[paulwardle]

tonights game yet again exposed the lack of leadership in the centre of defence and I must lay the blame for this with hazell. He is the senior guy but time and again he gets caught out of position and never seems to talk to Downes his more inexperienced partner.

we lack a leader on the pitch and this needs to be rectified sooner rather than later as we are continually leaking goals in games that we are easily the best side.

Time to get a replacement for Hazell an exprienced and dominant centre half who can start to orgaise the back four. If we don't we are going down.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

paulwardle, on Jan 10 2007, 11:14 PM, said:

tonights game yet again exposed the lack of leadership in the centre of defence and I must lay the blame for this with hazell. He is the senior guy but time and again he gets caught out of position and never seems to talk to Downes his more inexperienced partner.

we lack a leader on the pitch and this needs to be rectified sooner rather than later as we are continually leaking goals in games that we are easily the best side.

Time to get a replacement for Hazell an exprienced and dominant centre half who can start to orgaise the back four. If we don't we are going down.

can't blame Hazell for Downes marking too tight and getting turned

[david_cfc]

paulwardle, on Jan 10 2007, 11:14 PM, said:

tonights game yet again exposed the lack of leadership in the centre of defence and I must lay the blame for this with hazell. He is the senior guy but time and again he gets caught out of position and never seems to talk to Downes his more inexperienced partner.

we lack a leader on the pitch and this needs to be rectified sooner rather than later as we are continually leaking goals in games that we are easily the best side.

Time to get a replacement for Hazell an exprienced and dominant centre half who can start to orgaise the back four. If we don't we are going down.

Why blame Hazell, when Downes was last man and made the mistake! Not Hazells fault he was told to go up and attack!

[sammythespire]

david_cfc, on Jan 10 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

Why blame Hazell, when Downes was last man and made the mistake! Not Hazells fault he was told to go up and attack!

Sean Dyche is the answer!!!!

[Wooden Spoon]

paulwardle, on Jan 10 2007, 11:14 PM, said:

tonights game yet again exposed the lack of leadership in the centre of defence and I must lay the blame for this with hazell. He is the senior guy but time and again he gets caught out of position and never seems to talk to Downes his more inexperienced partner.

we lack a leader on the pitch and this needs to be rectified sooner rather than later as we are continually leaking goals in games that we are easily the best side.

Time to get a replacement for Hazell an exprienced and dominant centre half who can start to orgaise the back four. If we don't we are going down.

TIME WE REPLACED BLATHERWICK

[Mr.Spireite]

Notice how Crewe's plan of attack was to get the ball between Hazell/Downes ??

For me we needed Kovac on for Hazel, because he couldn't cope with the aerial bombardment.

[sophocles]

Mr.Spireite, on Jan 11 2007, 09:49 AM, said:

Notice how Crewe's plan of attack was to get the ball between Hazell/Downes ??

For me we needed Kovac on for Hazel, because he couldn't cope with the aerial bombardment.

Are you sure we're talking about the same game? I thought ALL of their goals came from through passes ON THE FLOOR.

[Mr.Spireite]

sophocles, on Jan 11 2007, 11:38 AM, said:

Are you sure we're talking about the same game? I thought ALL of their goals came from through passes ON THE FLOOR.

Indeed you're right to an extent, but I still think that Kovac IS a better option than Hazel for the situation we are in, there was also a lot of high balls over the top of the defence which I think that Kovac would deal with better than Hazel who lacks the physical presence and is highly unlikely to rough up the oposing forwards. In fact do we ever get into the faces of the oposition forwards?

[sophocles]

Mr.Spireite, on Jan 11 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

Indeed you're right to an extent, but I still think that Kovac IS a better option than Hazel for the situation we are in, there was also a lot of high balls over the top of the defence which I think that Kovac would deal with better than Hazel who lacks the physical presence and is highly unlikely to rough up the oposing forwards. In fact do we ever get into the faces of the oposition forwards?

I agree that we lack a commanding CB who is strong in the air (i.e. a younger Blathers), but I think Hazell's experience and composure is essential to us. I think Roy is right to persist with the Downes/Hazell combination at the moment, but there are times when you wonder if Downes is going to mature soon enough to prevent us slipping down the table; I'm one of those who think he will become a very good CB in time, but can we afford to wait?

[Mr.Spireite]

sophocles, on Jan 11 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

I agree that we lack a commanding CB who is strong in the air (i.e. a younger Blathers), but I think Hazell's experience and composure is essential to us. I think Roy is right to persist with the Downes/Hazell combination at the moment, but there are times when you wonder if Downes is going to mature soon enough to prevent us slipping down the table; I'm one of those who think he will become a very good CB in time, but can we afford to wait?

Hazel is not that experienced when you look at his career

http://www.soccerbas...?playerid=15022

Most of it is in Div.4.

[dtp]

sophocles, on Jan 11 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

I agree that we lack a commanding CB who is strong in the air (i.e. a younger Blathers), but I think Hazell's experience and composure is essential to us. I think Roy is right to persist with the Downes/Hazell combination at the moment, but there are times when you wonder if Downes is going to mature soon enough to prevent us slipping down the table; I'm one of those who think he will become a very good CB in time, but can we afford to wait?

Having witnessed the way Crewe played last night in the first half why did MacF persist with the same tactics in the second?

Possibly, as Crewe were pulling everybody back and playing on the break with just two upfront, he could have ensured we didn't play with a high line by bringing Kovaks on for Davies or Picken, neither of whom played to the best of their capabilities, and putting him alongside Downes with Hazell behind them to sweep up as clearly a very flat back four was nowhere near the answer.

