John Brayford

[1danewhitehouse]

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.

He took a man on as recently as 2 minutes of playing time ago yet you choose not to remember it. He drove past his man and was cynically scythed down for our free kick in the last minute. The Swindon player was booked.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

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

UTB

Nearest I remember is Keith Gillespie vomiting on the pitch when playing for Blackburn against us at Ewood Park. Lloyd Owusu was so repulsed by the pig fans that he used to vomm in the goalmouth regularly too.


I once read a story about David Batty shitting himself during a game.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

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.

It’s not even about the fee really. It’s because of his ties with that dastardly “utter cunt” Nigel Clough.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

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

#50alcoblade, Saturday at 9:01 PM


If we’d retained Murphy and COG, and Brayford hadn’t been out injured, I think the squad would be coming together nicely. We’d still be looking for better at CB, LB and maybe a better all round CM to complete the squad but we’d be right up there challenging IMO with this team



-------------------Long


Brayford-Edgar-Collins-McEveley


Coutts----Basham-Hammond—Murphy


-------------Sharp---COG

 

[1danewhitehouse]

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.

Do you think it’s a magical coincidence that Coutts has started to look like a good player since Brayford came back or do you think it has something to do with having someone who runs all day long up and down that right side but who also has the ability to play those one-twos and to make the runs into the right areas. Freeman is OK but nowhere near as switched on in terms of his off the ball movement.



It’s no coincidence that bringing him in has seen an upturn in results. Just like when we first signed him. It was a bit different when we re-signed him last January because after the first few games, we had to switch him to centre half. Also, we didn’t play with a settled side at any point.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

How anyone can think that out of that back 4 it's Brayford who needs replacing. This forum is slowly and sadly transforming into BladesMad I fear

Oh and if Brayford leaves because of that bellend in charge then I'm giving Bramall Lane a much needed break

What is happening to our club?...

I think it’s uncalled for to refer to our manager as a bellend but, I did see him and Brayford having words late on in the game which does raise some concerns.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

My suspicions are correct. He's beyond criticism for a lot of people. If McEveley had put in some of the performances Brayford has lately he would have been hammered for it.

.

McEveley can only ever dream of putting in the performances Brayford does. Because he doesn’t have anywhere near the ability to get up and down the pitch like Brayford does. That’s why he plays with a very defensive minded wide midfielder in front of him so he can use his limited ability to just do basic defending and pretty much nothing more. Simply put, we’ve found a way of playing which compensates for McEveley’s weaknesses and allows him to do his job reasonably effectively. The drawback is that we create very little down the left. As a result, everything has to come down the right. Coutts certainly doesn’t have the legs to get up and down the right flank all game meaning that Brayford has to be everywhere at once, defending, attacking offering an outball etc. It’s not unreasonable that he occasionally fails given that about 70% of the game goes through him. If Brayford had as little responsibility on the pitch as McEveley does, I guarantee the goals against wouldn’t be coming through him. But we’d be wasting his attacking ability and would create bugger all.

 

[Ricky]

Saturday. First half. Put a very decent cross in but we don’t have anyone up front who attacks aerial balls.



He’s been far from shit. We’ve lost 1 in 8 (I think) league games since he came back. He does get exposed at times and isn’t fantastic at defending but he always gives us an outlet of the ball and if we’re going to create anything in a game I always fancy that it will come down the right side with Brayford, Coutts and Sharp linking up. As for “since he joined permanently”, look at his contribution at CB last season. Look how we did after he got injured.



It’s no coincidence that we’re a better team when he’s available. But still, McEveley’s picked up his game and Sammon’s not playing so we have to find someone to hate.

The fact he's helped improve us does not negate the point that he's underperformed.

 

[Ricky]

It’s not even about the fee really. It’s because of his ties with that dastardly “utter cunt” Nigel Clough.

Looks like it's Dane's like hunting dinner time bombardment session.

