as things stand.

Tombwfc
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2912
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:37 pm

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by Tombwfc » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:14 pm

I completely get that to an extent we've only got ourselves to blame for still being in embargo umpteen months after those in charge said it would be sorted - but how an appropriate punishment for getting in financial difficulties is not being allowed to play players from our own youth team is completely beyond me.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25837
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:20 pm

Tombwfc wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:14 pm
I completely get that to an extent we've only got ourselves to blame for still being in embargo umpteen months after those in charge said it would be sorted - but how an appropriate punishment for getting in financial difficulties is not being allowed to play players from our own youth team is completely beyond me.
I agree. And the worst thing is it was a split vote decision with representatives of clubs on the EFL board voting. So it isn't even "applying rules" given Ken suggests some clubs don't want us to register more players.

Surely there should be clear rules on this, but seems the league just make it up.

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 17164
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:10 pm

Tombwfc wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:14 pm
I completely get that to an extent we've only got ourselves to blame for still being in embargo umpteen months after those in charge said it would be sorted - but how an appropriate punishment for getting in financial difficulties is not being allowed to play players from our own youth team is completely beyond me.
+1. They seem to have painted themselves into a corner, like they did with The Checkatrade Fiasco.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:03 pm
How you can expect a club in those circumstances to mount a promotion campaign is beyond me
Well, they don't: hence Parky's quotes about the FL's chief exec noting that the other clubs under embargo are all battling relegation, while we're "up there". There feels like an undercurrent of "so why aren't you happy?"

Stepping back a bit to search for the wider picture, I suppose financial rules are supposed to help a club survive, not prosper; the whole thing was restructured after clubs like Leicester sidestepped their way to promotion. And our wage bill dwarfs most in this division, even if much of it is now going to sicknotes. At base level, our outgoings massively exceed our incomings, we would be gambling on promotion, and that's what the League doesn't want.

In the end, I am glad we do still have a club to follow. I suppose the point here is that for us more than most clubs, promotion is very closely linked to financial viability. I'm not suggesting they give us a bye, but when you get FL board-level decisions made by promotion rivals (or, for say Bury, relegation rivals) then you have to question the impartiality.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23253
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by Worthy4England » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:23 pm

Prior to the start of the season, I thought we could still easily go bump (and we still could), I could have envisaged us heading straight through another trap-door, I could also see the possibility we'd be their or their-abouts.

This squad has collectively shown it's not a Championship level squad last season (quite comfortably in the end), although there's been a lot of changes. The notion that we're really a Championship team, underperforming isn't a correct one, in my opinion. We're currently a L1 team performing probably about in line with expectations, overall, still against the backdrop of the embargo and a lot of injuries and suspensions. I'm still in the "get up by any route" and it'll be a fine season, camp. I'm fairly sure this is the consistently highest League position we've held for any significant period in about 10 years...Just hope we've got enough in the tank.

Tombwfc
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2912
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:37 pm

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by Tombwfc » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:44 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:10 pm
Tombwfc wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:14 pm
I completely get that to an extent we've only got ourselves to blame for still being in embargo umpteen months after those in charge said it would be sorted - but how an appropriate punishment for getting in financial difficulties is not being allowed to play players from our own youth team is completely beyond me.
+1. They seem to have painted themselves into a corner, like they did with The Checkatrade Fiasco.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:03 pm
How you can expect a club in those circumstances to mount a promotion campaign is beyond me
Well, they don't: hence Parky's quotes about the FL's chief exec noting that the other clubs under embargo are all battling relegation, while we're "up there". There feels like an undercurrent of "so why aren't you happy?"

Stepping back a bit to search for the wider picture, I suppose financial rules are supposed to help a club survive, not prosper; the whole thing was restructured after clubs like Leicester sidestepped their way to promotion. And our wage bill dwarfs most in this division, even if much of it is now going to sicknotes. At base level, our outgoings massively exceed our incomings, we would be gambling on promotion, and that's what the League doesn't want.

In the end, I am glad we do still have a club to follow. I suppose the point here is that for us more than most clubs, promotion is very closely linked to financial viability. I'm not suggesting they give us a bye, but when you get FL board-level decisions made by promotion rivals (or, for say Bury, relegation rivals) then you have to question the impartiality.

I think that's about it really - if we were bottom of the league nobody would care, but I guess it's hard for us to plead poverty talent wise when we've been in the top four seemingly all season. Given that we still appear to have a degree of optimism about Spearing and Pratley playing some part in the run-in, I think we'd have to take it on the chin if they don't think we necessarily need to sign Karacan. The youth team lad I think is a separate issue, and completely absurd - they should be actively encouraging us to play our youngsters above anyone.

I can see why the fact these decisions are potentially in the hands of employees of our competitors sticks in Ken's craw, but I guess that's bound to happen when you allow representatives from individual club's on your board. Who knows where we'd be if Gartside had gotten his Premier League 2 masterplan off the ground, for instance.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25837
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:54 pm

Tombwfc wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:44 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:10 pm
Tombwfc wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:14 pm
I completely get that to an extent we've only got ourselves to blame for still being in embargo umpteen months after those in charge said it would be sorted - but how an appropriate punishment for getting in financial difficulties is not being allowed to play players from our own youth team is completely beyond me.
+1. They seem to have painted themselves into a corner, like they did with The Checkatrade Fiasco.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:03 pm
How you can expect a club in those circumstances to mount a promotion campaign is beyond me
Well, they don't: hence Parky's quotes about the FL's chief exec noting that the other clubs under embargo are all battling relegation, while we're "up there". There feels like an undercurrent of "so why aren't you happy?"

