A good result - but...

[Bergen Blade]

You'd move on a 20 goal a year striker? I won't resort to name calling but wow. So worrying that you're not alone in that opinion either. I can't understand the mentality he scored and he created the other goal in a game we scored 2 in. Seriously what more do people want.

Goals scored by Billy Sharp shouldn't be the only criteria to evaluate our team's attacking play. If it was, then last season would have been a successful season for Sheffield United.

It is vital that we find good attacking rhythm to our play, have many threats, create many chances, make our players' good attributes count in a well balanced set up, playing good, effective football. It is not just about giving the ball to Billy Sharp so that he can score 20 goals. We need 60, maybe 70 more.

Penalties and set pieces are important, but we won't win promotion unless we play well as a team, i.e. from open play, and Sharp also has to be a part of that. It is a fact that he's scored three goals this season, but when people are considering a different striker it is because they feel there's more to be gained from a different type of player. There's nothing to get upset about, we all want the team to do well and people will have different views on how to achieve that. We have scored 7 goals from 8 matches this season, thankfully the trend is positive.

Sharp has one open play goal from 8 starts. His performances have been, overall, very mediocre so far. He was taken off at half time vs Leicester following a nightmare, and just before our equaliser on Sunday he was apparently going to be taken off again. Having struggled again before half time, he did improve a bit after his involvement in this goal, and of course scored our match-winning penalty.

He's probably done enough with those two involvements to keep his place, but he has to improve, play better in general play and score goals to continue, like any other forward.

 

[Danny_Boy]

Goals scored by Billy Sharp shouldn't be the only criteria to evaluate our team's attacking play. If it was, then last season would have been a successful season for Sheffield United.

It is vital that we find good attacking rhythm to our play, have many threats, create many chances, make our players' good attributes count in a well balanced set up, playing good, effective football. It is not just about giving the ball to Billy Sharp so that he can score 20 goals. We need 60, maybe 70 more.

Penalties and set pieces are important, but we won't win promotion unless we play well as a team, i.e. from open play, and Sharp also has to be a part of that. It is a fact that he's scored three goals this season, but when people are considering a different striker it is because they feel there's more to be gained from a different type of player. There's nothing to get upset about, we all want the team to do well and people will have different views on how to achieve that. We have scored 7 goals from 8 matches this season, thankfully the trend is positive.

Sharp has one open play goal from 8 starts. His performances have been, overall, very mediocre so far. He was taken off at half time vs Leicester following a nightmare, and just before our equaliser on Sunday he was apparently going to be taken off again. Having struggled again before half time, he did improve a bit after his involvement in this goal, and of course scored our match-winning penalty.

He's probably done enough with those two involvements to keep his place, but he has to improve, play better in general play and score goals to continue, like any other forward.

Good post and not much to disagree with. I still can't get my head around Blades fans wanting him dropped or sold when he is probably our only real threat in front of goal. When he basically wins us the game like yesterday and then I come on forums and Twitter and see Blades fans wanting him sold / dropped I get very frustrated. If they got their own way (thankfully they won't) we would be in serious trouble. Without Sharp's goals last season we would have been relegated.

 

[Danny_Boy]

What is dificult for you to understand?
I have explained very clearly the reasons why I have that opinion.

As for Sunday....I will repeat for you. He pulled his shot for the first goal, it certainly was not a cross. The ball fell for him, and he mis kicked it so badly it turned into a cross. His goal was a penalty. A penalty not won by him, earned or whatever.
We could have any other striker on the pitch....Lavery for example....who is quicker and offers a different threat to Sharp. Lavery will be up front, and in the box, so may well be given the number of chances Sharp has had. What's to say Lavery won't get 20 goals? Will he be in the salary Sharp is? Not a chance he will.

Anyway....glad you opted to leave out the name calling, doesn't make for good debate. And I would certainly like some opinion other than "he scored 20 last season" to explain why he's worth his place

I haven't seen much of Lavery but I am happy with the signing, but unlike you I would like to see him up top with Sharp in place of Done with Clarke as back up.

Doesn't matter how you dress it up Sharp won us the game yesterday and I find it frustrating when blades then went him dropped and or sold. Selling our best players is why we are where we are. Teams cry out for a 20+ goal a season striker, we have one and some want rid.

 

[Revolution]

Goals scored by Billy Sharp shouldn't be the only criteria to evaluate our team's attacking play. If it was, then last season would have been a successful season for Sheffield United.

It is vital that we find good attacking rhythm to our play, have many threats, create many chances, make our players' good attributes count in a well balanced set up, playing good, effective football. It is not just about giving the ball to Billy Sharp so that he can score 20 goals. We need 60, maybe 70 more.

Penalties and set pieces are important, but we won't win promotion unless we play well as a team, i.e. from open play, and Sharp also has to be a part of that. It is a fact that he's scored three goals this season, but when people are considering a different striker it is because they feel there's more to be gained from a different type of player. There's nothing to get upset about, we all want the team to do well and people will have different views on how to achieve that. We have scored 7 goals from 8 matches this season, thankfully the trend is positive.

Sharp has one open play goal from 8 starts. His performances have been, overall, very mediocre so far. He was taken off at half time vs Leicester following a nightmare, and just before our equaliser on Sunday he was apparently going to be taken off again. Having struggled again before half time, he did improve a bit after his involvement in this goal, and of course scored our match-winning penalty.

He's probably done enough with those two involvements to keep his place, but he has to improve, play better in general play and score goals to continue, like any other forward.

He's got 2 open play goals, not one. You know, the goals that won a game and won us a point. He also laid on one of the goals from open play.

Lavery may well turn out to be a good striker for us. He has scored 21 career goals so far. That's the same as Sharp scored last season.

We do need a lot of goals to go up. Barring a big dip in form, it's a decent bet that Sharp will get 20. Will Lavery get 20 if we put him in? Will Clark?

Oh, but I keep hearing that these guys are well rounded players and create goals for other players, which Sharp doesn't. Really? Do we really gain a lot more from taking Sharp out of the team and playing Lavery and Clark? Does Lavery lay on goals? Not above League 2 level so far. Clark certainly doesn't. He's got no assists track record at all as far as I can tell.

And even if they do, who are they creating the goals for? No goals in 60 games Coutts? 3 goals in 100 games Basham? 4 goals in 60 games Scougall? Come off it. These people would have to score goals for "well balanced" to be profitable. They managed 3 between them last season. I suppose that was Sharp's fault.

I really think you and others have this idea in your head that we can recreate what, say, United did in 2005-6 with strikers barely in double figures and the midfield chipping in for a "well balanced" season. This is a pipe dream with this squad, because it is not well balanced to begin with. We have precisely one midfielder - Duffy - who has a goalscoring track record. This deficiency has been staring you all in the face for 2 seasons.

"Sharp has to play better". I certainly hope he does. Leon Clark also has to play better. He scored a goal in a league cup game, played a major role in our losing that game by missing more chances than have been created for Sharp all season, and has done precisely nothing else. He has done nothing to earn selection over Sharp. Lavery isn't even fit to play.

We don't have time to waste messing about needlessly with formations in order to achieve some mythical "balance". What we have to do is play to our strengths, and one of those is sticking with the best forward in our division. Fortunately Wilder seems to realise this even if you don't.

 

[Revolution]

Billy Sharp.

My opinion. Missed two very good chances on Sunday, the header was a particularly poor effort.
Off the ball he works hard, but is painfully slow. Numerous times balls were played beyond their defence and he often had a head start but was easily caught and was forced to turn back.
He also made some pretty poor decisions, one in particular first half where he tried to play the Hollywood pass to Done as we broke forward with a 3 v 2 and ignored the correct, simple ball to the advancing Duffy. Worked correctly that would have been a very clear open sight of goal! I shouted expletives at the tele!!!