Obviously the fee, the wages and the fact he's shown better form before signing permanently can't possibly be enough can it. Yes, it must be about Clough.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

The fact he's helped improve us does not negate the point that he's underperformed.

With his alleged price tag in this league, pretty much any performance would be deemed under-performance. He would have to drag us up singlehandedly to justify his price-tag in the eyes of many. Why not appreciate him for what he is? One of our best players who is part of the solution rather then the problem. Brayford and Sharp are probably the only two players we have who have a really good all round game. We have others like Coutts, Basham, Done etc. who can thrive in a team with the right balance. Instead of moaning that they cost too much, let's aspire to have less of the average joes and more of these types of player to strengthen the first team.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Looks like it's Dane's like hunting dinner time bombardment session.

Obviously the fee, the wages and the fact he's shown better form before signing permanently can't possibly be enough can it. Yes, it must be about Clough.

Like hunting? Yeah OK

Given that you were giving a very similar rhetoric during the better form and prior to us signing him permanently then yes, I would say it's much more likely to be about Clough.

 

[Ricky]

With his alleged price tag in this league, pretty much any performance would be deemed under-performance. He would have to drag us up singlehandedly to justify his price-tag in the eyes of many. Why not appreciate him for what he is? One of our best players who is part of the solution rather then the problem. Brayford and Sharp are probably the only two players we have who have a really good all round game. We have others like Coutts, Basham, Done etc. who can thrive in a team with the right balance. Instead of moaning that they cost too much, let's aspire to have less of the average joes and more of these types of player to strengthen the first team.

It's not only the fee, it's the fact he's performed considerably better previously. As I've said many times.

Like hunting? Yeah OK

Given that you were giving a very similar rhetoric during the better form and prior to us signing him permanently then yes, I would say it's much more likely to be about Clough.

You can think what you like, I don't care too much. But all my objections were perfectly reasonable, have been emphatically justified and certainly don't need any dislike of Clough to explain them. And I barely said a word against him during his better form when on loan.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

But all my objections were perfectly reasonable, have turned out to be 100% correct and certainly don't need explaining by any dislike of Clough. .

Even though I have pointed out examples of him beating a man and putting a decent cross in during the last game which you claim he "never does".

As for the "performed considerably better previously", you're talking about a period where the team as a whole were riding the crest of a wave, all playing above themselves. Harris, Howard, Collins, even Maguire at Hull, Flynn, Scougall, Doyle etc. have all failed to play as well as they did in that period since. The team spirit and momentum we had at that time was incredible and every player was playing very well. The only one who has got near to that form since is Murphy and even he had patches where he didn't play as well. Brayford has still performed better than every other member of that side (that remains here- Maguire/Muphy/Coady are in different teams so it's harder to judge) yet he's the one signed out for criticism? It's bizarre

 

[Hodgyman]

For what it's worth, I think Brayford is great going forward to start or help attacks but leaves his position at the back in doing so. I'm not suggesting that he he stays at home defending, more that someone needs to drop in that position to cover for his absence. I think that has not happened as we don't have a suitable player to do so. Hammond should be able to but is not quick enough to match up to a winger with pace and Coutts &Basham try to get up in support in attacks instead.

 

[Ricky]

Even though I have pointed out examples of him beating a man and putting a decent cross in during the last game which you claim he "never does".

As for the "performed considerably better previously", you're talking about a period where the team as a whole were riding the crest of a wave, all playing above themselves. Harris, Howard, Collins, even Maguire at Hull, Flynn, Scougall, Doyle etc. have all failed to play as well as they did in that period since. The team spirit and momentum we had at that time was incredible and every player was playing very well. The only one who has got near to that form since is Murphy and even he had patches where he didn't play as well. Brayford has still performed better than every other member of that side (that remains here- Maguire/Muphy/Coady are in different teams so it's harder to judge) yet he's the one signed out for criticism? It's bizarre

They were playing well but ability level is different to performance level, and it was Brayford's ability level that genuinely seemed greater than it is now - even allowing for the fact he was in a better team.

