Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The State of Denmark.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The State of Denmark.

    I'm puzzled. I have only been watching PNE since Nov 68 so I'm not as experienced or knowledgable as some.
    Yes I have read the threads about yesterday, Neil, Barks et al and I think I'm not the only one puzzled.

    Our once secure defence now leeks goals. What is Rudds average concession per game played v Maxwells? The defenders can't count on him to come out and cover, and their lack of confidence shows.
    That is the first change I would make.

    Sorry to say, but captain Marvell is far too slow at this level and is regularly exposed especially when moved to right back. His passing is poor and he refused a pass to moult yesterday when the latter was in a superb position. He is also prone to panic clearances when we are under pressure.

    Barks confidence has gone and can't score.. Both Barker and Burke would both be better choices at the moment and should be banging on the managers door. Perhaps they are.
    If we were a premier league club Barks would be given one chance. Then others who are hungry for it would play
    If our players don't perform there are replacements to take their place, but all three are repeatedly selected.
    There must be diagreement within the camp and I think we must be close to outright player rebellion.

    Selection is poor. Use of substitutes poor. Tactics are poor. Moral is poor.
    Other teams have kicked on this season and we are looking like yesterday's men not the young eager talented team we know we can be.

    If I can see problems why can't our manager? If he did see them he would surely do something about them otherwise what is the point of paying him?
    All is not well in the State of Denmark, and I'm sure Mr Shakespear would agree.

  • #2
    Unfortunately this trait is commonplace in a lot of sports team managers/coaches. When things aren't going well they seem scared to try something new or radical, they continue to cling to the same way of doing things despite it being obvious they aren't working.
    The definition of insanity is to keep doing something the same way, yet still expecting a different result.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by pne4ever View Post
      Unfortunately this trait is commonplace in a lot of sports team managers/coaches. When things aren't going well they seem scared to try something new or radical, they continue to cling to the same way of doing things despite it being obvious they aren't working.
      The definition of insanity is to keep doing something the same way, yet still expecting a different result.
      Neil switched to 3 at the back (or was it 5?) yesterday in case you didn't notice. Unfortunately, it didn't work.

      Comment


      • #4
        He switched to a back five to be more solid then played a very weak midfield two in front of them. So the back five was exposed through the centre of the pitch anyway.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pnemann10 View Post
          He switched to a back five to be more solid then played a very weak midfield two in front of them. So the back five was exposed through the centre of the pitch anyway.
          Who else was he supposed to play in central midfield?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pnemann10 View Post
            He switched to a back five to be more solid then played a very weak midfield two in front of them. So the back five was exposed through the centre of the pitch anyway.
            That midfield was the only midfield available. Hence he played 3 centre backs behind them.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Schemer View Post
              Neil switched to 3 at the back (or was it 5?) yesterday in case you didn't notice. Unfortunately, it didn't work.
              Arguably it did work in the first half, he then switched to a different formation during the second half. Too many people have heard the no plan B cliche trotted out on tv and radio and keep repeating it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pnemann10 View Post
                He switched to a back five to be more solid then played a very weak midfield two in front of them. So the back five was exposed through the centre of the pitch anyway.
                True. I fail to see how he could think that that formation in any way compensated for the lack of a tackling, defensive midfielder.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You don't see how adding an extra defender compensates for that?
                  I love you Woodsy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I know we had big players missing in midfield with Pearson, Ledson and Brown all out. But we still had Gallagher who was substituted despite a good performance, DJ and Harrop as well as others who can drop in that area and should have been more than good enough to see off a poor Reading team...and although Reading won, they were very poor. Not many teams will gift them goals like we did.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by HunterLionheart View Post
                      You don't see how adding an extra defender compensates for that?
                      Did it work?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Schemer View Post
                        Did it work?
                        How bad do you think it would have been with a back 4 and no midfielder who could tackle?

                        You think the defenders would have made -less- mistakes by being more stretched?
                        I love you Woodsy.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X