John Brayford

[Lane Ender]

Do you really think he has shown that since he signed here on a permanent basis? Really?

I'm not having a pop, just highlighting that he is looking like a weak link. Look back over our last few games and look at how many goals we have conceded down his side of the pitch.

We,re playing poor as a side it goes through all the side it's been like it since Ched went down.
We've got half dozen decent players if we,re talking autos.
It'll take the rest of this season and the summer to sort this mess out better get use to it.

 

[Bert]

It's simple for me.. He isn't and never has been that good a defender ..what I mean by that is he is better going forward than backwards . He's still one of our better players in my opinion but that's not saying much .

He's good at going forward and that's how he should be used, not as a full back. Gareth Bale was a poor full back as well.

 

[Sean Thornton]

We all saw what happened with the goal today. We're defendin far far too narrow leaving Brayford having to surge out wide to try and meet a winger when it gets played out there... Winger cuts inside, Brayford on his arse... 1-1. Who's fault is that? It depends on how Adkins is telling them to defend, but either way it is woeful

Bang on. But let's not let clear facts get in the way of agendas. Too narrow. And none of the experts on here can see it, mainly because they don't want to.

 

[Ricky]

He's good at going forward and that's how he should be used, not as a full back. Gareth Bale was a poor full back as well.

He's not even very good at going forward. Never takes a man on and his crosses are always poor. Summed him up today when he had space in the second half and only needed to have a half decent first touch to get himself into a dangerous crossing position, but he miscontrolled and had to come inside.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Never. Always.

Not really true is it?

 

[Ricky]

Never. Always.

Not really true is it?

'Never' definitely is.

I can't remember the last time he put a decent cross in. Partly because he's incapable of working a good crossing position for himself.

 

[Sean Thornton]

No it's not. You object to the fee paid for him. Your judgement is clouded because of that. You've already backed down on one claim.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

He's not even very good at going forward. Never takes a man on and his crosses are always poor. Summed him up today when he had space in the second half and only needed to have a half decent first touch to get himself into a dangerous crossing position, but he miscontrolled and had to come inside.

Utter rubbish.

 

[Ricky]

No it's not. You object to the fee paid for him. Your judgement is clouded because of that. You've already backed down on one claim.

He'll only get by an opponent when he already has a clear advantage over them, when he has momentum. He has no trickery and little pace. He's totally reliant on team mate support.

Can you remember the last good cross he put in? Has he even got an assist since we signed him?

My judgement isn't clouded by what we paid and my objection to it, but it is partly based on what we paid, and why the hell shouldn't it be? Should we pretend he cost 200k instead and rate his performance level on that basis?

Utter rubbish.

Obviously.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

My judgement isn't clouded by what we paid and my objection to it, but it is partly based on what we paid, and why the hell shouldn't it be? Should we pretend he cost 200k instead and rate his performance level on that basis?

How much did we pay? How much are his wages? Have we improved our performances since he returned to the team (taking today's match into consideration equally with the other matches?

 

[alcoblade]

As my mate said halfway through the second half "Brayford could take a dump on the pitch and some people would still clap him"

I'd love to see a player take a dump on the pitch, and I'd definitely applaud it.

UTB

 

[Sean Thornton]

He'll only get by an opponent when he already has a clear advantage over them, when he has momentum. He has no trickery and little pace. He's totally reliant on team mate support.

Can you remember the last good cross he put in? Has he even got an assist since we signed him?

My judgement isn't clouded by what we paid and my objection to it, but it is partly based on what we paid, and why the hell shouldn't it be? Should we pretend he cost 200k instead and rate his performance level on that basis?



Obviously.

So you admit he can go by a player.

Your objection to the fee because other positions were seen as priority is reasonable. It appears though that because you think it's not money well spent, Brayford deserves inaccurate comments on his performances. You've backed off both points already and as has been said by Luke, seem to be ignoring the fact that defensively we are very very narrow which invites opposing wing backs to push up and our wide midfielders aren't capable of keeping with them. Particularly on the right. It's plain to see but blaming Brayford fits.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I'd love to see a player take a dump on the pitch, and I'd definitely applaud it.

UTB

What about on a glass coffee table?

 

[alcoblade]

How much did we pay? How much are his wages? Have we improved our performances since he returned to the team (taking today's match into consideration equally with the other matches?

We've improved enormously since Brayford came back. That also coincides with (amongst other things) us tightening up our style, so I'm not sure how much is down to Bratford.

He'd good at this level. Separate to that, spending such an amount on a third division right back is another in a long list of silly decisions that has consigned us to this league.

UTB

 

[HillmortonBlade]

We've improved enormously since Brayford came back. That also coincides with (amongst other things) us tightening up our style, so I'm not sure how much is down to Bratford.

He'd good at this level. Separate to that, spending such an amount on a third division right back is another in a long list of silly decisions that has consigned us to this league.

UTB

I believe the two go together. And I am astounded that he's attracting such derision on the Forum, I really don't understand the criticism (other than than Sammon did not get on to be a scape goat). We actually bring in a quality player and even that's not enough.

 

[Ricky]

How much did we pay? How much are his wages? Have we improved our performances since he returned to the team (taking today's match into consideration equally with the other matches?

Phipps suggested very close to £2m. He was apparently in 18k p/w at Cardiff. We have improved but not as much as you'd expect to with a player who cost that much.

So you admit he can go by a player.

Your objection to the fee because other positions were seen as priority is reasonable. It appears though that because you think it's not money well spent, Brayford deserves inaccurate comments on his performances. You've backed off both points already and as has been said by Luke, seem to be ignoring the fact that defensively we are very very narrow which invites opposing wing backs to push up and our wide midfielders aren't capable of keeping with them. Particularly on the right. It's plain to see but blaming Brayford fits.

No, I don't admit he can go by a player. He can't. Just about anyone can do it with a starting advantage over the opponent. That's different to going by a player when starting on a level footing, relying on nothing but your own ability. It's also different when carrying the ball inside into space relatively unchallenged. That's not beating an opponent, it's 'carrying the ball forwards'.

I'll always rate his performance based on what I consider to be his actual ability level, rather than the fee. The fee isn't the only factor, it's also that he's proven he can play better than he is now. But I'll always keep in mind that whatever he produces won't justify the fee. There's nothing wrong with that.

We defended narrow but their man was in acres of space, was the most obvious threat and it was in Brayford's position. Who was Brayford marking centrally? Anybody?

 

[alcoblade]

I believe the two go together. And I am astounded that he's attracting such derision on the Forum, I really don't understand the criticism (other than than Sammon did not get on to be a scape goat). We actually bring in a quality player and even that's not enough.

I don't understand the criticism he gets. But I can understand criticism of the signing. Given a limited budget, It makes no sense to spend so much if it on the right back position.

UTB

 

[HillmortonBlade]

I don't understand the criticism he gets. But I can understand criticism of the signing. Given a limited budget, It makes no sense to spend so much if it on the right back position.

UTB

Agreed, unless we building a side and he's clearly a good foundation (although the building work seems to have stalled). My point is that anyone who comes on the forum saying he isn't quality is, IMHO, a half wit.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Phipps suggested very close to £2m. He was apparently in 18k p/w at Cardiff. We have improved but not as much as you'd expect to with a player who cost that much.





No, I don't admit he can go by a player. He can't. Just about anyone can do it with a starting advantage over the opponent. That's different to going by a player when starting on a level footing, relying on nothing but your own ability.

I'll always rate his performance based on what I consider to be his actual ability level, rather than the fee. The fee isn't the only factor, it's also that he's proven he can play better than he is now. But I'll always keep in mind that whatever he produces won't justify the fee. There's nothing wrong with that.

We defended narrow but their man was in acres of space, was the most obvious threat and it was in Brayford's position. Who was Brayford marking centrally? Anybody?

You said he can't go past a player. Now you've changed it to "without a clear advantage" .

So you admit we defended narrow, yes there man was in acres of space and who was with him? If the back four is narrow then the wide midfielder should track back. It's either their responsibility or Adkins shite tactics. Playing narrow defensively isn't about man marking is it? FFS it's pretty basic thinking. If you've got a narrow back four it defeats the object for the RB to be out on the touch line. But as I've said, you just want to criticise him. A more pertinent question to anyone fair minded would be who should have been picking the bloke up in the first place.

 

[alcoblade]

Agreed, unless we building a side and he's clearly a good foundation (although the building work seems to have stalled). My point is that anyone who comes on the forum saying he isn't quality is, IMHO, a half wit.

I think you have to build progressively. We simply don't have the money to match that anywhere else. If it was part of a wider investment plan, all well and good. It isn't.

UTB

 

[robbiez666]

If we can get what we paid for him we really need to sell him. He's no better than Freeman since he's been permanent and taking a huge wage. Take the money because he's a defensive liability.

 

[Ricky]

You said he can't go past a player. Now you've changed it to "without a clear advantage" .

