Wilson Wilson Wilson.......

BritishWestHpool · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:35 pm **Posts:** 1243

...what were you thinking?
Three central defenders and three defensive midfielders in the same team at home?
And which of these three midfielders did he expect to 'bomb on' and join midfield to attack?
We were like three lines of outfield players with no flow inbetween these lines.
How the hell did Monkhouse not start? Him and Humpty have a good understanding and it should be continued.
And yes, I know the ref had a terrible game and I know that Brighton got a lot of the decisions and that even their miskicks seemed to go straight to one of their team everytime, but when the match finished it wasnt the ref I wanted to rant about it was Wilson's tactics and Richie Barker.
The ref wasnt a cheat when it came to Boland. Boland was very silly. Personally I dont think taking away someone's ankles in that position should be a red card but a yellow one, but the ref was simply going by the rule-book, not cheating. Having said that, I understand Boland being frustrated. He shouldnt have been one of three defensive midfielders. Monky should haved played, or at least Sweeney.
As for Barker his display was positively Daly-esque. I got sick of the times our crowd shouted for a free kick everytime Barker lost out in challenges. Yes, he got battered about, yes he got fouled, but he won almost nothing all game. He's supposed to be a strong experienced striker and to me he was woeful, lost almost every challenge, hardly won his headers, was slow and was in their pockets. He should have given them it back. Why on earth Porter was brought off instead of him I cant understand.
As for the anger at the end, and the fans shouting for our players to 'lamp' theirs; well to me that was totally disrespectful to the occasion and the family of Michael.
Of course, the occasion needs to put everything into perspective and the players may well have found it hard to rise to the occasion, but the tactics by Wilson were mystifying.
Again, three central defenders and three defensive midfielders?
Why?

ProudPoolie · **Posted:** Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:41 pm

BritishWestHpool wrote:

...what were you thinking?
As for Barker his display was positively Daly-esque. I got sick of the times our crowd shouted for a free kick everytime Barker lost out in challenges. Yes, he got battered about, yes he got fouled, but he won almost nothing all game. He's supposed to be a strong experienced striker and to me he was woeful, lost almost every challenge, hardly won his headers, was slow and was in their pockets. He should have given them it back. Why on earth Porter was brought off instead of him I cant understand.
Why?

I agree we should have more attacking players in the team especially at home! But can you really tell me what Porter did more than Barker to justify he not being subbed. He was crap today always on his arse again! We missed Ian Moore!

BritishWestHpool · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:35 pm **Posts:** 1243

I dont think Porter had an excellent game but he offered a hell of a lot more than Barker - ie, he actually went past players, he latched onto through balls, he looked like he might actually do something.

aido87 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:00 pm

BritishWestHpool wrote:

As for Barker his display was positively Daly-esque.

i'm glad someone has brought this up at long last.
i thought barker had a decent game today, and i have been one of his biggest critics. but to say he was daly-esqe is quite ridiculous. refyellow

he never looked like scoring from open play, so how could he be daly-esque ?

right at this moment, i would swap daly for barker, no questions.

BritishWestHpool · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:35 pm **Posts:** 1243

I think that needs to be our front four Chip, whether Brown is out wide and moore up front with Porter or as you suggest. As for the comparison between Barker and Daly; in my opinion Daly would have been more mobile, perhaps would have got a goalscoring chance but would have gone to ground a lot more often. And I certainly wouldnt bring him back.
Regardless, I thought Barker was very poor today.

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:40 pm

I said today....our Hoover moves faster than Barker!!!! confised

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36936

LOOK, in my opinion, Barker was brought in to give a fourth division answer to a fourth division problem, he did that job. We now need a third division striker to do another job. end of.

katcha · **Posted:** Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:29 am

Chip - porter didnt play so well I thought and was rightly substituted (but he may have had other things on his mind - this events surrounding the day may mean more to him than some other players)- Barker is better than you all rate him - maybe we do need someone younger/fresher but he grafts hard enough for me and has plenty of commitment.

the balance just isn't right yet and eventually it will be.

I expected nothing yesterday to be honest.

katcha · **Posted:** Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:35 pm

OK

Barker and Porter don't gel together together but all of the blame doesn't lie at barker's feet and some days porter ain't the legend you build him up to be.