A cross when nobody's in the box is not a good cross, and driving into space and getting fouled isn't really taking a player on.

 

[Sean Thornton]

They were playing well but ability level is different to performance level, and it was Brayford's ability level that genuinely seemed greater than it is now - even allowing for the fact he was in a better team.

A cross when nobody's in the box is not a good cross, and driving into space and getting fouled isn't really taking a player on.

Had to log in just to comment on the second part of that last paragraph.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha.

Ha.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

They were playing well but ability level is different to performance level, and it was Brayford's ability level that genuinely seemed greater than it is now - even allowing for the fact he was in a better team.

A cross when nobody's in the box is not a good cross, and driving into space and getting fouled isn't really taking a player on.

Players always appear to have more ability when they have more confidence. Brayford still looks like he has more ability than most of the team though. But that team counter-attacked with great passing and movement. That suited Brayford immensely as his interplay with those around him is one of his best attributes.

Sharp was in the box, and the cross was near to him. He lost the header. We play with 2 small forwards who don't win headers. That makes it more difficult for crosses to be effective. But it was in the right place with great whip and pace on it. Just needed a powerful forward to meet it. I don't think we can blame Brayford for the fact we lack that.

He had beaten his man which is why he hacked him down from behind.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Players always appear to have more ability when they have more confidence. Brayford still looks like he has more ability than most of the team though. But that team counter-attacked with great passing and movement. That suited Brayford immensely as his interplay with those around him is one of his best attributes.

Sharp was in the box, and the cross was near to him. He lost the header. We play with 2 small forwards who don't win headers. That makes it more difficult for crosses to be effective. But it was in the right place with great whip and pace on it. Just needed a powerful forward to meet it. I don't think we can blame Brayford for the fact we lack that.

He had beaten his man which is why he hacked him down from behind.

Remember "never" and "always" can have different context when someone has made themselves look foolish. Following the absurd fault analysis for the goal - did anyone actually agree with him? - it's no surprise that Brayford going down the line past an opponent isnt " taking him on".

But when a fragile ego needs to win an argument common sense can fly out of the window.


As an aside, Ricky was highly critical of Adkins at the start of the season but now concentrates on Brayford following Barney taking up the cudgel. Barney who was initially critical of the board for not selling players before Adkins was appointed.

Mmmmm?

 

[Ricky]

Players always appear to have more ability when they have more confidence. Brayford still looks like he has more ability than most of the team though. But that team counter-attacked with great passing and movement. That suited Brayford immensely as his interplay with those around him is one of his best attributes.

Sharp was in the box, and the cross was near to him. He lost the header. We play with 2 small forwards who don't win headers. That makes it more difficult for crosses to be effective. But it was in the right place with great whip and pace on it. Just needed a powerful forward to meet it. I don't think we can blame Brayford for the fact we lack that.

He had beaten his man which is why he hacked him down from behind.

It was on the halfway line wasn't it? Running into space from deep is not taking a man on. Whenever he's in an advanced position with no support or advantageous momentum, he won't beat an opponent and get a cross in. Every time he's been in that position recently he's put in a shit cross from deep. He lacks trickery and skill. His strength is doing things at speed with momentum but he's not even quick enough to make that count most of the time.

 

[Sean Thornton]

It was on the halfway line wasn't it? Running into space from deep is not taking a man on. Whenever he's in an advanced position with no support or advantageous momentum, he won't beat an opponent and get a cross in. Every time he's been in that position recently he's put in a shit cross from deep. He lacks trickery and skill. His strength is doing things at speed with momentum but he's not even quick enough to make that count most of the time.

"Every"

Dear me.

 

[derryblade]

Whether you rate JB or not surely the question is was that wedge of money, whatever it was, spent wisely. Overall has he improved the team substantially, could it have been used to improve other areas, again it's all about opinions, I think it could definitely been used in ways that would have improved the team overall and that's the ultimate aim.

 

[Ricky]

Remember "never" and "always" can have different context when someone has made themselves look foolish. Following the absurd fault analysis for the goal - did anyone actually agree with him? - it's no surprise that Brayford going down the line past an opponent isnt " taking him on".

But when a fragile ego needs to win an argument common sense can fly out of the window.


As an aside, Ricky was highly critical of Adkins at the start of the season but now concentrates on Brayford following Barney taking up the cudgel. Barney who was initially critical of the board for not selling players before Adkins was appointed.

Mmmmm?

I was never highly critical of Adkins at the start, and you must have incredibly low standards for 'looking foolish' - but when a fragile old ego needs to be 'right' he'll be as pedantic as humanly possible. Your argument is based on interpreting 'never' and 'always' 100% literally, when in reality anyone can see how it is meant in the context and anyone with football awareness can comprehend the technical differences I've mentioned about taking players on. Some things go unsaid - a bit like your identity.

I'm not 'concentrating on Brayford' because I'm replying to your endless pedantry on this thread.

And didn't Barney only criticise the board for not releasing the dross?

 

[1danewhitehouse]

It was on the halfway line wasn't it? Running into space from deep is not taking a man on. Whenever he's in an advanced position with no support or advantageous momentum, he won't beat an opponent and get a cross in. Every time he's been in that position recently he's put in a shit cross from deep. He lacks trickery and skill. His strength is doing things at speed with momentum but he's not even quick enough to make that count most of the time.

He started behind his man and went past him and was fouled as he did so. I'd say that is taking a man on regardless of whether it was from near the halfway line or at the byline.

I agree he's not particularly tricky. Most of his joy comes as a result of speed of thought, sufficiently good technique to play one touch passes, a reasonable amount of pace and sufficient stamina to keep sprinting up and down the flank. Like I said on a previous thread, a lot like Matt Lowton.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Something else that's not been talked about is that he scored an absolutely belting goal that was incorrectly chalked off half volleying on his unflavoured foot off the underside of the cross bar from outside the area.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Maybe you should choose your words more carefully or not post when distraught.

After we discussed it, how many people agreed with you that it was Brayfords fault for the goal? That might give you an idea that you called it wrong.

My argument is actually based on you wrongly blaming Brayford - and entirely at that - something the majority on here agree with me on. Others have pointed out a possible reason for that. Irrespective of that each time something is pointed out that you have little understanding you change the scenario and then hide behind words like "semantics" and "pedantry". You called it wrong, it's that simple and most agree it wasn't Brayfords fault. Yet you continue with each scenario becoming more absurd.

I conceded initially that the argument that we could have spent the money better was a good one, but you have to cross the "i's" and dot the "t's" (sic) in a desperate attempt to pull people into your agenda. Much like you did with Clough and your constant claims about his mental health and sexuality.

You were critical of Adkins on BM. Deny it if you want but you fool no one.

The point about Barney was that he switched horses mid race, much like you have done after it was pointed out you had a hard on for another manager who wouldn't follow your advice.

Anyway, you continue, the threads yours to do what you will with.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Something else that's not been talked about is that he scored an absolutely belting goal that was incorrectly chalked off half volleying on his unflavoured foot off the underside of the cross bar from outside the area.

he had a clear advantage though and only drove into space, not taking a man on, and luckily didn't need to cross it.

 

[Smirth]

I agree he's not particularly tricky. Most of his joy comes as a result of speed of thought, sufficiently good technique to play one touch passes, a reasonable amount of pace and sufficient stamina to keep sprinting up and down the flank. Like I said on a previous thread, a lot like Matt Lowton.

Have to disagree there, Brayford doesn't have close to the level of skill and technique which Lowton had. They are similar in terms of stamina and their willingness to attack but Lowton was more comfortable on the ball, wasn't afraid to take his man on and try and enter the box, was a better finisher, a better passer and simply a better all round player. I really don't think Brayford is as good a player as some make him out to be.

I stress again that I do like him as a player, and I love his attitude. Whilst he's an improvement from some of the gash we've seen at RB in League 1 I'd say he's not close to the standards set by Lowton, Walker, Naughton, Geary.

He was terrific in his loan spell, he hasn't got close to that level since though unfortunately, and I'm starting to think that run of form was more a flash in the pan than anything else.

 

[Ricky]

Maybe you should choose your words more carefully or not post when distraught.

After we discussed it, how many people agreed with you that it was Brayfords fault for the goal? That might give you an idea that you called it wrong.

My argument is actually based on you wrongly blaming Brayford - and entirely at that - something the majority on here agree with me on. Others have pointed out a possible reason for that. Irrespective of that each time something is pointed out that you have little understanding you change the scenario and then hide behind words like "semantics" and "pedantry". You called it wrong, it's that simple and most agree it wasn't Brayfords fault. Yet you continue with each scenario becoming more absurd.

I conceded initially that the argument that we could have spent the money better was a good one, but you have to cross the "i's" and dot the "t's" (sic) in a desperate attempt to pull people into your agenda. Much like you did with Clough and your constant claims about his mental health and sexuality.

You were critical of Adkins on BM. Deny it if you want but you fool no one.

The point about Barney was that he switched horses mid race, much like you have done after it was pointed out you had a hard on for another manager who wouldn't follow your advice.

Anyway, you continue, the threads yours to do what you will with.

Constant claims!!! Oh dear.

It doesn't actually appear that too many agreed with you at all - and you have to remember that Brayford has a lot of support regardless. And I've not even blamed him entirely either, it was poor organisation all round.

Nothing football related has been pointed out that I don't understand. The fact I expand on things suggests the opposite. But that's a bit much for you isn't it, so it's absurd! It's not a case of hiding behind 'semantics' and 'pedantry' either, with that I'm just pointing out the way you operate and in any case that's a separate argument to this one about the goal - the only one where the sort understanding you mention even comes into it.

Please do feel free to tell me what I was "highly critical" of Adkins over. All I mildly criticised him over was the clean slate treatment - and surprise surprise, it turns out I was spot on to do so.

 

[robbiez666]

Do you think it’s a magical coincidence that Coutts has started to look like a good player since Brayford came back or do you think it has something to do with having someone who runs all day long up and down that right side but who also has the ability to play those one-twos and to make the runs into the right areas. Freeman is OK but nowhere near as switched on in terms of his off the ball movement.



It’s no coincidence that bringing him in has seen an upturn in results. Just like when we first signed him. It was a bit different when we re-signed him last January because after the first few games, we had to switch him to centre half. Also, we didn’t play with a settled side at any point.

I don't think there much, if any, correlation. Coutts is getting back to his best because he's regained full fitness and playing out right. I don't think Bratford's forward play has been better than Freeman's this season. If any, the other way round. Brayford is superior defensively though, but again not by much this season.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Constant claims!!! Oh dear.

It doesn't actually appear that too many agreed with you at all - and you have to remember that Brayford has a lot of support regardless. And I've not even blamed him entirely either, it was poor organisation all round.

Nothing football related has been pointed out that I don't understand. The fact I expand on things suggests the opposite. But that's a bit much for you isn't it, so it's absurd! It's not a case of hiding behind 'semantics' and 'pedantry' either, with that I'm just pointing out the way you operate and in any case that's a separate argument to this one about the goal - the only one where the sort understanding you mention even comes into it.

Please do feel free to tell me what I was "highly critical" of Adkins over. All I mildly criticised him over was the clean slate treatment - and surprise surprise, it turns out I was spot on to do so.

And that's the level of your debate. The answer to the question "how many people agree with you it was Brayfords fault" is met with that, which is actually not true btw. Tell you what, how about a majority?

You're not right in the head.