Watford Away 09/08/2014 - Match Thread

[thebish]

I agree with everything Bish said. Ever.

as I have always said - LeverEnd is always right when it comes to the finer points of football and tactics...

[jaffka]

I agree with everything Bish said. Ever.

Lapdog

[Montreal Wanderer]

Only got sent off once in your career, that's coz managers kept taking you off when on a booking after half an hour you complete and utter prick!

I'd have been wary chucking around extravagant offers like 10 bob around, I'd have sold him for that!

Not true anyway.

Savage has, however, only been sent off twice in his career: Once during an international game for the Welsh national team, and once during a Premier League game for Blackburn. He received his first-ever red card when he was sent off in Wales' World Cup qualification match against Northern Ireland in September 2004 for reacting to a foul on him by midfielder Michael Hughes. Both Hughes and Savage were sent off, but, on later review, the punishment of Savage seemed harsh to some. Savage was ridiculed for threatening to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights over the decision. His once-impressive statistic of never being sent off in a Premiership match ended on 18 March 2006 when he was dismissed against Middlesbrough for two bookable offences. Both were controversial – the first for a challenge on George Boateng where he appeared to take the ball, and the second for handball when it seemed unintentional. Savage later admitted that he was probably due a controversial sending off because he had escaped punishment for illegal challenges in the past.

[Prufrock]

I agree with everything Bish said. Ever.

as I have always said - LeverEnd is always right when it comes to the finer points of football and tactics...

I think what you actually said was, "Nice thing of the day - to sit next to someone who (for a change) is as knowledgeable about the finer points of the game and its various strategic variations as I am! LeverEnd!" which isn't quite the same thing .

[bwfcdan94]

Despite the fact that we play awfully I had a good day out, it was nice to meet Bijou, Bruce, WtW, Harry G, GG, Bish, Dan A and Twilight. It was also good to catch up with BP and LE. If you wondering where I disappeared to, I ended up standing with Max, Devon White and HMX at the top. Superb turnout from the forum, I hope to see quite a few of you down at Brighton in a couple of weeks. Apologies if I have missed anyone out in the above statement.

[William the White]

Woefully out of position?! Bugger me. A bit out of position for the first, yes, though if that's 'woefully' we're going to need some new words soon.

1st one: There's a case to answer, he half and halfed, not coming out immediately and not staying, making Deeney's mind up for him. I'd still be concentrating more on why Matt Mills was wrong side, and then why he didn't show his usual turn of pace. Maybe that's what Dougie meant by uncharacteristic errors -that Matt Mills suddenly had the turning circle of an oil tanker, unlike normal? I'd also probably be concentrating most on the absolute worldie of a ball from their LB. Lonners could have done better, but it was hardly a glaring shocker.

2nd one: Getting beat at your near post is what happens when you're set, and they have a shot from a bit of distance that you can't save because you've left too big a gap or whatever, it isn't what happens when Tim Ream, having done the hard bit and got Vydra to the byline, inexplicably dives in (doing his best to give away a penalty in the process) meaning Vydra has all the time in the world 8 yards out. All Lonergan can do is make himself big and hope for the best there.

3rd one: Dervite showing that when people said he could provide competition for Ream, they were right in a different way than they meant. Then a 1v1 where again all he can do is make himself big.

1st one there's half a case, t'others? Naaah.

Correct - and I was three seats away from thebish. Mind, next to me was Bijou bob who shared thebish's harsh stance.

[Andy Waller]

Well done Dougie, bang on about how two strikers ripped us apart then persist with one up front. Most teams do it because it works you clueless tit.

Let's not get silly. We don't have the quality up front Watford do. We don't have two to play up front together. It certainly isn't worth weakening midfield just to put Beckford and Davies together.

Watford have a striker they turned down £6M for this summer and Vydra. If we had those two moaning about not playing them together might be fair enough, but we don't and I don't think playing one up was the fundamental issue.

Yes - because the midfield is obviously such a strong part of the team....and Freedman's ultra defensive midfield loaded tactics certainly worked yet again yesterday.

Well he didn't play an outlet. Which is poor I agree. But demanding two up front in our current state isn't the answer. I can't understand why Feeney didn't start.

In general it seems to work better for clubs though? Unless you've got an obvious target man (which we don't) it's a bit daft trying to play it. If he knew he was going to play like this, why the hell hasn't he got anyone in to play that role?

i can understand playing one up front, but if you've not got the personnel, why do it?

[thebish]

Correct - and I was three seats away from thebish. Mind, next to me was Bijou bob who shared thebish's harsh stance.

what really matters is what LE thought - and he agrees with me!

(and - you were sitting down and your view was clearly impeded! )

[BWFC_Insane]

In general it seems to work better for clubs though? Unless you've got an obvious target man (which we don't) it's a bit daft trying to play it. If he knew he was going to play like this, why the hell hasn't he got anyone in to play that role?

i can understand playing one up front, but if you've not got the personnel, why do it?

We've got better personnel to play 1 up than two up....

[Armchair Wanderer]

In general it seems to work better for clubs though? Unless you've got an obvious target man (which we don't) it's a bit daft trying to play it. If he knew he was going to play like this, why the hell hasn't he got anyone in to play that role?

i can understand playing one up front, but if you've not got the personnel, why do it?