So far, we have created very few chances. Sharp may well have 3...one a penalty and another a simple tap in. He has still missed a good number of chances! For what he adds to THIS team, and taking into account his cost financially I would look to move him on.
I think other strikers would match his output and add more value to the team, with more chance creation made for others.
Let's not Kidd anyone that he actually meant to cross the ball to Freeman either BTW....he was shooting and pulled it. Luckily, the excellent Freeman had made a superb run to get in the right place.

I have high hopes for the Lavery fella...his supposed Pace is what we are desperate for up front, and will give our attacks an extra dimension.

Remind me - you also thought Che Adams was a poor player didn't you?

 

[Champagneblade]

I think the best partnership might be Sharp and Lavery.

Lavery is quick and it was said that he created a lot of chances for McNulty. To me the extra pace would create more space for Sharp notwithstanding Lavery is creative then in his own right.

I'd like to think that we can evolve in such a manner that we dip into 3-5-2 for select away games. Then at home we rest one of the centre backs and either get Chapman in the team or Scougall or we play Lavery wide left and partner Billy with Clarke or Done.

Done can produce more than he is at present, it's just not quite happening. What will change though is that against Gillingham we actually created chances. Eventually the goals tally will gain pace if we play in the same vain.

I wouldn't drop Sharp but he has to be less wasteful. Had Clarke taken the pen instead of Billy then the debate on here would be very different. It would be how Sharp was wasteful and contributed less than Clarke in terms of goals per time on the pitch. Fine margins. Given the wages he will be on, he needs to cast away any doubt by having a run of clinical finishing.

Encouraging thing is we now seem to be creating and we have 3 difficult away games done and dusted and have effectively averaged a point per game from them.

 

[blade67]

Sharp is not an aerial threat nor is he quick , but often has the knack of putting away chances - however this season he is missing loads - missed a few more yesterday - will the captain be dropped ?
We'll soon find out whether Lavery was bought for LW or pace up front.

Sharp has 24 goals from 50 league appearances since he rejoined us.

this season it is 3 from 6. I'm stunned that people are even asking if he might be dropped. He's good t doing the most difficult job in the game

 

[zablade]

Sharp doesn't run around at 100mph like a headless chicken, fails to refer to the manager as "Tufty" and was a favourite of Adkins.

No wonder some on here want him out.

 

[Ldn_Rd_Blades]

You can't stop a 20 goal a season striker while he's still scoring, it's as simple as that.

 

[DronnieBlade]

Overall from what I have seen, Sharp has been better so far this season than many are suggesting. Of course there is room for improvement. But greater creativity from midfield and a developing understanding with a strike partner will also be beneficial.

Sharp should not be immune from criticism nor should his backside by immune from warming the bench,

We do now have variables and options up top. Lavery adds to this and I am eager to see what he can do.

Clarke will have a role as he is more physical. He's not my cup of tea but, with sufficient minutes, staying fit and the right service, he will contribute.

As is often the case, we (the fans) get drawn in to this style over substance issue. It's Billy vs Henderson. Higdon vs McNulty. Now in some quarters it's Sharp vs Clarke for the "target man" role. This, IMHO is perhaps the only time this assertion may be correct. Despite their obvious differences in physical stature, they both seem to fulfil a very similar role in the side.

It's been said the side looks unbalanced when they both start. I'd probably agree with that.

It's been said they shouldn't start together as a front 2. Again, probably correct.

What I am quite sure of is that L1 managers will envy the options we have at our disposal up front.

Just need Tufty to get them firing on all cylinders and then promotion is soon ......

UTB

 

[Revolution]

I wouldn't drop Sharp but he has to be less wasteful. Had Clarke taken the pen instead of Billy then the debate on here would be very different. It would be how Sharp was wasteful and contributed less than Clarke in terms of goals per time on the pitch. Fine margins. Given the wages he will be on, he needs to cast away any doubt by having a run of clinical finishing.

Well, no, because for league games it would still be:

Sharp - 1 goal and 1 assist from open play
Clarke - nothing from open play

 

[DronnieBlade]

Well, no, because for league games it would still be:

Sharp - 1 goal and 1 assist from open play
Clarke - nothing from open play

You are of course right Rev,

But we, and I include myself, need to move away from comparing our own players against each other. I'm as guilty as the next fella.

