Dan Scarr signs

#41

So we can either have defenders that can only play hoof ball or a defence that leaks goals.

Some of you are still in the 90’s :rofl::rofl:

0 Likes

#42

No you can have both. But on our budget and in our situation? It’s probably best to prioritise substance over elegance and hope you get the later as a bonus.

It’s got nothing to do with being stuck in the 90s. I enjoy seeing a centre half spray passes around as much as the next guy. But it’s not the priority.

2 Likes

#43

I know that you can (hence the hint of sarcasm in my post). Football has moved on, even in the lower divisions where defenders have the ability to pass the ball.

Progressive managers are prepared to put up with the odd mistake which leads to a goal as the benefits of possession and building from the back outweigh the negatives (in their view).
Some supporters don’t see it that way, however.

1 Like

#44

DK could already have a combination in mind for the long-term, Scarr and a more ball-playing CH. Might even have specific targets for the summer.

0 Likes

#45

Needs must. If you are playing with multi-million pound players that have been brought up playing in La Masia then yeah you are probably correct the positives of playing that way probably do outweigh the negative.

But this isn’t that situation. The players at this level won’t be as technically gifted and this league is extremely physical even compared to the Championship. So if we were pushing for the play offs sure! take a few more risks, play the ball out from the back.

As it is we need to get the basics correct. This isn’t a time to be worried about how our style of play looks for me.

1 Like

#46

Style of play is important to me. I hate hoof ball. Have you considered that most of the teams at the top of the league play decent football and those struggling at the bottom are more likely to be the hoofballers? (Obviously there are exceptions)

I agree that there are times when a clearance into the stand is the right option but if you keep lumping it up the field you will be giving away possession more times than not.

Smith recognised this and managed to get a footballing philosophy that I really enjoyed with some pretty mediocre players. Didn’t always pay dividends but it was a step forward from what we had before, and have had since.

1 Like

#47

It’s not a question of taste it’s a question of necessity. I preferred watching us play it out from the back.

The reason teams at the top play that football is that they have technically better players who are taking risks to win games.

The reason teams at the bottom don’t is because they have less technically gifted players and there is a huge huge risk to playing that way. You are one missed place pass away from conceding a goal. That’s fine when you have a team full of goals. We have one player.

We are in no position to be taking those risks. Not unless you believe the risk is worth relegation, then fair enough. I’m not saying that’s unreasonable. Id rather play whatever way means we stay up.

0 Likes

#48

It’s down to the Manager’s way of playing. The players carry out his instructions. When Smith took over we were bottom of the league, but he still got us playing football from the back.

Again, not saying there isn’t a time and place for row z clearances .

Incidentally, I don’t think our defenders are the worst footballers on the planet. They seem ok with the ball, , it’s when we haven’t got it they seem to lack awareness.

1 Like

#49

Good for Smith. That’s an extremely unorthodox way of playing in our situation and it worked.

John Guthrie and Whoever might partner him are struggling to defend at the moment first and foremost. Let’s get that right before they start playing tiki-taka.

0 Likes

#50

Maybe if we kept the ball more we wouldn’t have to spend so much time defending? The amount of times we hoofed it up towards Cook last night, who was surrounded by 2-3 players was not encouraging. I include the 'keeper in that too, but I imagine it is the tactic of choice.

1 Like

#51

Maybe we’d be doing more because we’d be giving it away 30 yards from our on goal instead of 30 yards from theirs. Like I say, it’s a massive risk and one I don’t particularly care either way if we take. Clearly you are different.

0 Likes

#52

To be honest I don’t think our style of play has anything to do with this. Our defensive issues are to do with organisation and individual errors, not whether we play an attractive style or hoofball. Hoofball isn’t more defensive, you just turn more situations into a 50/50 and often get it coming straight back to you. Keeping the ball, being sensible and lamping it when in trouble are your safest bet here. You don’t need to be technically better to play keep ball for a bit, work it wide then get something in for Cook. Thats basic 4-4-2 football. Saying that, I don’t think style is important right now, results are. Play fancy effective nice on the eye football once the foundations are set. We are decent going forward and will always have chances no matter which style we play. We all know where the issues lie. Right now we should just want results. Build a philosophy next season.

1 Like

#53

Very true.

1 Like

#54

I don’t think hoof ball is as much a style of play as it is a nessesary means because we have been closed down quickly or lack movement further up the pitch. It is as much to do with the quality of individuals in tight spaces on the pitch as it is to with the pattern play Keates sets us up to use in order the drag the opposition around and make space. We’re not exactly a fluid side in our own 3rd of the pitch and we struggle to turn defensive situations around to our benefit and create opportunities. Instead we lose the ball in defensive areas and create pressure on ourselves. In the attacking 3rd we are a lot more fluid but it’s getting there and that inolves the earlier stages of play

0 Likes

#55

He’s on 2 1/2 years ,isn’t he? I can’t imagine DK intends to prioritise hoofball for that long. Either he has more to him,(or DK sees the potential for more) or he intends to pair him long-term with more of a ball-player.

0 Likes

#56

Like Shaun Pearson perhaps?

0 Likes

#57

Drop donkey Guthrie and play him with Johnson.

1 Like

#58

A ringing endorsement

1 Like