So you admit we defended narrow, yes there man was in acres of space and who was with him? If the back four is narrow then the wide midfielder should track back. It's either their responsibility or Adkins shite tactics. Playing narrow defensively isn't about man marking is it? FFS it's pretty basic thinking. If you've got a narrow back four it defeats the object for the RB to be out on the touch line. But as I've said, you just want to criticise him. A more pertinent question to anyone fair minded would be who should have been picking the bloke up in the first place.

I think 'without a clear advantage' goes unsaid as it is a totally different thing but if you want to claim that's me 'backing off' then go ahead.

Should a full back always expect the winger to be covering for him? Shouldn't a full back be switched on to the main threat from a wide position? He didn't need to be anywhere near the touchline, barely even the corner of the box. He only needed to be splitting the distance between the goalscorer and whoever (if anybody) he was supposed to be closest to in the middle. You say the principle of narrow defending is not about man marking (I didn't say it was) but if there's no opponent there there's no need to be that narrow in the first place, and if there is someone there you're going to mark them aren't you.
When the opponents are that close to goal the basic principles of defending narrow go out of the window.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

If we can get what we paid for him we really need to sell him. He's no better than Freeman since he's been permanent and taking a huge wage. Take the money because he's a defensive liability.

Funniest post I've read in some time.

 

[robbiez666]

Funniest post I've read in some time.

explain to me why he's £1.5m and £10k as week better than Freeman? Freeman has similar defensive weaknesses but contributes a lot more going forward.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

explain to me why he's £1.5m and £10k as week better than Freeman? Freeman has similar defensive weaknesses but contributes a lot more going forward.

You are suggesting we sell at post haste (subjectively) the most talented player in our side. So while so many wring their hands about the lack of investment, perhaps you should evidence how better Freeman is? The comparisons will be, of course, subject of opinion, but the quality provided by Brayford in a undoubtedly weak side is obvious.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I think 'without a clear advantage' goes unsaid as it is a totally different thing but if you want to claim that's me 'backing down' then go ahead.

Should a full back always expect the winger to be covering for him? Shouldn't a full back be switched on to the main threat from a wide position? He didn't need to be anywhere near the touchline, barely even the corner of the box. He only needed to be splitting the distance between the goalscorer and whoever he was supposed to be closest to in the middle. You say it's not about man marking (I didn't say it was) but if there's no opponent there there's no need to be that narrow in the first place, and if there is someone there you're going to mark them aren't you.

No, you said "never" and "always". Clearly. You've now moved away from that however much you pretend otherwise.

As for the rest you're ignoring the fact that the back four was narrow - presumably on instruction- and are suggesting what should be done as opposed to how the team were actually defending rather than your speculation. Which seeing how we have been playing recently should have meant the "winger" which sounds less defensive and less responsible than "wide midfielder" (which is the reality) would be covering back. If the job of marking a wide attacking player is someone else's and they don't do it so the FB steps out of position the threat could occur inside. If that had happened you'd be slating him for being pulled out wide.
Do you not think the original failing was for our wide right player being in no mans land and not getting back or is he totally blameless in all this?

On another thread a poster refers to three good balls by Brayford towards the front post, where no one made a run despite it being pretty basic tactically, or did you miss those or did he have that clear advantage you use as an excuse.

 

[robbiez666]

You are suggesting we sell at post haste (subjectively) the most talented player in our side. So while so many wring their hands about the lack of investment, perhaps you should evidence how better Freeman is? The comparisons will be, of course, subject of opinion, but the quality provided by Brayford in a undoubtedly weak side is obvious.

What quality? What has he done since he signed permanently? Admittedly, he's had a major injury and it takes time to come back.

I'm saying that, If we can sell him for £1.5 million and invest the money in the rest of the team, the team should be stronger without him.

He's a better player than Freeman or Flynn in that position, but not by much at the moment.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

I'm saying that, If we can sell him for £1.5 million and invest the money in the rest of the team, the team should be stronger without him.

He's a better player than Freeman or Flynn in that position, but not by much at the moment.

But he is better. And what will £1.5 million actually contribute to the team?

 

[robbiez666]

But he is better. And what will £1.5 million actually contribute to the team?

Yes, but not by much on this season's form. Both error prone and Freeman has given more going forward. I do agree, Brayford is a better player.

£1,5 could buy us 2-3 players who would make us significantly better. It won't, because we're club incompetent.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

What quality? What has he done since he signed permanently? Admittedly, he's had a major injury and it takes time to come back.

I'm a bit too tired and a bit bit pist to go into detail (a poor but reasonable excuse) but I've enjoyed the majority of his performances since he's come back into the side.