One common objective.

UTB

 

[Cerberus Blade]

I seem to have started all this by saying that Sharp was ineffectual v Gillingham. To me, that's an accurate representation of what I saw. I didn't say he should be dropped though - and I'm not saying that at all. The facts are that despite him looking somewhat unfit he does somehow represent our best chance of putting the ball in the net. As he showed last season. I think the team desperately lacks pace and creativity up front. Someone has to make way from that starting 11 at Gillingham for us to accommodate that. Based on what I saw I would drop Done or Duffy - possibly both - and I'd get Clarke a starting position before he gets the nark on and packs it in with us.

 

[DronnieBlade]

I seem to have started all this by saying that Sharp was ineffectual v Gillingham. To me, that's an accurate representation of what I saw. I didn't say he should be dropped though - and I'm not saying that at all. The facts are that despite him looking somewhat unfit he does somehow represent our best chance of putting the ball in the net. As he showed last season. I think the team desperately lacks pace and creativity up front. Someone has to make way from that starting 11 at Gillingham for us to accommodate that. Based on what I saw I would drop Done or Duffy - possibly both - and I'd get Clarke a starting position before he gets the nark on and packs it in with us.

That word fact again !!

UTB

 

[Bergen Blade]

He's got 2 open play goals, not one. You know, the goals that won a game and won us a point. He also laid on one of the goals from open play.

Lavery may well turn out to be a good striker for us. He has scored 21 career goals so far. That's the same as Sharp scored last season.

We do need a lot of goals to go up. Barring a big dip in form, it's a decent bet that Sharp will get 20. Will Lavery get 20 if we put him in? Will Clark?

Oh, but I keep hearing that these guys are well rounded players and create goals for other players, which Sharp doesn't. Really? Do we really gain a lot more from taking Sharp out of the team and playing Lavery and Clark? Does Lavery lay on goals? Not above League 2 level so far. Clark certainly doesn't. He's got no assists track record at all as far as I can tell.

And even if they do, who are they creating the goals for? No goals in 60 games Coutts? 3 goals in 100 games Basham? 4 goals in 60 games Scougall? Come off it. These people would have to score goals for "well balanced" to be profitable. They managed 3 between them last season. I suppose that was Sharp's fault.

I really think you and others have this idea in your head that we can recreate what, say, United did in 2005-6 with strikers barely in double figures and the midfield chipping in for a "well balanced" season. This is a pipe dream with this squad, because it is not well balanced to begin with. We have precisely one midfielder - Duffy - who has a goalscoring track record. This deficiency has been staring you all in the face for 2 seasons.

"Sharp has to play better". I certainly hope he does. Leon Clark also has to play better. He scored a goal in a league cup game, played a major role in our losing that game by missing more chances than have been created for Sharp all season, and has done precisely nothing else. He has done nothing to earn selection over Sharp. Lavery isn't even fit to play.

We don't have time to waste messing about needlessly with formations in order to achieve some mythical "balance". What we have to do is play to our strengths, and one of those is sticking with the best forward in our division. Fortunately Wilder seems to realise this even if you don't.

You sound a bit argumentative.

Sharp's goal vs Rochdale was knocked in from Hussey's free kick into the box, so that was a set piece goal, not from open play.

My main point is that we must play well, create many chances and score many goals from open play to win promotion. Set pieces are very important, but overall I don't expect us to score many more than other teams from them - it doesn't look like it's going to be our main strength.

To achieve that (playing well) we can't carry any passengers, several have to chip in with goals, all players have to contribute offensively and defensively in a well-balanced set up with tactics just right for each game. Along the way we must analyse games, evaluate individual and collective performances, always looking for ways to improve. It is thanks to such an evaluation process Wilder no longer plays the same team that lost to Bolton, lost to Crewe, drew vs Rochdale and lost to Southend.

I don't want Billy Sharp to be excluded from this evaluation, and I don't see what's so upsetting about it.

If we keep scoring, winning and Sharp improves his general play he should keep his place in the team. Everybody will be happy with that. But automatically selected for all games regardless of general performance and results? No.

 

[Revolution]

You sound a bit argumentative.

Sharp's goal vs Rochdale was knocked in from Hussey's free kick into the box, so that was a set piece goal, not from open play.

My main point is that we must play well, create many chances and score many goals from open play to win promotion. Set pieces are very important, but overall I don't expect us to score many more than other teams from them - it doesn't look like it's going to be our main strength.

To achieve that (playing well) we can't carry any passengers, several have to chip in with goals, all players have to contribute offensively and defensively in a well-balanced set up with tactics just right for each game. Along the way we must analyse games, evaluate individual and collective performances, always looking for ways to improve. It is thanks to such an evaluation process Wilder no longer plays the same team that lost to Bolton, lost to Crewe, drew vs Rochdale and lost to Southend.

I don't want Billy Sharp to be excluded from this evaluation, and I don't see what's so upsetting about it.

If we keep scoring, winning and Sharp improves his general play he should keep his place in the team. Everybody will be happy with that. But automatically selected for all games regardless of general performance and results? No.

I agree with every word of that, but that is different from what you said above, when you talk about putting other forwards into the side in an attempt to increase goals overall. This will not work because the contribution from midfield will be minimal again, because with the exception of signing Duffy nothing was done to address that.

And if Sharp continues to be Mediocre and yet maintains a one in two game scoring rate (although I do not see how this is mediocre for a forward) then yes, he is an automatic pick.

And I apologise for an argumentative tone, but defending goalscorers when our major problem since the jailing of Evans has been a lack of goals is a tiresome thing to do.

 

[Ricky]

A goal from getting on the end of a set piece into the box can't be placed in the same category as a penalty.

 

[DronnieBlade]

You sound a bit argumentative.

Sharp's goal vs Rochdale was knocked in from Hussey's free kick into the box, so that was a set piece goal, not from open play.

My main point is that we must play well, create many chances and score many goals from open play to win promotion. Set pieces are very important, but overall I don't expect us to score many more than other teams from them - it doesn't look like it's going to be our main strength.

To achieve that (playing well) we can't carry any passengers, several have to chip in with goals, all players have to contribute offensively and defensively in a well-balanced set up with tactics just right for each game. Along the way we must analyse games, evaluate individual and collective performances, always looking for ways to improve. It is thanks to such an evaluation process Wilder no longer plays the same team that lost to Bolton, lost to Crewe, drew vs Rochdale and lost to Southend.

I don't want Billy Sharp to be excluded from this evaluation, and I don't see what's so upsetting about it.

If we keep scoring, winning and Sharp improves his general play he should keep his place in the team. Everybody will be happy with that. But automatically selected for all games regardless of general performance and results? No.

Forgive me Bergen. But is this a bit pot and kettle ??

While I accept Sharp is the "topic" are you singling him out as "being in need of improvement" ? More so than the other strikers ?

Not saying your wrong btw ! I reckon they all need to show a bit more. But as you have said, we are now trending upwards.

UTB

 

[Bergen Blade]

Forgive me Bergen. But is this a bit pot and kettle ??

While I accept Sharp is the "topic" are you singling him out as "being in need of improvement" ? More so than the other strikers ?

Not saying your wrong btw ! I reckon they all need to show a bit more. But as you have said, we are now trending upwards.

UTB

It is the opposite of pot/kettle. It's about assessing every player objectively with the main emphasis on the team's success, rather than individual.

Sharp scored 21 goals last season, Clarke 18, both in average performing teams. On the basis of that alone, you'd expect them to be deadly together, with an improved squad and a new, recent promotion winning manager. Yet, when we played them as our central combination up top, our results were:



After this Wilder picked Done as his main striker. Although Done has yet to score he's given us movement, aggression and some pace up front, which has helped us stretch opposition teams, opening up more space for us to play in, and we've had three really positive games since, a start of an unbeaten run.

I think this illustrates the importance of getting the balance right, more than just selecting 11 individuals with decent previous records.