I agree they belong in different formations

Me i'd like to see SPEED up front -

I'd love to see Brown/Porter and Mackay/Foley up front with Brown/Porter (someone who likes to shoot) playing deeper - i cant see brown and porter working. Barker wouldn't fit into my plans for home games really - back to the goal to often but still i like him and he is one hell of a grafter.

But for me it starts at the back - what the fook happened in the second half formation wise ??

get it settled get it sorted

for me coles is no better than mccunnie and i cant remember him crossing the half way line - i like running backs and mccunnie fits the bill

humphreys left back - an emotional man and yesterday was his usual one game in three where he was poor - so the next two should be ok ....still a problem area and always has been - since the days of mckinnon in my eyes (and was before)

midfield - fookin hell - maybe we have too many midfielders - but surely it aint hard to sort a game plan and set your team to it - not pick a team and then a game plan after ?? - we should have the same plan for every home game - push on - yesterday was all wrong midfield wise - but i dont have the answer but i would like to see liddle further forward boland /whoever full of calm bite - and the 'wingers' running themselves in to the ground and cutting inside when the running backs have the ball.

still - i'm shite at subbueteo (and can't spell it so what do i know)

Tax Paying Poolie · **Joined:** Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:18 am **Posts:** 9053

For me, Wilson is a bit scared of KH. Wilson has spent a fair bit of IOR's money on player wages and those high earners always get their game regardless.

Coles over McCunnie, Antwi over Clark (first 10 games), Moore over Porter. The latter players were always the obvious options but the former ones are probably on higher wages.

BritishWestHpool · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:35 pm **Posts:** 1243

chip fireball wrote:

i think if we are serious about the play offs wilson has to find a way of getting the best out of porter brown and monkhouse, because we are going to need goals as the defence hasnt looked like keeping clean sheets all season.

Playing the three of them together might help, for a reasonable length of time. I cant see how it couldnt work.The three of them, plus one other. It seems so obvious.

Spender · **Posted:** Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:00 pm

chip fireball wrote:

what im saying katcha is that barker is suited to a 442 formation with good wide men supplying crosses. he is an old fashioned centre forward. yesterday he spent most of the game getting the ball 35 yards out with his back to goal and having to play the ball back into pools half, on two occassions he actually passed the ball to brighton strikers, thats how deep he was coming to get it. he posed absolutely no threat to the brighton goal at any point yesterday until he was given the chance from the penlty spot.

im not suggesting thats his fault, im saying without wide men he isnt going to get the ball in areas that he can do damage in.

imho if you are going to play 433 you want 3 mobile forwards, capable af taking centre halves into the areas they dont want to go and then beating them. you need to get opposition players out of their comfort zone. sadly on too many occassions this season opposition centre halves have had an easy time of it. stick a big lad whats good in the air on barker and you take him out of the game. put the same centre half on someone like brownie and you cause problems.

porter likes to play with a mobile frontman like boyd or brown that he can interchange quick passes with. he is no more suited to playing with barker than ian moore was, and therein lies the problem we have had most of the season. we dont have strikers that complement each other or who are on the same wavelength.

indeed possibly the most suitable strike partner for barker would be david foley.

today, for whatever reason, wilson started with a 433 formation with porter, a left footer on the right up front, and brown who is right footed on the left up front.

the manager seems to think we are chelsea and that players can adapt to different positions and a different format week in and week out.

clearly they cant.

personally i would like to see us starting games playing 442, with players playing in their best positions, in roles they are comfortable with. theres a reason that throughout history right footed players have played on the right and left footers on the left, and 442 has become the norm. it because it is the easiest way to play the game.

mcunnie for example is in and out of the side and it needs to be decided is he a full back or a midfield player ?

liddle seems baffled and his game is suffering.

brown, porter, foley and moore. are they wingers or are they strikers ? playing porter wide on the right is a waste of time, wheras moore looks much happier playing wide than he does as a striker.

if they are strikers, stick them in the side and leave them in the side as strikers.

you get the sense that the players are becoming increasingly mystified and hacked off at all the chopping and changing, as are the fans.

dont forget we were getting beat before the sending off, and putting in yet another disjointed home performance.

How do we keep scoring all them goals then??

Wilson Wilson Wilson.......

Gadgies online