We've got better personnel to play 1 up than two up....

I was going to say... I think the Dougie answer to this is that we don't have the personnel in midfield to play 4-4-2.

[thebish]

In general it seems to work better for clubs though? Unless you've got an obvious target man (which we don't) it's a bit daft trying to play it. If he knew he was going to play like this, why the hell hasn't he got anyone in to play that role?

i can understand playing one up front, but if you've not got the personnel, why do it?

We've got better personnel to play 1 up than two up....

i'm not convinced we have...

neither cravies nor beckford are target men in any meaningful sense of the word...

who is the one-up in your plan?

[BWFC_Insane]

In general it seems to work better for clubs though? Unless you've got an obvious target man (which we don't) it's a bit daft trying to play it. If he knew he was going to play like this, why the hell hasn't he got anyone in to play that role?

i can understand playing one up front, but if you've not got the personnel, why do it?

We've got better personnel to play 1 up than two up....

I was going to say... I think the Dougie answer to this is that we don't have the personnel in midfield to play 4-4-2.

His answer earlier in the week was we don't have a partnership up front worth playing, but that he'd like to play 2 up if we had two strikers good enough....

[BWFC_Insane]

In general it seems to work better for clubs though? Unless you've got an obvious target man (which we don't) it's a bit daft trying to play it. If he knew he was going to play like this, why the hell hasn't he got anyone in to play that role?

i can understand playing one up front, but if you've not got the personnel, why do it?

We've got better personnel to play 1 up than two up....

i'm not convinced we have...

neither cravies nor beckford are target men in any meaningful sense of the word...

who is the one-up in your plan?

I'd stick with Davies. But I'd play a more Allardyce-esque three with Mason and Feeney interchanging around him with an attacking midfield player too.

I'd like to see what happened with players around Davies. I don't see a two in there at all. Don't see the need either if we get players around Davies and support him.

[jaffka]

In general it seems to work better for clubs though? Unless you've got an obvious target man (which we don't) it's a bit daft trying to play it. If he knew he was going to play like this, why the hell hasn't he got anyone in to play that role?

i can understand playing one up front, but if you've not got the personnel, why do it?

We've got better personnel to play 1 up than two up....

I was going to say... I think the Dougie answer to this is that we don't have the personnel in midfield to play 4-4-2.

His answer earlier in the week was we don't have a partnership up front worth playing, but that he'd like to play 2 up if we had two strikers good enough....

Both of which he bought and if that is right in what you have put, is money which is apparently tight pissed up the wall.

[thebish]

I'd stick with Davies. But I'd play a more Allardyce-esque three with Mason and Feeney interchanging around him with an attacking midfield player too.

I'd like to see what happened with players around Davies. I don't see a two in there at all. Don't see the need either if we get players around Davies and support him.

problem with davies being a target man is that if you hoof the ball up to him, it never sticks to him - it bounces off and we lose it.. he has no control.. nor does he keep hold of it when he has it and bring others into play...

granted he can whack a ball, give it some welly, but...

1) he's rarely in a position to do so
2) he never receives it to his feet

[Armchair Wanderer]

I'd stick with Davies. But I'd play a more Allardyce-esque three with Mason and Feeney interchanging around him with an attacking midfield player too.

I'd like to see what happened with players around Davies. I don't see a two in there at all. Don't see the need either if we get players around Davies and support him.

problem with davies being a target man is that if you hoof the ball up to him, it never sticks to him - it bounces off and we lose it.. he has no control.. nor does he keep hold of it when he has it and bring others into play...

granted he can whack a ball, give it some welly, but...

1) he's rarely in a position to do so
2) he never receives it to his feet

Are we playing hoofball? Did they against Watford?

[jaffka]

I think we played more table football

[thebish]

Are we playing hoofball? Did they against Watford?

for quite long periods, the tactic seemed to be to hoof a left-field diagonal air-bomb to Danns - who tried manfully, but was always surrounded by 3 players before it landed...

second half we did pass it about a bit more...

[BWFC_Insane]

I'd stick with Davies. But I'd play a more Allardyce-esque three with Mason and Feeney interchanging around him with an attacking midfield player too.

I'd like to see what happened with players around Davies. I don't see a two in there at all. Don't see the need either if we get players around Davies and support him.

problem with davies being a target man is that if you hoof the ball up to him, it never sticks to him - it bounces off and we lose it.. he has no control.. nor does he keep hold of it when he has it and bring others into play...

granted he can whack a ball, give it some welly, but...

1) he's rarely in a position to do so
2) he never receives it to his feet

I agree but none of that is fixed by playing another striker with him. I actually think given his height and power getting more players around him would be beneficial than just having Beckford up there with him.

Key is to get players around the striker not leave them isolated. IMO.

[thebish]

oh - i agree... but the lack of those players is surely at least partly to be blamed on Dougies insistence in playing BOTH medo and spearing when they plainly don't work together...

and - if we haven't the personnel to play 4-4-2 - and should be playing 1-up - and Cravies is that man - why bust a gut to sign Mason?