Regarding Sharp he has kept his place, but not played better in general play. Too many attacks have broken down when we've tried to include him, with defenders regularly just taking the ball off him. Hopefully the assist and goal on Sunday will give him a lift and help him improve his overall game.

 

[Slim Man]

I think we are developing a way to play with Done, as we plan on swapping him out for the better player in Lavery when he gets match fit. We have plenty of striking combos to choose from, if a side is sloppy with the ball and panics in possession we have Done and Lavery, if they struggle in the air and struggle against strength we have Clarke, if they leave holes in defence and in behind we have Sharp.

 

[Champagneblade]

Well, no, because for league games it would still be:

Sharp - 1 goal and 1 assist from open play
Clarke - nothing from open play

That's fair comment and it does raise the question of how much value we place in a player's ability to score from the spot and how this is used when arguing the merits of a player.

Take Sharp as the example. Last season he played 3,978 minutes (equivalent to 44 full matches) and partook in 48 matches. He scored 21 goals, 5 of which were penalties.

So, how do people want to depict his scoring rate?
0.475 goals per game in terms of actual minutes played
0.4375 goals per game in terms of overall games he played
0.362 goals per game from open play in terms of actual minutes played
0.33 goals per game from open play in terms of overall games played

You want to sell him as a great scorer, then he got almost 1 in 2 in terms of goals vs minutes played. You want to show him as not that special? Then one goal every three games from open play isn't that impressive given his pedigree and salary.

I am seeing Sharp being quoted as scoring 3 in 6 because folk are only looking at league games. He's actually scored 3 in 8 appearances and if you discount penalties, then it's 2 in 8. 1 in 4 is a far cry from the 1 in 2 being mentioned. He's only actually mustered 6.95 matches worth of minutes though, so technically he's on an actual strike rate of 0.43 goals per game for his 3 goals.

For me, he's missing too many chances. I expected him to get at least one from open play and I think he should be on at least 5 this season for the chances missed. But you see it on here quite often that you can bend the stats to suit and we often do.

Lies, damn lies and statistics

 

[Slim Man]

If you ask me, Billy had no 'clear' chances on sunday. The header was a hard one, a half chance. The left footed drive after he slipped he got on target and it was well saved. He assisted and showed nerves of steel to score the winner away from home in the 90th minute live on sky in which a lot of players wouldve crumbled.

He's not been playing brilliantly but he's scoring goals and that's all we ask.

 

[Grizzly blade]

Remind me - you also thought Che Adams was a poor player didn't you?

Nope.
Adams is better than Sharp at causing sides problems. Faster, stronger and has a trick up his sleeve.
Would rather we sold Sharp and kept Adams but Wilder had his reasons.

 

[RealMcCoy]

Being brutally honest...United looked poor up front all game. We shouldn't hide away from that fact. We had very little attacking threat. Done runs around a lot and "stretches the game" as they say - but to what effect? Sharp was ineffectual too, with the exception of converting the penalty. The facts are that our best attacker was full back Kieron Freeman. I'm sorry, that's just not good enough and I'd rather say it now and hope someone else notices it than wait until we've missed out on several more points.

Wilder needs to get some zip and urgency in that attack and he needs someone up front who will stick it away regularly. I fear that he will be tempted to leave things as they are for now, because we won, with Done and Sharp leading the attack. I think this is wrong and the sooner he changes it the better. Clarke is better than either of them and we need some pace alongside him - hopefully young Lavery may provide it?

Listened to the live commentary on Bladesplayer, and since then watched 10 minutes highlights. Our Keef was strongly of the opinion that the main problem lies with the reluctance of any of the midfield to get forward and into the box when we have possession up front. They play the forward pass to strikers but don't run on for the possible/ probable cross when it comes in.
In fact he identified Freeman as often being further forward than all of the midfield - and then just to prove Keef right, Freeman gets the tap in!
Haven't watched it all, but from what I have seen this year, I think he has a point.
Certainly don't think the problem lies with Sharp (who admittedly has missed a few chances) or for that matter Done, whose work rate is always great and who I feel would create more goals with more support.

 

[Grizzly blade]

Still find it amusing the Sharp having an assist.

