A good result - but...

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




Balham Blade said:
What's better? A poacher who scores 20 goals in a season but whose style of play doesn't create many - say 5 assists - or a forward who brings others into the game, scoring 10 but setting up, directly or indirectly, 20 more goals?
Click to expand...

In the best performing teams the latter provides to the former & surely that's what CW will be trying to get, a provider to get 10 assists for Billy?
 
I get the feeling that many of the posters on the thread don't understand the debate being had.

Given the assumed transfer budget and players available to Adkins when he arrived, I, along with many others thought that he got his priorities wrong when he signed Sharp. Anyone who witnessed the side in the latter half of Clough's final season knew that the areas we needed strengthening the most were central defence and central midfield (and possibly a good keeper too), not strikers, when we already had Adams, Done and McNulty (and Murphy at that point) who had all contributed in the latter half of that season.

He signed Sharp and I don't think anybody is questioning his contribution last season, it's just that some us feel that the overall strength of the team would have been better if that money had been used to bring in better defenders and midfielders. This was highlighted straight away with the performance at Gillingham on the opening day. No point having a "20 goal striker" if you've got defenders who can't defend and a spineless midfield.

The result was that Sharp did really well to score 21 goals given the quality of the team he was playing in and as Revolution said, it was probably the difference in us not getting relegated.
 
Danny_Boy said:
No of course they don't, goals are goals regardless.

It's a ridiculous argument to want to get rid of or drop a 20 goal a season striker. I'm done debating it as in my opinion there's no debate to be had. If you want him dropped or sold then frankly you're wrong! Thankfully it's seems Wilder agrees with me so happy days.

My days of banging my head against a brick wall arguing with folks that have some sort of vendetta against our top scorer because of the salary he is on, because he doesn't run about like a moron chasing lost causes, because he doesn't win enough headers when we play long ball crap or because of the "posh" car he drives are over.

UTB.
Click to expand...

Is it also ridiculous to drop 18 goal striker Leon Clarke?
 
Bergen Blade said:
Is it also ridiculous to drop 18 goal striker Leon Clarke?
Click to expand...

I am hoping that we find a way to play both, and that both can find a way to play together. Both are very experienced footballers, both have a track record of scoring in League One, both are physically strong, can break into the box and not be pushed off the ball.

It will be a real shame if for some reason they don't gel and find a good way of working together.
 
Bergen Blade said:
Is it also ridiculous to drop 18 goal striker Leon Clarke?
Click to expand...
May I pick this up ?

Yes.

And No (as it turns out) !!

Have you just stated what is, in essence, the "thrust" of what this thread is about I.e the real issue / debate ?

The time honoured big un vs little un debate ?

Pitting Billy Sharp up against Leon Clarke for the one shirt ? Either or ?

UTB
 
Revolution said:
Our results were poor in part because the team spent the game hoofing the ball up to Clark. Now he is out of the team that has stopped, and we have won twice using the midfield more. Done has helped with this, as you say, and Sharp has scored twice and laid one goal on for a wing back who would not have been in the penalty area if we were still hoofing the ball to Clark.

Hence I currently believe we are better off without Clark in the side.
Click to expand...

Is the answer not to hoof the ball up to Clarke - or not play Clarke? Seems to me we've chosen the wrong option to me. I'd be tempted to put Clarke back in alongside Sharp and drop Done for Lavery, or even give young Brooks a go - I think he could be the surprise package this year? Good at going forward and taking men on.
 
I think this is the best way to fit Sharp and Clarke in the same team...


Freeman E-Landell O'Connell Lafferty

............Duffy Basham Coutts/Fleck

.................................................Lavery

.....................Sharp Clarke


4-4-2 but with Duffy narrow and Freeman playing more like a wing back, covered by a RCB with decent pace, and Basham. Duffy playing more central would free Lavery up to stay in an advanced position. Duffy could move wider when necessary and Lavery could drop back to make a conventional midfield four when we've not got the ball. I think this could give us more control in the middle, more of a wide threat and more pace than we currently have, creating more space for Sharp and Clarke up front.
 
Ricky said:
I think this is the best way to fit Sharp and Clarke in the same team...


