Quick Yeovil report

[Sirius]

I actually cannot understand the criticism of Hill. He is not Roberto Carlos, but at third tier level he is a solid defender. On Saturday he was tock solid. He was much better than the shaky McMahon. Hill really needs to work on his distribution (that is Wilson or some other bugger needs to tell him to stop hoofing it and play it short - pass to Kev!) but he is good left back. It is a bit embarassing to see him spaly it out into the stand, when he wants to play it down the line, from time to time. However his primary duty is to defend and he is good at that. He gets tight, his positioning is pretty good and on Sat-di he stopped everything coming down the right. The other side was much more of a threat with McMahon looking very dodgy.

There are comments in there to suggest that it was a Montyesque display. References to Splay it out into the stand, hoofing it, suggest to this bod in Far Far away land that not much has changed. Who do you think would add a better contribution to theteam than Hill, and would that require re jigging the formation.?

 

[Ollessendro]

There are comments in there to suggest that it was a Montyesque display. References to Splay it out into the stand, hoofing it, suggest to this bod in Far Far away land that not much has changed. Who do you think would add a better contribution to theteam than Hill, and would that require re jigging the formation.?

Potentially LJF. He is better going forward and his distribution is much better. However I think Hill is a better defended. So what do we want, an extra attacking option (but with the danger of conceding) or to be more solid and robust?

 

[bartman]

Potentially LJF. He is better going forward and his distribution is much better. However I think Hill is a better defended. So what do we want, an extra attacking option (but with the danger of conceding) or to be more solid and robust?

A defender's first priority is clean sheets.....in this respect Hill is better than the other two although LJF and Williams are better going forward.

For me,Hill starts due to being the better defender

 

[LoughboroBlade]

A defender's first priority is clean sheets.....in this respect Hill is better than the other two although LJF and Williams are better going forward.

For me,Hill starts due to being the better defender

I would go with LJF if he returns to the sort of level he was at when he was injured, simply because he provides the better balance between the two roles. What I hadn't really considered before seeing us on Saturday is just how much we would miss Lowton in terms of what he brought to us going forward. Defensively, he is not a huge loss. I do feel that we need at least one of our full-backs to offer that attacking role though. I had thought McMahon would do that - after seeing him, I'm less certain.

 

[Swanseablade]

I think Hill defended well on Saturday, BUT some of the crowd were getting on at him for not pushing forward enough. On occasions, it seemed obvious that an overlap (into massive space) would have enhanced the attack but he chose not to - most of the time.
I thought Kitson was a handful for their centre halves when it was played up to him in the air. He didn't do much on the deck (but in all honesty didn't get it to feet that often). Porter looked ok when he came on, Blackman was a bit frustrating; he did quite well in spells causing them problems and then missed a sitter. But in all honesty they missed a few sitters as well and should have had at least one goal, one opportunity right in front of all the blades springs to mind.......
McDonald was the best player on the park by a mile, different class.
Poor match but a good result.

 

[Kenilworth]

McDonald was the best player on the park by a mile, different class.

But is he as good as Glenn Cockerill was?

 

[Swanseablade]

But is he as good as Glenn Cockerill was?

Two different style of players, can't compare 'em

 

[LSF]

I think Hill defended well on Saturday, BUT some of the crowd were getting on at him for not pushing forward enough. On occasions, it seemed obvious that an overlap (into massive space) would have enhanced the attack but he chose not to - most of the time.
I thought Kitson was a handful for their centre halves when it was played up to him in the air. He didn't do much on the deck (but in all honesty didn't get it to feet that often). Porter looked ok when he came on, Blackman was a bit frustrating; he did quite well in spells causing them problems and then missed a sitter. But in all honesty they missed a few sitters as well and should have had at least one goal, one opportunity right in front of all the blades springs to mind.......
McDonald was the best player on the park by a mile, different class.
Poor match but a good result.

Agree with your comments generally. However, those who berate him for not pushing on might consider he will be playing to orders as all the team are. His role will be to defend in the early stages of the game and not venture too far forward.
Most defenders love a sortie into the opposition's heart, it's something natural in all footballers, the search for a bit of glory. Hill defends well, gets forward when given the opportunity and is very energetic generally. Someone earlier said he was lazy. FFS!

 

[Racy]

I have had a few pops at Hill this season and have come to the following conclusions

He can defend and has decent pace, good understanding with the centre backs.

His distribution to the forwards missing out the midfield is poor and would be better giving I short to the midfield or centre backs.

The hopeful punts upfield only gets the fans on his back

He is capable in getting round he back and getting crosses in.

In all he's more than capable of doing us a job in this division so let's give him a chance

 

[kingston RAWW]

Agree with the above.
My criticism on this thread, of Hill, was based on his distinct inability when going forward. Defensively he is fine I guess.
But in Wilsons total football, we need full backs going forward. Based on the Yeovil game alone, it appears that we don't now know whether we are a passing team or a long ball team.

 

[Racy]

Agree with the above.
My criticism on this thread, of Hill, was based on his distinct inability when going forward. Defensively he is fine I guess.
But in Wilsons total football, we need full backs going forward. Based on the Yeovil game alone, it appears that we don't now know whether we are a passing team or a long ball team.

I'
I'm not saying for Hill to go on worldies down the left at every opportunity just get round the back and knock it in early

 

[Kenilworth]

Is it appropriate for Foxy to expand on the use of the phrase, "Bird Toilet" describing the facilities available at Huish Park?
There was an interesting debate going on via the Shout Box in the S24SU household last night about it.

In the interest of marital harmony I have a suggestion for you to put in place for Linz to use in the garden.
Here you go - don't tell me I ever let you down