As if he got his head up....saw the advancing Freeman and laid an inch perfect cross into his path? Hmmm!

Yes it goes down as an assist. But let's not Kidd ourselves that it was anything other than a miscued shot that Freeman gambled on a rebound of a keeper. The fact it turned into a cross was due to Sharp dragging his left foot shot.

 

[Grizzly blade]

Listened to the live commentary on Bladesplayer, and since then watched 10 minutes highlights. Our Keef was strongly of the opinion that the main problem lies with the reluctance of any of the midfield to get forward and into the box when we have possession up front. They play the forward pass to strikers but don't run on for the possible/ probable cross when it comes in.
In fact he identified Freeman as often being further forward than all of the midfield - and then just to prove Keef right, Freeman gets the tap in!
Haven't watched it all, but from what I have seen this year, I think he has a point.
Certainly don't think the problem lies with Sharp (who admittedly has missed a few chances) or for that matter Done, whose work rate is always great and who I feel would create more goals with more support.

Keef should know that in the formation we had, it is ideal for Freeman to bomb on. In possession they are effectively wingers, and in doing a good job he should be in and around the box when balls are coming in from the other side.
Lavery was less effective at it, but this may just be down to lack of fitness and game time, as well as joining only a few days earlier.
We had two up front, and Duffy in a free role popping up everywhere. Duffy had at least 3 shots from open play.

We don't want Freeman and Lafferty high up the pitch...strikers in the box, Duffy in and around there and then Coutts and Bash there as well. Those two need to be between their midfield and strikers, and ready to recycle the ball when cleared.
There was very little wrong with our play Sunday. Lack of pace up front to utilise the longer ball, and often leaving forwards isolated. When played out from the back we were pretty good.

 

[Bartyblade]

Listened to the live commentary on Bladesplayer, and since then watched 10 minutes highlights. Our Keef was strongly of the opinion that the main problem lies with the reluctance of any of the midfield to get forward and into the box when we have possession up front. They play the forward pass to strikers but don't run on for the possible/ probable cross when it comes in.
In fact he identified Freeman as often being further forward than all of the midfield - and then just to prove Keef right, Freeman gets the tap in!
Haven't watched it all, but from what I have seen this year, I think he has a point.
Certainly don't think the problem lies with Sharp (who admittedly has missed a few chances) or for that matter Done, whose work rate is always great and who I feel would create more goals with more support.

Maybe Keef dozed off for the 2nd half?
When O'Connell started to bring the ball out from the back shortly after the break, the forward momentum became clear.
I think the team realised that Gillingham weren't going to hurt us, emphasised when Dack went off.
By the time Billy won the ball back in the corner and then had his shot, at least 2 from mid-field were steaming into the box waiting for the pull back.

 

[Grizzly blade]

If you ask me, Billy had no 'clear' chances on sunday. The header was a hard one, a half chance. The left footed drive after he slipped he got on target and it was well saved. He assisted and showed nerves of steel to score the winner away from home in the 90th minute live on sky in which a lot of players wouldve crumbled.

He's not been playing brilliantly but he's scoring goals and that's all we ask.

I thought the header was a poor effort. He was unchallenged, on top of it and didn't need to generate any power as it was all there in the cross.
Should have hit the target minimum.

 

[Slim Man]

Still find it amusing the Sharp having an assist.

As if he got his head up....saw the advancing Freeman and laid an inch perfect cross into his path? Hmmm!

Yes it goes down as an assist. But let's not Kidd ourselves that it was anything other than a miscued shot that Freeman gambled on a rebound of a keeper. The fact it turned into a cross was due to Sharp dragging his left foot shot.

I don't think he tried to score from there. It was an impossible angle.

 

[robbiez666]

Some people appear to have forgotten the days when we used to miss penalties.....

Billy has not been at his best but he's still scoring. That assist was great skills to take a difficult ball on his wrong foot and play it across the goal. Great anticipation from Freeman to get there first.

Our midfield are incredibly bad at taking chances, anticipation and funninf ahead of the strikers