[sophocles]

dtp, on Jan 11 2007, 12:25 PM, said:

Having witnessed the way Crewe played last night in the first half why did MacF persist with the same tactics in the second?

Possibly, as Crewe were pulling everybody back and playing on the break with just two upfront, he could have ensured we didn't play with a high line by bringing Kovaks on for Davies or Picken, neither of whom played to the best of their capabilities, and putting him alongside Downes with Hazell behind them to sweep up as clearly a very flat back four was nowhere near the answer.

I agree that something definitely went wrong with our tactics, as we played into their hands by leaving space for Varney and Maynard to use their pace; I'm not sure whether it was Roy who didn't get the message across to the defenders, or the defenders who failed to follow instructions, and I don't suppose we'll ever know.

[dalekpete]

sophocles, on Jan 11 2007, 10:37 PM, said:

I agree that something definitely went wrong with our tactics, as we played into their hands by leaving space for Varney and Maynard to use their pace; I'm not sure whether it was Roy who didn't get the message across to the defenders, or the defenders who failed to follow instructions, and I don't suppose we'll ever know.

Except RMc said on one of the interviews that he said to play deeper and reiterated it at half-time. Downes has 50 appearances at this level and Hazell about 100. Should we expect better?

[Balearic Mac]

dalekpete, on Jan 11 2007, 11:00 PM, said:

Except RMc said on one of the interviews that he said to play deeper and reiterated it at half-time. Downes has 50 appearances at this level and Hazell about 100. Should we expect better?

My concern is that Downes' errors fall far too frequently in the 'schoolboy howler' category. I'd have hoped that they'd be a thing of the past, but they're not and this bizarre assumption that they'll disappear when he's played more games just doesn't wash with me. Crewe's forwards were of similar experience but they must have been astounded with how easy their night's work was.

Clearly there's no substitute for hard work put in on the training ground, and in Dario Gradi they've got a gaffer who's renowned for his dedication in developing talent. As our gaffer's a former England defender of some repute, I can't for the life of me understand why we seemingly can't defend for tuffy...

[Balearic Mac]

dalekpete, on Jan 11 2007, 11:00 PM, said:

Except RMc said on one of the interviews that he said to play deeper and reiterated it at half-time. Downes has 50 appearances at this level and Hazell about 100. Should we expect better?

My concern is that Downes' errors fall far too frequently in the 'schoolboy howler' category. I'd have hoped that they'd be a thing of the past, but they're not and this bizarre assumption that they'll disappear when he's played more games just doesn't wash with me. Crewe's forwards were of similar experience but they must have been astounded with how easy their night's work was.

Clearly there's no substitute for hard work put in on the training ground, and in Dario Gradi they've got a gaffer who's renowned for his dedication in developing talent. As our gaffer's a former England defender of some repute, I can't for the life of me understand why we seemingly can't defend for tuffy...

[Balearic Mac]

dalekpete, on Jan 11 2007, 11:00 PM, said:

Except RMc said on one of the interviews that he said to play deeper and reiterated it at half-time. Downes has 50 appearances at this level and Hazell about 100. Should we expect better?

My concern is that Downes' errors fall far too frequently in the 'schoolboy howler' category. I'd have hoped that they'd be a thing of the past, but they're not and this bizarre assumption that they'll disappear when he's played more games just doesn't wash with me. Crewe's forwards were of similar experience but they must have been astounded with how easy their night's work was.

Clearly there's no substitute for hard work put in on the training ground, and in Dario Gradi they've got a gaffer who's renowned for his dedication in developing talent. As our gaffer's a former England defender of some repute, I can't for the life of me understand why we seemingly can't defend for tuffy...

[SpireiteDel]

dtp, on Jan 11 2007, 12:25 PM, said:

Having witnessed the way Crewe played last night in the first half why did MacF persist with the same tactics in the second?

Possibly, as Crewe were pulling everybody back and playing on the break with just two upfront, he could have ensured we didn't play with a high line by bringing Kovaks on for Davies or Picken, neither of whom played to the best of their capabilities, and putting him alongside Downes with Hazell behind them to sweep up as clearly a very flat back four was nowhere near the answer.

sophocles, on Jan 11 2007, 10:37 PM, said:

I agree that something definitely went wrong with our tactics, as we played into their hands by leaving space for Varney and Maynard to use their pace; I'm not sure whether it was Roy who didn't get the message across to the defenders, or the defenders who failed to follow instructions, and I don't suppose we'll ever know.

Roy did say in his interview with Peak after the game, that he had told the defence not to hold a high line because of the pace of Crewe's strikers. He also said that when they came in at half time, he told them again as they were doing exactly what he told them not to & yet they still went & did the same thing in the 2nd half.

[Wooden Spoon]

SpireiteDel, on Jan 12 2007, 11:24 AM, said:

Roy did say in his interview with Peak after the game, that he had told the defence not to hold a high line because of the pace of Crewe's strikers. He also said that when they came in at half time, he told them again as they were doing exactly what he told them not to & yet they still went & did the same thing in the 2nd half.

remember merson saying that players at this level had to be constantly told to do something. over and over and over? and how "quality" wasnt always about technical ability?

maybe he had a point. he`s a linnet, but maybe he had a point.

roy can prepare them, train them hard all week, but once they cross the touch line its up to them to retain whats been said, retain any special, ahem, "tactical" instructions etc.....thats why allot is captain, not leadership skills, but his "tactical awareness".

[SpireiteDel]

death, on Jan 12 2007, 12:01 PM, said:

Roy can prepare them, train them hard all week, but once they cross the touch line its up to them to retain whats been said, retain any special, ahem, "tactical" instructions etc.....thats why allot is captain, not leadership skills, but his "tactical awareness".

I totally agree.