Scougall

[Blade56]

Another clean slate.

The Roofe puns are on another thread

 

[Bladesman]

The Roofe puns are on another thread

I was going to mention Roofe...

 

[Grizzly blade]

An example of players brought in to do a particular job for one manager under one particular plan, and then after that manager leaves doesn't fit in with what the new guy wants to do.

Rank poor management of the club at boardroom level. Simple as that.

Adkins can shoulder some blame for not using the squad at his disposal, but also changing the plan and style at least three times in my opinion. The players didn't know what the fuck was going on half the time.

The retaining of Scougall suggests to me we might just see a more flexible, fluid style of play based on quick movement of the ball, and carrying it up the pitch rather than just lumping it to the forwards to get hold of. That suits me thanks very much, even if he does struggle with his finishing. One season he will hit double figures....mark my words.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Clough - squad full of shit - 5th.
Adkins - squad full of same shit + 5 of his own signings - the best player of Clough's shit to the power of a dressing room that wanted to play for Clough divided by an overreliance on loans due to only being able to bring in 2 permanent signings whilst slashing the wage bill = 11th.

Who did shitter? I know, I know.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

I'm hopeful that Scougall will turn it around. And that takes a lot, in a week when Englishmen have had very little to be hopeful about. UTB.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Another clean slate.

How many slates do some of our players need, most of them need showing the door.

A clean slate won't work if the management's judgement and tactical preferences are poor.

Unlike Adkins, Wilder seems to have an idea of which players will fit into his football philosophy. So, it's not a clean slate from him. Fans should be open to players improving in new roles with good tactics though.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

A clean slate won't work if the management's judgement and tactical preferences are poor.

Unlike Adkins, Wilder seems to have an idea of which players will fit into his football philosophy. So, it's not a clean slate from him. Fans should be open to players improving in new roles with good tactics though.

What's your opinion, Bergs, on the lack of adaptability of players. Only being able to play in one way, coaches/managers pick a style and go get players to fit that style rather than being able to mould existing players into that style. Poor coaching from young, lack of imagination, rigid ideas or bits of everything? The Dutch managed it with the Total Football philosophy, but it seems to have gone out of fashion.

 

[Barney]

As we're waiting on new arrivals, Scougall and McNulty returning effectively means we have four "new" additions, and Done returning to an attacking position is a fifth.

I think Blades fans need to get used to a completely new playing style this season, and we should give alle players a clean slate. Some on here are already struggling in this respect. The roles, the positions, the philosophy, the team balance will be very different. A wide man, for example, may not be quite the same as it has been. Let's hope the individual players take their chances and that Wilder gets the balance right.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...t-b-t-anyone-grateful-scougall-says-1-7984938

A clean slate won't work if the management's judgement and tactical preferences are poor.

Unlike Adkins, Wilder seems to have an idea of which players will fit into his football philosophy. So, it's not a clean slate from him. Fans should be open to players improving in new roles with good tactics though.

?

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Scougall was a good example of Adkins' complete failure to do any background work on the squad. Completely hopeless out wide, not good enough for a midfield 4, everyone and their mum knows that. He can play in a 3-man central midfield or just off a striker, same applied to Baxter really. Instead they were both played out of position and when we finally switched tactics to have three in the middle, neither were here.

Hopefully his fresh start plays to his strengths, even if it's just as an impact sub.

Scougall did get on as part of the 3 man midfield at Rochdale and delivered one of the most gutless individual performances I have ever seen.


I hope Wilder can reinvigorate him but wouldn’t be confident with him as part of the starting 11 going into the new season.

 

[Hodgyman]

I do like Scougs and I hope that he thrives under Wilder. If not, someone might be wanting to buy him after his good shows for Fleetwood and wanting him here too. It might just put the selling price up a little should Chris have second thoughts.

 

[Treeton Blade]

Thinks Scougalls injury problems last season were the main reason he never got a chance, he seemed to get injured with every tackle at one point.
Adkins only sent him to Fleetwood because he couldn`t rely on him to get through a game.

Regained fitness and form in the final third of the season, so hopefully can stay injury free from now on.

 

[SwissBlade]

Its not about clean slates, its about giving players the opportunity to play in their best position for the benefit of the team.

Scougall has something about him, but what he was asked to do last season (and the second season under Clough) was alien to him. Not sure where he played at Fleetwood, but he had great success in front of the midfield in that first season.

