Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 27, 2024, 06:53:45 pm

Login with username, password and session length

Links


FSA logo

Author Topic: Flat-track bullies?  (Read 8885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sammy Chung was King

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 9679
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #30 on December 31, 2015, 03:08:14 am by Sammy Chung was King »
Right back isn't a key area needing to be strengthened for me, if the centre half position is sorted out. We need a dominant centre back who can hold his own for pace, wins most headers, and fits the balance back there.
Ferguson put Butler in as the centre piece, with Taylor-sinclair covering left side of him, and either Alcock or Lund right side, we currently have three right backs Lund, Alcock, Mattioni and McCullough can play there at a push, so we don't need strengthening there.
For me we need somebody that can play or cover Butler and Taylor-sinclair, Butler is competent but not dominant, Taylor-sinclair has done okay, but against better sides this are can be a weakness, but personally i don't see him bringing a centre back in.

We could do with an Adam Reach type of left winger as an alternative to what we have. Two strikers, one who can hold a ball when needed but can also finish, and a smaller quicker young striker for a different option, maybe a loan would be ideal.
 I see Ferguson letting Forrester, Main,and Wellens and maybe Chaplow go out , i think he might retain McKenzie until the summer. So coming in Mattioni, Alcock, Stewart,Grant, plus a striker with some experience and one who is learning the game like Keshi was.



(want to hide these ads? Join the VSC today!)

DRFC

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 302
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #31 on December 31, 2015, 07:36:59 am by DRFC »
Have your considered a career in scouting, Sammy?

ravenrover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #32 on December 31, 2015, 09:32:18 am by ravenrover »
Never in a million years is Mattioni a full back and no way could he play the right side in a back 3. He's too attack minded and skillful to be a conventional defender. He's playing in the correct position of wing back JMHO

Campsall rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 14103
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #33 on December 31, 2015, 09:56:21 am by Campsall rover »
Never in a million years is Mattioni a full back and no way could he play the right side in a back 3. He's too attack minded and skillful to be a conventional defender. He's playing in the correct position of wing back JMHO
Yes agreed, but he could play left back in a conventional back four.

Campsall rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 14103
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #34 on December 31, 2015, 10:01:37 am by Campsall rover »
Evina is well suited ro the wing rack role because his strength is going forward, but his defending leaves a lot to be desired most of the time.
Taylor-Sinclair has bailed him out on numerous occasions.

Campsall rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 14103
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #35 on December 31, 2015, 10:06:55 am by Campsall rover »
Back to the original thread, the first team we will beat that is above us in the table is our next match at Southend and I think we will follow that up by beating Gillingham I our next home game.
We are well overdue a home win against them. :woohoo:

dickos1

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 16981
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #36 on December 31, 2015, 10:45:31 am by dickos1 »
We've beaten a lot of sides that were above us when we played them,

Campsall rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 14103
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #37 on December 31, 2015, 02:10:43 pm by Campsall rover »
We've beaten a lot of sides that were above us when we played them,
Yes my mistake, I mean currently above us in the table.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 37524
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #38 on December 31, 2015, 03:08:05 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
We've beaten a lot of sides that were above us when we played them,

Agreed. But the point was that we're now halfway through the season and the table has taken a bit of shape by then. Most of the weaker sides are near the bottom and most of the stronger sides are near the top by now.

Colchester were above us when we beat them,but they were fizzling out after a moderate start to the season and looked every inch relegation wallahs. Which is bang where they are now after half a season.

BobG

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 9866
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #39 on December 31, 2015, 03:10:05 pm by BobG »
The big question is what are odds on the Rovers breaking the mould tomorrow...?

BobG

donnievic

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 3632
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #40 on December 31, 2015, 03:30:24 pm by donnievic »
Scunthorpe was also below us when they beat us

Campsall rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 14103
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #41 on December 31, 2015, 04:42:48 pm by Campsall rover »
The big question is what are odds on the Rovers breaking the mould tomorrow...?

BobG
Or even the day after tomorrow, I think you mean!

Seadog Minibus

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 132
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #42 on December 31, 2015, 06:15:21 pm by Seadog Minibus »
Colchester were above us when we beat them,but they were fizzling out after a moderate start to the season and looked every inch relegation wallahs. Which is bang where they are now after half a season.

Great shout...2 months after the event

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 37524
Re: Flat-track bullies?
« Reply #43 on December 31, 2015, 07:25:41 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
With hindsight you can get all sorts of things right. Which makes it all the more disappointing when people don't.

Not that hindsight's got owt to do with this particular issue. After our match with Colchester, they'd picked up just 4 points from the previous 18. They'd dropped from 8th to 16th in that time.

You really didn't need to wait 2 months to see that they were gash and sinking like a stone. Not least because their defence was absolutely God-awful.

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2012