Wija 0 Posted December 13, 2007 Author Share Posted December 13, 2007 Thank god we rested against Gretna it could have been 5 or 6. I actually think it worked against us. But there is no way Gretna would have scored 5 or 6 Pete.... that is just silly.... :box: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyk 158 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 He definitely is a full back that is for sure. I certainly agree here, thought he done well tho chased everything, worked hard, done well when he got back to save the effort off the line, might have been lucky but you have to be there to be lucky, great tracking back I thought. His crossing was woeful tho but was one of the better players on the park IMO, we did not play well and created very little and the JCD chance summed us up, and I didn't see the point in bringing Boyd on with minutes to go :cheers: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buba3d 0 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 i was reading the paper this morning and i looked at the subs listed for us and one name i can't believe was there, FAYE the bastard is involved in a corruption scandal and not to mention he's is shite, yet still takes up a bench while players like buffel, gow or anybody else for that matter could take the spot. Smith angers me at times with his team selection and his 4-1-4-1/5-4-1 formation, we don't have the players for that kind of formation but still he does, if your going to do that then you need a player who can hold the ball up and has pace not to mention strength (JCD?), boyd needs a striking partner to feed off (naismith, novo?) and of course players who are willing to bomb down the left and right flank to cross a ball. boggles the mind 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 He definitely is a full back that is for sure. Ever seen Whittaker at full back ? I watched him against the Sheep at Easter Road and he was awful. One game isnt the proper manner to judge - but on that occasion his positional sense was terrible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 i was reading the paper this morning and i looked at the subs listed for us and one name i can't believe was there, FAYE the bastard is involved in a corruption scandal and not to mention he's is shite, yet still takes up a bench while players like buffel, gow or anybody else for that matter could take the spot. Smith angers me at times with his team selection and his 4-1-4-1/5-4-1 formation, we don't have the players for that kind of formation but still he does, if your going to do that then you need a player who can hold the ball up and has pace not to mention strength (JCD?), boyd needs a striking partner to feed off (naismith, novo?) and of course players who are willing to bomb down the left and right flank to cross a ball. boggles the mind Whilst I would NEVER defend having Faye on the bench had we had Buffel on the bench we would have had no defensive midfielder on the bench (I think). Our bench had Boyd, JCD, Naismith - with another attacking mid on the bench we wouldn't have had cover should one of our midfielders go down - now you could argue that as we had 3 on the pitch you could simply go 4-4-2... if we were coping well then you would prefer to retain the 4-5-1.... but it makes me shudder to think that there was even the remote possibility of Faye getting on the pitch against that quality of opposition..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Whilst I would NEVER defend having Faye on the bench had we had Buffel on the bench we would have had no defensive midfielder on the bench (I think). Our bench had Boyd, JCD, Naismith - with another attacking mid on the bench we wouldn't have had cover should one of our midfielders go down - now you could argue that as we had 3 on the pitch you could simply go 4-4-2... if we were coping well then you would prefer to retain the 4-5-1.... but it makes me shudder to think that there was even the remote possibility of Faye getting on the pitch against that quality of opposition..... FFS Craig we had 4 defensive midfielders on the park. How many are you wanting? (FFS, meant light hearted) I am sure we could have changed the team around to cover a midfield injury. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 FFS Craig we had 4 defensive midfielders on the park. How many are you wanting? (FFS, meant light hearted) I am sure we could have changed the team around to cover a midfield injury. Which 4 ? Hemdani, Thomson, Ferguson - who is the other ? McCulloch ? No. Whittaker ? No, as has been said he is a full back and certainly in no position to play centre mid. I wasn't defending having Faye on the bench, merely commenting that had there been an injury to a CM and if we were doing well, WS would have wanted an option to keep the same formation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Which 4 ? Hemdani, Thomson, Ferguson - who is the other ? McCulloch ? No. Whittaker ? No, as has been said he is a full back and certainly in no position to play centre mid. I wasn't defending having Faye on the bench, merely commenting that had there been an injury to a CM and if we were doing well, WS would have wanted an option to keep the same formation. You never said central midfielder you said defensive midfielder that is why i included Whittaker. Sorry! I still think having 3 people who can cover that position enough. Gow or Buffel would have been a better option imo. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 FFS Craig we had 4 defensive midfielders on the park. How many are you wanting? (FFS, meant light hearted) I am sure we could have changed the team around to cover a midfield injury. That was going to be my answer bar the FFS bit We could have got away with playing 1 of them IMO 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 You never said central midfielder you said defensive midfielder that is why i included Whittaker. Sorry! I still think having 3 people who can cover that position enough. Gow or Buffel would have been a better option imo. Maybe I should apologise for not being specific enough in saying defensive central midfielder. When you look at the bench though it appeared top heavy with forwards - not complaining but putting Buffel on the bench would have been another forward - we would have had no midfielders on the bench. Point being, if things were going well and a midfielder got injured then WS would have wanted to retain the same formation. The bigger question though is..... if Faye is in contention to play for us then our midfield is in BAD need of strengthening ! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.