Its up to Wilder and Scougs to find that role for him, something that Scougs did very well was pressurise the opposition when they had possession. It doesn't really show up in stats as its not always a tackle, but it can force a bad pass and the role is useful... but it needs a solid back four and central midfield to make it work, something which right now we don't have.

 

[Darthblade]

I maintain my previous opinion regarding Scougal.

IF we keep him rather than selling him, the only sensible thing to do is loan him out for the season so that if we get promoted, we could give him a chance in the Championship where he'll get more protection from referees.

He has evidenced over an extended period of time that he can't be consistent and effective in this agricultural Division .....

UTB & FTP

 

[Revolution]

The situation is no different from a month ago.

Scougall can only play in a 5 man midfield. We are not going to get promoted with a 5 man midfield, because our midfielders don't score enough goals and that will take goals out of the forward line as we lose a player.

We need better players.

 

[BushBlade]

I maintain my previous opinion regarding Scougal.

IF we keep him rather than selling him, the only sensible thing to do is loan him out for the season so that if we get promoted, we could give him a chance in the Championship where he'll get more protection from referees.

He has evidenced over an extended period of time that he can't be consistent and effective in this agricultural Division .....

UTB & FTP

If you're not good enough for L1 you're not good enough for the championship.

 

[Fraggle Blade]

something that Scougs did very well was pressurise the opposition when they had possession. It doesn't really show up in stats as its not always a tackle, but it can force a bad pass and the role is useful... but it needs a solid back four and central midfield to make it work, something which right now we don't have.

I can probably provide a Jack Russell that could do that job.

He doesn't offer enough for me to be in the team.

 

[RichardKeys]

If you're not good enough for L1 you're not good enough for the championship.

Don't think that's strictly true; many players come good in different, often higher, divisions. Kane is a classic example - although I don't think the two are comparable. Kane was hardly tearing up the lower divisions when Spurs loaned him out but has gone on to be the highest scorer in the top flight for the past two years. Granted though, he was absolutely dreadful in France!

 

[SwissBlade]

I can probably provide a Jack Russell that could do that job.

He doesn't offer enough for me to be in the team.

No and under Adkins and the latter part of Clough's time, the role of Scougs just didn't fit. Under Wilder, it'll be interesting to see how he plays

 

[Bergen Blade]

What's your opinion, Bergs, on the lack of adaptability of players. Only being able to play in one way, coaches/managers pick a style and go get players to fit that style rather than being able to mould existing players into that style. Poor coaching from young, lack of imagination, rigid ideas or bits of everything? The Dutch managed it with the Total Football philosophy, but it seems to have gone out of fashion.

It's certainly easier to get the balance right with more complete players, but for us it's always a puzzle!

Players must play in a team that makes effective use of their good qualities. I think there was decent reasoning behind most of Clough's signings, but he neglected a few aspects of the game, and with not very adaptable players it was a struggle getting the balance right.

Adkins wanted to play two strikers, but really messed up the rest of his team selection and couldn't find a way to make us look strong.

 

[Bergen Blade]

?

YOU need to give Scougall a clean slate, not dismiss him based on the last two disappointing seasons.

WILDER has seen how Scougall's performed in different tactical set ups, and thinks he can do well in the style he favours.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Scougall did get on as part of the 3 man midfield at Rochdale and delivered one of the most gutless individual performances I have ever seen.

He played 15 minutes that day and I didn't think he was any worse than most of our players.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

He played 15 minutes that day and I didn't think he was any worse than most of our players.

It wasn't the quality of anything he did. It was his attitude. I've never seen a player so desperate not to have the ball as he was that day. His only real quality is picking up the ball and running forward at speed from deep to get us on the offensive. He didn't even attempt it and just handed responsibility to Done every time who gamefully tried but doesn't have the trickery/ dribbling ability to beat 2 or 3 players to make something happen.

 

[BushBlade]

Don't think that's strictly true; many players come good in different, often higher, divisions. Kane is a classic example - although I don't think the two are comparable. Kane was hardly tearing up the lower divisions when Spurs loaned him out but has gone on to be the highest scorer in the top flight for the past two years. Granted though, he was absolutely dreadful in France!

That's because he gained experience on loan, filled out and worked really hard in training to overcome his weaknesses such as lack of pace. If he went back to the championship now he'd smash it.

