"New Era, Fresh Starts"

[blader]

Pre-season I was getting constant reminders from Blades fans that this new era means everyone has a clean slate and a chance to prove themselves again. I'm sorry, but this does not wash with me. Once a bad player, always a bad player IMO. I am, of course, referring to the 'scapegoats' of Williams (in particular), Westlake and Porter. I understand some people thrive in different formations/tactics, but surely everyone realised these players were and are simply not good enough.
Now Porter does a job, and with Taylor yet to prove himself, maybe he is our only option at the moment. However, Hill simply has to play instead of Williams, it took us until December time for us to realise Williams was sub-par last season, I hope it doesn't take Weir as long this time. As soon as McMahon is fit and ready, he should be straight in for Westlake also, some don't rate TM, but he is still comfortably better than Westlake IMO.

I'm sure some will read this and say 'oh, scapegoats are getting it again', but it's not the case. There is a difference when someone is a genuine scapegoat (Stephen Quinn), where a talented player gets unjustified stick. Then there are players who aren't good enough, they aren't 'scapegoats' they are s***!

 

[stannyblade]

Westlake fits better than Mcmahon in the system we are playing. That said may have to change to 5 at the back away from home against better opposition as the defending hasnt been good enough. I would start like this
Long
Westlake Collins Maguire Hill Williams
Brandy Mcginn Murphy
Macca
Taylor

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Weir is quite clearly expecting everyone to be able to pass the ball and be comfortable doing it. Maybe after spending a month constantly with the players, he sees Williams as a better option than Hill ? Hill is a solid defender (better than Williams IMO) but his crossing has been dire and maybe that is the issue. Having said that, I thought Williams held back once he got into the final 3rd on Friday, whether that was the same last night, others can confirm. McMahon has been injured for the most part so he may be first choice anyway.

I thought Taylor would have been nailed on to start last night so I can only presume he's being held back for Saturday.

Still early days

 

[bartman]

Westlake fits better than Mcmahon in the system we are playing.

I must admit I read that and I thought you were being sarcastic. TM is a better defender by far (which is the primary job of a full back) and a better crosser of the ball.

I think Westlake and Williams are decent enough back ups but, for me, Hill and TM are the better defenders

 

[Putney Blade]

New era. Porter & Flynn are still crap.

 

[Balham]

I must admit I read that and I thought you were being sarcastic. TM is a better defender by far (which is the primary job of a full back) and a better crosser of the ball.

I think Westlake and Williams are decent enough back ups but, for me, Hill and TM are the better defenders

Regardless of the system, playing Hill and McMahon in the same team was at the bottom of the issues with a lack of creativity we had last season. Both are solid defenders but offer little in an attacking sense.

It's all very well saying that McMahon is a better crosser of the ball but those crosses were swung in from somewhere between the halfway line and 15 yards inside the opposition half, rather than from the byline which is how Westlake set up McDonald's goal on Friday.

As for left back, I would expect that McGinty or Johns will be first choice by the end of the season. Williams offers more going forward and Hill more defensively but as Jim Chimmerney says, Hill's distribution really is awful from full back. He should be third choice centre half.

The other thing to remember is that with Murphy and Brandy you need full backs prepared and able to run the line all evening. That description fits Westlake and Williams better than McMahon and Hill.

Finally, I still think Flynn has the potential to be the best right back at the club.

 

[Coily]

I must admit I read that and I thought you were being sarcastic. TM is a better defender by far (which is the primary job of a full back) and a better crosser of the ball.

I think Westlake and Williams are decent enough back ups but, for me, Hill and TM are the better defenders

These two are my main concern for Saturday. You'd imagine that we'll have to do a lot more defending than we did last week, yet our full backs are not good defenders which mains either plenty of crosses will be coming in or they'll get skinned and draw the centre backs out of position. Either way, we'd be in a whole world of shit. Perhaps they can be supported by McGinn and/or Doyle, but is that their job?

I'd rather have McMahon and Hill at full back, but we have what we have available.

 

[Coily]

Finally, I still think Flynn has the potential to be the best right back at the club.

I agree, and this is something I said a few times last season. Where he seems to lack the creativity to beat a man as a midfielder, he works hard up and down the line and is a diligent defender when required. Perhaps if he can find space and have no man to beat he can supply crosses also?

 

[Torrix1889]

I think given a decent run in the saide Westlake could turn out to be one of our better players this season, he has pace and can whip a decent ball in.

Problem areas for me are left back and up top. I think Williams is better with Murphy/Brandy in front of him. The opposition worry about Murphy/Brandy and they end up dragging players out of position which gives Williams more space and time on the ball which, owing to his limitations, is what he needs.

The forward position worries me greatly. Porter is very limited and despite scoring a few pre-season hasn't shown anything at all so far to suggest he can push on from last seasons showing, which, lets face it, was very average at best. I'm not sure why Wier didn't start with Taylor last night, maybe he is saving him for Brentford, maybe he wanted to give Porter another chance against a "weaker" side but he might not think he Taylor is ready either which worries me a lot. Miller and Di-Girolamo are some way off and the only other natural option is Ironside who is hardly pulling up any trees. Could Brandy or Murphy play a more central role in this formation, probably not but pick up an injury or two and with the current squad they may not have a choice.

I will be very surprised if Wier doesn't look to bring in a striker before the window shuts. Probably not permanent but a loan until Jan when we should have Miller available again.

Having said all of the above we have to be patient. The County game saw us all purring at some of the football we were playing and with better finishing it would have been 4 or 5. Wier is trying to build a new system and it's not going to work against every team, what I have seen so far has been very encouraging indeed.

 

[Latters]

I don't get where this "McMahon is a better defender" comes from. All McMahon offers is his free kicks. Other than this, he gets caught out of position far too often, he gives away too many needless fouls and offers absolutely no assistance going forward in open play.

If he is a better defender than Westlake, the difference is negligible, the increased attacking threat offered by Westlake is substantial. I'd pick Westlake over McMahon every game he was fit.

 

[Silent Blade]

Having said all of the above we have to be patient. The County game saw us all purring at some of the football we were playing and with better finishing it would have been 4 or 5. Wier is trying to build a new system and it's not going to work against every team, what I have seen so far has been very encouraging indeed.

The 4-2-3-1 formation is a formation that is usually employed for away matches by many teams. Maybe, like last season, we will get good results for away matches but not as successful for home games? In most away games, our opposition will play higher up the field in front of their fans making it easier for Murphy, Brandy an Macca to hit on the break. The good thing is that we got 3 points for the home game last Friday

 

[DazBlade88]

As for left back, I would expect that McGinty or Johns will be first choice by the end of the season.

I don't think Johns will be used at left back at all. They're trying to use him further forward as far as I can see.

The trouble with Westlake for me is that he switches off when he's defending. He's a better outlet going forward but when crosses come in from the far side he gets caught ball watching and doesn't react quick enough, and we really need to get that out of his game because it really lets him down.

Porter missed two really good chances last night, the header I thought was nailed on. He tried to head it down which is usually the best thing to do but it wasn't in that situation. As I've just said in another thread, Taylor looked dangerous when he came on but needed to work the keeper with his two chances. That was a worry for me but hopefully it was an off night.

Don't depend on DeGirolamo coming back as a striker either, he's not suited to the top role on his own. He'd be where McDonald is at the moment.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

These two are my main concern for Saturday. You'd imagine that we'll have to do a lot more defending than we did last week, yet our full backs are not good defenders which mains either plenty of crosses will be coming in or they'll get skinned and draw the centre backs out of position. Either way, we'd be in a whole world of shit. Perhaps they can be supported by McGinn and/or Doyle, but is that their job?

I'd rather have McMahon and Hill at full back, but we have what we have available.

Maybe Coady could play at full back?
Better defensively than Westlake and Williams? Better going forward than McMahon and Hill?
It was said that he could play centre defence when we signed him, so it's not that much of a stretch.

 

[Wards]

That McDonald role is perfect for Diego. I'd have thought he'd be pushing his way into the starting XI by the end of the year unless McDonald really makes it his own.

Taylor has to be given a go up top. I know it's cool to slag off Porter but he's never going to be clinical enough to spearhead this side. Taylor created two decent openings in the short period of time he was on the pitch and has a few other half chances as well, mostly of his own doing too.

Williams is probably never going to be good enough and that's despite me defending him last night as he got no protection at all. Maybe McFadz could be suited to this position better at the moment?

 

[CopenhagenBlade]

I think Steven Gerrard started out playing right back for Liverpool for a few games so if Coady is the new Gerrard then he can follow him out there

 

[oldblade]

Pre-season I was getting constant reminders from Blades fans that this new era means everyone has a clean slate and a chance to prove themselves again. I'm sorry, but this does not wash with me. Once a bad player, always a bad player IMO. I am, of course, referring to the 'scapegoats' of Williams (in particular), Westlake and Porter. I understand some people thrive in different formations/tactics, but surely everyone realised these players were and are simply not good enough.
Now Porter does a job, and with Taylor yet to prove himself, maybe he is our only option at the moment. However, Hill simply has to play instead of Williams, it took us until December time for us to realise Williams was sub-par last season, I hope it doesn't take Weir as long this time. As soon as McMahon is fit and ready, he should be straight in for Westlake also, some don't rate TM, but he is still comfortably better than Westlake IMO.

I'm sure some will read this and say 'oh, scapegoats are getting it again', but it's not the case. There is a difference when someone is a genuine scapegoat (Stephen Quinn), where a talented player gets unjustified stick. Then there are players who aren't good enough, they aren't 'scapegoats' they are s***!

McMahon is probably better defensively than Westlake. But if he had been in the side instead of Westlake last Friday I do not think that we would have scored our first goal.

 

[oldblade]

Westlake fits better than Mcmahon in the system we are playing. That said may have to change to 5 at the back away from home against better opposition as the defending hasnt been good enough. I would start like this
Long
Westlake Collins Maguire Hill Williams
Brandy Mcginn Murphy
Macca
Taylor

I think there is a danger that that side would get overrun in midfield, unless Brandy and Murphy are used more defensively in which case our attacking threat is diminished.

 

[Grecian2000]

TM is a better defender by far (which is the primary job of a full back) and a better crosser of the ball.

I can agree with the first bit but I think TM is woeful when it comes to delivering a cross. He can't get far enough forward (or won't) to deliver from a dangerous position, so ends up lofting aimless deliveries from just over the half way line. That's hopeful at best.
As oldblade said above, the first goal Friday was a none starter with TM (certainly last seasons version) in the team.

 

[Bladesway]

Once a bad player, always a bad player IMO

When it comes to a simplistic view you have the crown here. Ched Evans anyone? Absolute crock of shit for 2 seasons then off he went (literally at the end).

 

[Bladesway]

I think Steven Gerrard started out playing right back for Liverpool for a few games so if Coady is the new Gerrard then he can follow him out there

He sure sounds like him

 

[DazBlade88]

When it comes to a simplistic view you have the crown here. Ched Evans anyone? Absolute crock of shit for 2 seasons then off he went (literally at the end).

Imagine if Spurs had that attitude about Gareth Bale a few years ago.

I can see where people are coming from with criticism most of the time, but to be so narrow minded is just ridiculous. Most footballers might aswell give up if people shared that view.

 

[blader]

When it comes to a simplistic view you have the crown here. Ched Evans anyone? Absolute crock of shit for 2 seasons then off he went (literally at the end).

So many differences, and a totally unfair comparison:

1. Ched was 20/21 when we signed him, he would improve with age.
Williams was what, 28/29? Career only going in one directiom from there
2. We signed ched from man city's academy, we signed Williams on a free from reading after he'd already tried and failed at this level
3. It is a fair assumption that Ched was better 3rd year due to relegation to a lower division.
So, maybe Williams will be a world-beater when we're in league 2!

Age is the key factor though. How many players improve after their late 20s? We had
williams and porter a year ago, and the chance of them being a better player now is zero. So, in their case, i stand by 'once a bad player,
Always a bad player!'

 

[Dec]

What I've gleaned from this thread:

Porter is the new Bale.

 

[DazBlade88]

So many differences, and a totally unfair comparison:

1. Ched was 20/21 when we signed him, he would improve with age.
Williams was what, 28/29? Career only going in one directiom from there
2. We signed ched from man city's academy, we signed Williams on a free from reading after he'd already tried and failed at this level
3. It is a fair assumption that Ched was better 3rd year due to relegation to a lower division.
So, maybe Williams will be a world-beater when we're in league 2!

Age is the key factor though. How many players improve after their late 20s? We had
williams and porter a year ago, and the chance of them being a better player now is zero. So, in their case, i stand by 'once a bad player,
Always a bad player!'

Marcus Williams is currently 27, so we actually signed him at a decent age and he should be in his prime right now.