Jordan Stewart
- Thread starter Houso
- Start date
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
shorehamview
Pink Sambuca drinking World Champion.
Is this an example of how low we have sunk? Bloody Star Trek pictures? It's not even got the excuse of being original camp-as-Christmas Star Trek, it's the one with that slaphead from Huddersfield.
Sothall_Blade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 6,747
- Reaction score
- 8,580
I thought he did ok in the First Half too but then I also thought he played on the left wing, not right. I'm not totally sure at which point he and Treacey switched but he didn't play right wing for very long.
The slaphead from Huddersfield?
Houso
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,289
- Reaction score
- 10,911
- Thread starter
- #9
He was fine in the first and won a number of headers, but like someone says above, that's because he was played on the left.
In the second, when they switched he was awful. Through no fault of his own.
In the second, when they switched he was awful. Through no fault of his own.
Trevor Hockey
Member
I think the point was to nullify their Argy winger - which in fairness seemed to work well.
Houso
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,289
- Reaction score
- 10,911
- Thread starter
- #12
I don't understand this point entirely.
Guttierez didn't do that much in the first half, whereas we were fairly dominent. Why change things to go defensive when we'd been solid in the first and had more chances anyway?
I'm not one to slag off Blackwell for any old mistake and I think we did well last night, but the change in wingers removed all momentum from the first half and we persevered with the system for far too long.
Grecian2000
Borderline mentalist.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,742
- Reaction score
- 8,960
To be fair I think they switched because Treacey had done absolutely knob all on the right. He hadn't beaten his man and he hadn't delivered any sort of telling cross. He had to switch to the left just to get him into the game.
Of course he could have brought Cotts on earlier but that would have been far too conventional and we can't give the lad more than 20 coz he isn't good enough apparently!!!!
Of course he could have brought Cotts on earlier but that would have been far too conventional and we can't give the lad more than 20 coz he isn't good enough apparently!!!!
Houso
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,289
- Reaction score
- 10,911
- Thread starter
- #14
Plus, he could have played Treacy on the left wing from the start where he's been very good all season anyway.
Blackwell saying he played Stewart on the left to win headers is just indicative of our tactics (though, we didn't actually play like that in the first last night).
Strange all round.
Wards
Well-Known Member
I take it this is also the Houso off F365 
icard:
icard:
Wards
Well-Known Member
SouthEssexBlade
...for wit and sage wisdom
Sothall_Blade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 6,747
- Reaction score
- 8,580
I just watched it again this morning. Treacey plays on the right and Stewart on the left until the 51st minute. Walker is injured and Newcastle score after 54 minutes.
At this point, we have ten men and Harper is playing right back. It seems perfectly reasonable to have the more defensive-minded Stewart helping out on our right-side for this period.
Walker goes off, France comes on. Arguably Blackwell should have brought Cotterill on at this point as well but maybe he didn't want to cause too much disruption in one go?
A few minutes later Stewart uses his height and power to get his head to a left-footed Treacey cross. Ok, he should have done better but would Cotterill have even got anywhere near it?
Stewart is replaced in the 70th minute having spent a grand total of NINETEEN minutes playing on the right wing. Shortly after radio stations and websites are filled with infuriated fans demanding to know why (oh why, oh why) did Blackwell play a left back on the right wing?
Never have I seen so much unwarranted fuss over 19 minutes of play!
Houso
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,289
- Reaction score
- 10,911
- Thread starter
- #21
Sorry, but 19 minutes is FAR too much. I actually thought it was less, so this angers me even more. Keep in mind that for most of those 19 minutes we were losing and had a left back on the right wing.
I don't give a flying one that he got near a header that he missed. He also got into the box at one point and had to cut back on to his left as he has no right.
And, that ignores the fact that we had a left winger on the right for the first half, and a left back on the right wing. Blackwell said after that we had no fit left back so that's why Killa played there. Apparently Stewart has been poor when he's played in that position - I'd love to know why we persevered with him for a couple of games then.
I have no problem with Stewart as back up for the left wing as he did well there last night. But he should never have been in that position when we had an in form left winger on the other side of the pitch!
19 minutes out of a 70 min performance which equates to about 36% of his time on the pitch.
He goes over on 51 minutes and we concede on 54 minutes.... I'm baffled by that comment - are you trying to say it was a move to help out defensively and backfired? In fact for about 3 minutes prior to us conceding we were well and truly on the back foot. So was this all down to us going down the more defensive route?
If as you say he goes over at 51 minutes, what relelvance does it have to Walker benig injured (on 54 minutes) and Harper going RB?
The fuss about him playing right wing is that it is totally alien to him which was clearly evident in the small matter of 19 minutes he was out there. Surely our manager (who sees him day in day out) should know this already.
It was naive to say the least in playing him out there, however I don't think this made us lose the game. It just hindered our chances of having a balanced side out.
Treacy did well on the left, but was absolutely shocking on the right.
For me the two above things show a great deal of naivety from our leader
Sothall_Blade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 6,747
- Reaction score
- 8,580
No, I'm saying that he played well on the left (which most people have acknowledged) and there were reasons that could explain why the manager played him on the right for a short time. Nothing more.
So what were the reasons?
By your own admission Walker got injured in the 54th minute, but he went over in the 51st minute.
Come from away
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,440
- Reaction score
- 430
The Newcastle fullback (Enrique I think) and Guiterez were both causing trouble - Waker could handle Guiterex but not Enrique. It was worth a shot, and we did outshoot Newcastle and stop their offense for the most part, so do not see where the fault lies.
Houso
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,289
- Reaction score
- 10,911
- Thread starter
- #26
Were we better or worse going forward with Stewart on the right? Newcastle had very few chances compared to us with Stewart on the left. I really don't understand why we adapted to a team that we were controlling.
Bergen Blade
Well-Known Member
But Gutierez and Taylor also switched wings in the second half?
Chris Waddle was a fantastic player though
Trevor Hockey
Member
Agree with that mate - but lets keep 'offense' for ice hockey and mens netball eh - in football teams attack !
Similar threads
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?