 

[Bergen Blade]

It wasn't the quality of anything he did. It was his attitude. I've never seen a player so desperate not to have the ball as he was that day. His only real quality is picking up the ball and running forward at speed from deep to get us on the offensive. He didn't even attempt it and just handed responsibility to Done every time who gamefully tried but doesn't have the trickery/ dribbling ability to beat 2 or 3 players to make something happen.

I thought the game was a mess by the time he got on. Wrote this report at the time:


think we did well first half. Players seemed up for it, we were first to most second balls and produced some chances. Che looked very lively, as did Cuvelier and we were clearly the better side. Rochdale looked poor.

At half time I think Keith Hill decided that they needed more physique and more aggression to get into the game. He put on Holt and Vincent, twobig and strong players and they helped turn the game for them. They also started to close us down better, high up the pitch, leading to us playing it long, which favoured their big and strong back four. Subconsciously, I think our midfielders also became reluctant to go forward too much, being away and with the pattern of the game completely changed, that can happen, and Che and Sharp became very isolated.

With both teams playing a direct, scrappy game on a poor pitch it became apparent that they were more suited to it. Their substitutes scored both their goals. Sharp was through on goal twice and Che also failed to take a good chance following a mazy run by McEveley. Apart from this we had the odd run, followed by a poor cross which was easily won by their defenders. Our corners were a waste of time all game as we couldn't win a header.

The end to the game was a mess with Rochdale wasting time and a poisonous atmosphere among the United fans, who didn't really help by twice not returning the ball when we were chasing the game.

Overall, I think we were a bit unlucky. We should have lead by half time and actually did have a couple of good second half chances before they scored as well. In hindsight maybe Adkins should have put on Collins for Flynn when the game changed in the second half. Moving Basham into midfield would have made us stronger and more competitive. It was also the type of game where a strong target man on the bench could have been useful offensively and defensively.




Some ratings:

Long 6
Basham 6 Edgar 5 McEveley 8
----------Brayford 5 ----------------------------------- Woolford 5 (Done 5)
Cuvelier 7 Reed 6 Flynn 5
Adams 7 Sharp 5
The game was a mess by the time Coutts and Scougall came on. I don't think Coutts fits Cuvelier's box to box role. Scougall chased hard as usual, but he couldn't do much going forward.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I thought the game was a mess by the time he got on. Wrote this report at the time:


think we did well first half. Players seemed up for it, we were first to most second balls and produced some chances. Che looked very lively, as did Cuvelier and we were clearly the better side. Rochdale looked poor.

At half time I think Keith Hill decided that they needed more physique and more aggression to get into the game. He put on Holt and Vincent, twobig and strong players and they helped turn the game for them. They also started to close us down better, high up the pitch, leading to us playing it long, which favoured their big and strong back four. Subconsciously, I think our midfielders also became reluctant to go forward too much, being away and with the pattern of the game completely changed, that can happen, and Che and Sharp became very isolated.

With both teams playing a direct, scrappy game on a poor pitch it became apparent that they were more suited to it. Their substitutes scored both their goals. Sharp was through on goal twice and Che also failed to take a good chance following a mazy run by McEveley. Apart from this we had the odd run, followed by a poor cross which was easily won by their defenders. Our corners were a waste of time all game as we couldn't win a header.

The end to the game was a mess with Rochdale wasting time and a poisonous atmosphere among the United fans, who didn't really help by twice not returning the ball when we were chasing the game.

Overall, I think we were a bit unlucky. We should have lead by half time and actually did have a couple of good second half chances before they scored as well. In hindsight maybe Adkins should have put on Collins for Flynn when the game changed in the second half. Moving Basham into midfield would have made us stronger and more competitive. It was also the type of game where a strong target man on the bench could have been useful offensively and defensively.




Some ratings:

Long 6
Basham 6 Edgar 5 McEveley 8
----------Brayford 5 ----------------------------------- Woolford 5 (Done 5)
Cuvelier 7 Reed 6 Flynn 5
Adams 7 Sharp 5
The game was a mess by the time Coutts and Scougall came on. I don't think Coutts fits Cuvelier's box to box role. Scougall chased hard as usual, but he couldn't do much going forward.

Don't disagree with much of that. But I just thought there was a gaping lack of mental toughness that day. Say what you want about the limitations of Dean Hammond but we don't look as fragile when the going gets tough with him in the team. I hope we can replace him with someone who has similar attributes but less of the weaknesses. Scougall I thought embodied the lack of bottle shown by the team that day. By his own admission though, it came at a time when he had fallen out of love with the game. Let's hope he can get back to the player who was here for those first few months.