Freeman E-Landell O'Connell Lafferty

............Duffy Basham Coutts/Fleck

.................................................Lavery

.....................Sharp Clarke


4-4-2 but with Duffy narrow and Freeman playing more like a wing back, covered by a RCB with decent pace, and Basham. Duffy playing more central would free Lavery up to stay in an advanced position. Duffy could move wider when necessary and Lavery could drop back to make a conventional midfield four when we've not got the ball. I think this could give us more control in the middle, more of a wide threat and more pace than we currently have, creating more space for Sharp and Clarke up front.
Click to expand...

We've not seen him yet - but I doubt we will be thinking of utilising Lavery as a conventional 4 in midfield. He's a striker me owd. And if we don't use him in that role then it would be a waste imo.
 
Cerberus Blade said:
We've not seen him yet - but I doubt we will be thinking of utilising Lavery as a conventional 4 in midfield. He's a striker me owd. And if we don't use him in that role then it would be a waste imo.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be a conventional 4 most of the time though. And he's an attacking left winger as well as a striker. Could be a bit like Murphy.

If we forget about trying to fit Sharp and Clarke in then Lavery and Sharp up front could be the best option - we've managed with Sharp and Done, and Lavery should be an upgrade on Done.

I'd like to see other suggestions on how best to play Sharp and Clarke together btw.
 
Ricky said:
It wouldn't be a conventional 4 most of the time though. And he's an attacking left winger as well as a striker. Could be a bit like Murphy.

If we forget about trying to fit Sharp and Clarke in then Lavery and Sharp up front could be the best option - we've managed with Sharp and Done, and Lavery should be an upgrade on Done.

I'd like to see other suggestions on how best to play Sharp and Clarke together btw.
Click to expand...

Don't !

UTB
 
DronnieBlade said:
May I pick this up ?

Yes.

And No (as it turns out) !!

Have you just stated what is, in essence, the "thrust" of what this thread is about I.e the real issue / debate ?

The time honoured big un vs little un debate ?

Pitting Billy Sharp up against Leon Clarke for the one shirt ? Either or ?

UTB
Click to expand...


No.

It's been used as an argument that Sharp should play, no matter how he performs in general play and without regards to the balance of the team, because his scoring record is so good; a 20 goal season man must always play (also in the following season).

I then ask if that logic also means that Leon Clarke should also play, always, having scored 18, i.e. 3 less than Sharp, but just 2 penalties.
 



Bergen Blade said:
No.

It's been used as an argument that Sharp should play, no matter how he performs in general play and without regards to the balance of the team, because his scoring record is so good; a 20 goal season man must always play (also in the following season).

I then ask if that logic also means that Leon Clarke should also play, always, having scored 18, i.e. 3 less than Sharp, but just 2 penalties.
Click to expand...
If we keep lumping the ball up to Clarke then no, but if we can start to play a bit of football whilst Clarke and Billy are on the pitch then they could develop a partnership.

I don't think the latter will happen though so on that note I'd stick with what we are doing and would rather have Lavery in the side over Clarke and can see this taking us up the league to where we need to be. Lavery will give us better balance as a team when he's fully fit.
 
Bergen Blade said:
No.

It's been used as an argument that Sharp should play, no matter how he performs in general play and without regards to the balance of the team, because his scoring record is so good; a 20 goal season man must always play (also in the following season).

I then ask if that logic also means that Leon Clarke should also play, always, having scored 18, i.e. 3 less than Sharp, but just 2 penalties.
Click to expand...

Ah.

I think I see where your going.

So let me ask you this. And let's assume for this purpose that both Ckarke AND Sharp, on merit should BOTH start, as form dictates.

And the thrust of my question relates to this "balance" you crave.

Would you start both ?

Or Sharp and AN Other ?

Or Ckark and AN other ?

What's the right balance BB ??

UTB

PsWether you like it or not, by inference you are consistently advocating Clarke over Sharp. And I am doing the opposite.
 
DronnieBlade said:
Ah.

I think I see where your going.

So let me ask you this. And let's assume for this purpose that both Ckarke AND Sharp, on merit should BOTH start, as form dictates.

And the thrust of my question relates to this "balance" you crave.

Would you start both ?

Or Sharp and AN Other ?

Or Ckark and AN other ?

What's the right balance BB ??

UTB

PsWether you like it or not, by inference you are consistently advocating Clarke over Sharp. And I am doing the opposite.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd see Clarke and Sharp as the two central strikers. But Sharp, imo, contributes less to the team overall, however he seems the one most likely to score, so on that basis he's a first choice (for now at least).