Stepping back a bit to search for the wider picture, I suppose financial rules are supposed to help a club survive, not prosper; the whole thing was restructured after clubs like Leicester sidestepped their way to promotion. And our wage bill dwarfs most in this division, even if much of it is now going to sicknotes. At base level, our outgoings massively exceed our incomings, we would be gambling on promotion, and that's what the League doesn't want.

In the end, I am glad we do still have a club to follow. I suppose the point here is that for us more than most clubs, promotion is very closely linked to financial viability. I'm not suggesting they give us a bye, but when you get FL board-level decisions made by promotion rivals (or, for say Bury, relegation rivals) then you have to question the impartiality.

I think that's about it really - if we were bottom of the league nobody would care, but I guess it's hard for us to plead poverty talent wise when we've been in the top four seemingly all season. Given that we still appear to have a degree of optimism about Spearing and Pratley playing some part in the run-in, I think we'd have to take it on the chin if they don't think we necessarily need to sign Karacan. The youth team lad I think is a separate issue, and completely absurd - they should be actively encouraging us to play our youngsters above anyone.

I can see why the fact these decisions are potentially in the hands of employees of our competitors sticks in Ken's craw, but I guess that's bound to happen when you allow representatives from individual club's on your board. Who knows where we'd be if Gartside had gotten his Premier League 2 masterplan off the ground, for instance.
We can't even play Pratley unless they let us register him.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38459
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light a penny candle from a star.

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by TANGODANCER » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:18 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:54 pm
We can't even play Pratley unless they let us register him.
And our new saviour is still waiting permission to play from across the pond somewhare. Which all goes to show what a load of old bollox football's become. At the end of it all the FL bigwigs will be there to collect their big salaries and bonuses and the tax man will have his hand out regardless of all else. Playing the game? That's pretty low down in the priority list.
The wisest and the best of men, nay, the wisest and best of their actions, may be rendered ridiculous by a person whose first object in life is a joke...Darcy. Pride and Prejudice.

bristol_Wanderer3
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:53 pm

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by bristol_Wanderer3 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:53 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:46 am

Yep, I get that but I'm still not understanding what exactly the alternative XI was, Brizzle.
Well, in a 3-5-2, and assuming Derik and Vela should always start then we could've realistically gone with Derik/Vela/Henry, Derik/Vela/Morais with Henry at RWB, Derik/Trotter/Vela, Derik/Vela/Solomon.

I do accept the point there was no ideal solution given or midfield and right back issues. But Thorpe/Derik/Vela involves three players whose main priority is not keeping the ball, and that means if we were to continue with it we are going to be on the back foot too much to win many more games imho.

truewhite15
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by truewhite15 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:15 pm

bristol_Wanderer3 wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:53 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:46 am

Yep, I get that but I'm still not understanding what exactly the alternative XI was, Brizzle.
Well, in a 3-5-2, and assuming Derik and Vela should always start then we could've realistically gone with Derik/Vela/Henry, Derik/Vela/Morais with Henry at RWB, Derik/Trotter/Vela, Derik/Vela/Solomon.

I do accept the point there was no ideal solution given or midfield and right back issues. But Thorpe/Derik/Vela involves three players whose main priority is not keeping the ball, and that means if we were to continue with it we are going to be on the back foot too much to win many more games imho.
I'm not sure any of those is a realistic solution. In the formation we played on Saturday, we started with two "holding" midfielders, and one "advanced" midfielder, Josh Vela being in the latter role. I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of us agree that he's much better in a marauding #10 position, as opposed to being chained to a position in front of the back four.

In your first formation, you chain Vela and allow the thus-far ineffectual Henry to play further forward.

In the second, you chain Vela and allow Morais to play further forward; this could work, Morais being decent behind the strikers in a playmaker, as opposed to a destroyer role - but you then play Henry at RWB, despite the fact that he's not particularly good defensively nor quick enough to speed forward on the break. Your alternative here is VSO who, I'm sorry, has done nothing to prove the hype so far. He's quick, but is he particularly good in defence? Is he disciplined enough? Is he particularly good with it at his feet? I haven't seen enough yet to judge.

In your third formation, you unleash Vela, but you play instead Liam Trotter who has looked terminally off the pace every time he's played. A valid option? Are you sure?

In your final formation, you chain Vela again, and play VSO behind the strikers. But again, does he have what it takes? Is he determined enough to chase down every ball, ala Vela? Is he good enough with it at his feet to be a playmaker, ala Morais? Have you really seen enough of him to know that throwing him into the starting line-up in a position that isn't his favoured one anyway is going to pay dividends, as opposed to making matters worse?

And yes, they can be worse. We could have come out of the previous two games with feck all.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38459
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light a penny candle from a star.

Re: Hard to get a Haydon over this one. AFC Wimbledon (H) - 04/03/17 3pm

Post by TANGODANCER » Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:04 pm

Saw Lewis Buxton mentioned in the B.N tonight. I'd even forgot we had him.
The wisest and the best of men, nay, the wisest and best of their actions, may be rendered ridiculous by a person whose first object in life is a joke...Darcy. Pride and Prejudice.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest