|
|
Post by Furry Frank The Combat Wombat on Feb 13, 2012 12:57:59 GMT
Hmm, so we want Billy to quit the pies, but you think Ricky is a feeder? This is a worrying development... Feeders...now there is a topic we should discuss one day! Flipping mentalists. Mind you, I do like a cup of tea and bacon sandwich/biccy or even both in bed sometimes, does that make my Mrs a feeder? Indeed.. the first time that doc came on telly, I was agog. depends if its 1 biccy or 4 packs at a time, I guess? |
|
|
|
Post by theallseeingeye on Feb 13, 2012 15:23:38 GMT
Rodriquez is without doubt a quality player and only going to get better. However from what I saw, Sharp is a much better option. He and SRL already looked like they wanted and could play together, he got into some really good positions, but I was more impressed with his work rate, movement and vision. Sharp was aware of what was going on, gave options and brought others into the game really well. The one tiny fear I have, is that SRL will be looking to feed Sharp, and not get into as many dangerous positions himself. Now you see I thought Sharp's movement left a lot to be desired. Alright in and around the penalty area, but almost non-existent once the ball didn't come to him during build-up play. Contrast that with David Connolly (who sadly seems to be turning into a bit of a target for the nutters, who obviously have very short memories) and note how we suddenly started creating chances again when he came on. Connolly's a bit short of confidence in front of goal at present but he's twice the all-round player Sharp currently is (although Sharp is certainly round...). Funny, I thought we stopped playing when Connolly came on (and I like him). Sharp made the whole team more fluid, we looked "joined up" and more dangerous with Sharp. I thought he received the ball well and whenever he had it, he made the right choice. I was not expecting him to be as football clever (well thats what I thought). |
|
|
|
Post by shirleymush on Feb 13, 2012 17:07:47 GMT
The one tiny fear I have, is that SRL will be looking to feed Sharp, and not get into as many dangerous positions himself. I think this is valid. Saints have had much success this season from the deployment of the "false nine", i.e. the forward who drops into midfield to make an extra man. Lambert, Guly and Connolly have all done this very well at various times. Sharp probably hasn't done it much before, didn't do it all that often on Saturday and looked less than comfortable when he did do it. This will, in the short term at least, necessitate Lambert doing more than his fair share when Sharp plays. Of course Rickie playing deeper, or wider or generally in areas of the pitch where strikers haven't traditionally operated isn't necessarily a bad thing- it's actually one of the secrets of our success. What may be problematic is that Sharp's lesser aptitude or willingness to drop into midfield or drift into wide or deep areas may make us less fluid. As ever, it's a balancing act. Sharp has qualities not possessed by Connolly and vice versa. Channers used the phrase "horses for courses" earlier, and Nige's task , as ever, will be to pick a suitable horses for each particular course as the season reaches its conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by lostboy on Feb 14, 2012 8:52:00 GMT
I refer the right honourable gentleman back to my thread of some time ago when I suggested that the "no. 9" in it's traditional form has ceased to exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by shirleymush on Feb 14, 2012 13:29:33 GMT
I refer the right honourable gentleman back to my thread of some time ago when I suggested that the "no. 9" in it's traditional form has ceased to exist. In good teams at elite levels, yes. There are plenty of dinosaurs managing crap teams who still deploy an old fashioned centre forward though. |
|
|
|
Post by eusebio on Feb 14, 2012 13:40:30 GMT
I refer the right honourable gentleman back to my thread of some time ago when I suggested that the "no. 9" in it's traditional form has ceased to exist. In good teams at elite levels, yes. There are plenty of dinosaurs managing crap teams who still deploy an old fashioned centre forward though. Germany had a lumbering (old fashioned) centre forward, and an out of form one at that and yet they still managed to stuff england........does it really matter what way you play as long as you do it well and consistently.......isn't that the beauty of the beautiful game. |
|
|
|
Post by lostboy on Feb 14, 2012 13:55:10 GMT
In good teams at elite levels, yes. There are plenty of dinosaurs managing crap teams who still deploy an old fashioned centre forward though. Germany had a lumbering (old fashioned) centre forward, and an out of form one at that and yet they still managed to stuff england........does it really matter what way you play as long as you do it well and consistently.......isn't that the beauty of the beautiful game. Klose? I don't think so! Out of form maybe, certainly not a traditional no. 9. |
|
|
|
Post by Mandochris on Feb 14, 2012 15:24:19 GMT
Germany had a lumbering (old fashioned) centre forward, and an out of form one at that and yet they still managed to stuff england........does it really matter what way you play as long as you do it well and consistently.......isn't that the beauty of the beautiful game. Klose? I don't think so! Out of form maybe, certainly not a traditional no. 9. Was it Hoeness, their traditional number 9? Looked a bit like a horse and had the muscle power of one too. |
|