I think more urgent than this is to fix the supply chain to them. And this is where I think a change is needed. I don't rate Done. I've said it before and I know many won't agree, but this guy is not going to be a good source of supply or goals. Later in the season you will see this to be true because he'll be replaced by Lavery or Brooks and we will not look back. At best he'll be back up.

The guy Chapman doesn't look like the answer either I'm afraid. If he can't show strongly against Wednesday's reserves then he's not the answer and I think Wilder has already spotted this.
 
DronnieBlade said:
Ah.

I think I see where your going.

So let me ask you this. And let's assume for this purpose that both Ckarke AND Sharp, on merit should BOTH start, as form dictates.

And the thrust of my question relates to this "balance" you crave.

Would you start both ?

Or Sharp and AN Other ?

Or Ckark and AN other ?

What's the right balance BB ??

UTB

PsWether you like it or not, by inference you are consistently advocating Clarke over Sharp. And I am doing the opposite.
Click to expand...

Not really bothered about what you think I advocate.

We have to see what kind of formation Wilder decides to go with. If he sticks with 3-5-2 I'd start the same team as against Gillingham. On the day it worked really well, against a Gillingham team that played a diamond and struggled to cope with our aggressive style. Against a different team, it may not work as well. The wing backs for example, will they have as much joy against a 4-5-1 side, where Freedman will have to get past first a wide midfielder, then a full back down his side? Will the wingbacks be forced back more if faced by quick wingers, and will this mean Basham and Coutts will struggle to cover enough space in midfield? Difficult to say!


If Wilder plans to return to 4-2-3-1, the Oxford selection is the one most natural to go with, but with Lafferty replacing Hussey, who was subbed at half time in that game. It is a side that could be struggling in terms of marking at set pieces.

4-2-3-1 means Done up front, with Sharp in the number 10 role. Both will have to impress in order to keep their shirt for the next game. Done has added pace, aggression and movement up front, but he is yet to score. Sharp is the captain, has a good scoring record, but is employed deeper in this formation and has struggled in general play this season, also in the last couple of games when the team has played well.

If Done and Sharp, like everybody else, fail to do well, we have different options that can give us different strengths. It is a good situation to be in, and I like how the squad is shaping up. Thinking of the attacking players who did not start our last game - Lavery, Clarke, Scougall, Chapman, Fleck, mabye add Whiteman, Brooks and Burke as well, it's quite exciting. No room for automatic selections, no "first name on the team sheet" - they all have to perform!
 
Bergen Blade said:
Not really bothered about what you think I advocate.

We have to see what kind of formation Wilder decides to go with. If he sticks with 3-5-2 I'd start the same team as against Gillingham. On the day it worked really well, against a Gillingham team that played a diamond and struggled to cope with our aggressive style. Against a different team, it may not work as well. The wing backs for example, will they have as much joy against a 4-5-1 side, where Freedman will have to get past first a wide midfielder, then a full back down his side? Will the wingbacks be forced back more if faced by quick wingers, and will this mean Basham and Coutts will struggle to cover enough space in midfield? Difficult to say!


If Wilder plans to return to 4-2-3-1, the Oxford selection is the one most natural to go with, but with Lafferty replacing Hussey, who was subbed at half time in that game. It is a side that could be struggling in terms of marking at set pieces.

4-2-3-1 means Done up front, with Sharp in the number 10 role. Both will have to impress in order to keep their shirt for the next game. Done has added pace, aggression and movement up front, but he is yet to score. Sharp is the captain, has a good scoring record, but is employed deeper in this formation and has struggled in general play this season, also in the last couple of games when the team has played well.

If Done and Sharp, like everybody else, fail to do well, we have different options that can give us different strengths. It is a good situation to be in, and I like how the squad is shaping up. Thinking of the attacking players who did not start our last game - Lavery, Clarke, Scougall, Chapman, Fleck, mabye add Whiteman, Brooks and Burke as well, it's quite exciting. No room for automatic selections, no "first name on the team sheet" - they all have to perform!
Click to expand...

Given those two formations, which gets the best out of Duffy? Unlike quite a few, I was quite happy with his contribution at Gillingham. It's a role he could grow into and become a real influence.
 
SouthEssexBlade said:
Given those two formations, which gets the best out of Duffy? Unlike quite a few, I was quite happy with his contribution at Gillingham. It's a role he could grow into and become a real influence.
Click to expand...
I would give Duffy a free role if we can fit that in somewhere, he will only get better. He kept popping up and got into good positions where he could have some efforts at goal, unfortunately most of them weren't very good but at least he's getting into those positions, the goals will come for him if given this role.
 
What is likeable about Duffy is his ability to keep going.

Regardless of if what he tries comes off or not, he is always looking for the ball and an outlet. Coutts needs to be consistently displaying the same attitude and he'll also become a fixture in the team.

I appreciate the fact that he was always trying to make something happen. We need more if this attitude and less safety first, in the right areas of course.
 
Jury's out for me on Duffy. He's one of them players that have always seemed to play well against us, but once we sign him we see his little foibles! A bit like JCR - only so far - not as good!
 
Bergen Blade said:
Not really bothered about what you think I advocate.

We have to see what kind of formation Wilder decides to go with. If he sticks with 3-5-2 I'd start the same team as against Gillingham. On the day it worked really well, against a Gillingham team that played a diamond and struggled to cope with our aggressive style. Against a different team, it may not work as well. The wing backs for example, will they have as much joy against a 4-5-1 side, where Freedman will have to get past first a wide midfielder, then a full back down his side? Will the wingbacks be forced back more if faced by quick wingers, and will this mean Basham and Coutts will struggle to cover enough space in midfield? Difficult to say!


If Wilder plans to return to 4-2-3-1, the Oxford selection is the one most natural to go with, but with Lafferty replacing Hussey, who was subbed at half time in that game. It is a side that could be struggling in terms of marking at set pieces.

4-2-3-1 means Done up front, with Sharp in the number 10 role. Both will have to impress in order to keep their shirt for the next game. Done has added pace, aggression and movement up front, but he is yet to score. Sharp is the captain, has a good scoring record, but is employed deeper in this formation and has struggled in general play this season, also in the last couple of games when the team has played well.

If Done and Sharp, like everybody else, fail to do well, we have different options that can give us different strengths. It is a good situation to be in, and I like how the squad is shaping up. Thinking of the attacking players who did not start our last game - Lavery, Clarke, Scougall, Chapman, Fleck, mabye add Whiteman, Brooks and Burke as well, it's quite exciting. No room for automatic selections, no "first name on the team sheet" - they all have to perform!
Click to expand...
That's me told !

And I disagree about your ascertion in a 4:2:3:1. Done would not be the 1, in the main it would be Sharp, although I accept this would be somewhat fluid. Which is a good thing.

You clearly don't rate Sharp in this "target man" role whereas I, and others, do see the qualities (ball retention in the main) that he can provide to the overall balance of the team.

While height can of course help in this role, it is not essential. A good first touch and spacial awareness are far more important. IMHO.

UTB
 
How come no one thinks about trying Clarke & Lavery up front? why do we have to shoehorn Sharp into the team and play one style which will suit him?
 
metalblade said:
How come no one thinks about trying Clarke & Lavery up front? why do we have to shoehorn Sharp into the team and play one style which will suit him?
Click to expand...
Your right.

A lump and an (as yet) Unknown. Bound to work !!!!!

UTB
 
metalblade said:
Maybe you don't like it cos they are ex pigs? I think Lavery will be an improvement on Done, Clarke has scored just about as many as Billy did last season, a bit much to dismiss him as a "lump"
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I am excited to see what Lavery can add to the squad, and have a hunch he might just be mustard. Ex pig or otherwise !!!

UTB
 



metalblade said:
Maybe you don't like it cos they are ex pigs? I think Lavery will be an improvement on Done, Clarke has scored just about as many as Billy did last season, a bit much to dismiss him as a "lump"
Click to expand...

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

I would try Lavery with Sharp. I see no reason to drop Sharp whilst he is scoring. That strikes me as tinkering for the sake of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Silkblade
A special mention to…
Replies
26
Views
3K
Lupa The Noa
Lupa The Noa
Silkblade
Have we signed a new goalkeeper?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Melbourne Blade
Melbourne Blade
Maurice Maurice
First game this season...
Replies
1
Views
781
ATL Recs
A
The Vicar
Strikers, but goal scorers??
Replies
1
Views
284
bertieblade
bertieblade
Coolblade
A few observations from the stats (Frank’s team)
Replies
25
Views
1K
brownblade
brownblade

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom