why we miss monty

[davidpinder]

i am the first to admit i wasn't the biggest monty fan but that performance at Wembley changed my mind completely he obviously loves united and gives as much as morgan every game. While watching Liverpool v Man u yesterday i noticed liverpool actually play a lot of long ball and similar (but better style of play) to us however there monty is Mascherano or Lucas ball winners and we now don't have one which is why the ball is ending up in our box so easily. If were going to starting turning things round we need him back

 

[Hartyblade]

He's also the only one that can tackle, along with Morgan.

 

[ghandi]

If anyone believes the that Monty is the panacea for alll the current problems is as deluded as Blackwell.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

I think KB is desperate to get Harper and Williamson together.

 

[Trevor Hockey]

I agree Jim Chim. Also I wouldn't be surprised to see mid 3 of Harper, Williamson and Monty when he's back - especially away from home.

Think this could work as well - Harper and Williamson pressing on with Monty breaking up the opposition (please none of the old he breaks our attacks as well - its old and very boring ) and with pace with Ward +/or Camara with Henderson or Evans.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

If anyone believes the that Monty is the panacea for alll the current problems is as deluded as Blackwell.

Agreed, thankfully I doubt there's a single United fan out there that thinks Monty is the panacea for our current problems.

UTB

 

[Pinchy]

Did we miss him in the abject defeats at Coventry and Swansea? This deluded belief in the likes of Monty is actually part of our problem. It's an acknowledgement that Sufc are nothing more than honest committed battlers who are hard to beat but have no imagination, flair or creativity. That seems to be our rightful place in the football hierarchy

Many of you see no problem with that and indeed positively glory in it. That's what I find old and boring, Mr. Hockey, not an honest assessment of your plodding trier's severe limitations.

So no we don't miss Monty. Any decent opposition midfielder will though. He's a pushover for anyone with a bit of quality.

What we actually miss, and desperately so, is a midfield that can pass to each other; that plays with style and invention. The present manager is unwilling and incapable to fashion such a team. Coppell would; O'Driscoll might. If they did you'd forget Monty as quickly as a misplaced pass or despairing lunge at thin air.

You and Monty are safe enough with Blackwell though. A lot of people are planning to leave you to enjoy it next season. Watch the season ticket sales tell the story.

Join the Campaign for Real Football.

Blackwell [and Monty] OUT.

 

[oldblade]

Montgomery was injured against Doncaster. Our poor defending started several games before that. We'd already conceded 3 against both Ipswich and Coventry and 2 against Wednesday and Swansea. And I think we'd already conceded against Doncaster before he went off.

I think Montgomery offers a bit more protection to the back four than they are currently getting, but our defensive problems cannot just be explained by his absence.

Kilgallon is not good at the moment, but for me Walker's form is worse.

 

[Torrix1889]

Couldn't have put it better myself Pinchy, very well said.

 

[Guesty]

Did we miss him in the abject defeats at Coventry and Swansea? This deluded belief in the likes of Monty is actually part of our problem. It's an acknowledgement that Sufc are nothing more than honest committed battlers who are hard to beat but have no imagination, flair or creativity. That seems to be our rightful place in the football hierarchy

Many of you see no problem with that and indeed positively glory in it. That's what I find old and boring, Mr. Hockey, not an honest assessment of your plodding trier's severe limitations.

So no we don't miss Monty. Any decent opposition midfielder will though. He's a pushover for anyone with a bit of quality.

What we actually miss, and desperately so, is a midfield that can pass to each other; that plays with style and invention. The present manager is unwilling and incapable to fashion such a team. Coppell would; O'Driscoll might. If they did you'd forget Monty as quickly as a misplaced pass or despairing lunge at thin air.

You and Monty are safe enough with Blackwell though. A lot of people are planning to leave you to enjoy it next season. Watch the season ticket sales tell the story.

Join the Campaign for Real Football.

Blackwell [and Monty] OUT.

Not every player has to have those qualities Pinchy. You'll struggle to find a team packed only with skilful ball players or superb dribblers. Monty is a real footballer, however much you bang on about your "Campaign For Real Football". I suppose you hated Hockey, Booker and Gannon too? Actually, Gannon is a bad example, plenty did hate him, but then they were as wrong as you are with Monty.

However I do admit that Monty was poor in the final couple of games before his injury. He would certainly have helped on Saturday though!

 

[keenzy]

Did we miss him in the abject defeats at Coventry and Swansea? This deluded belief in the likes of Monty is actually part of our problem. It's an acknowledgement that Sufc are nothing more than honest committed battlers who are hard to beat but have no imagination, flair or creativity. That seems to be our rightful place in the football hierarchy

Many of you see no problem with that and indeed positively glory in it. That's what I find old and boring, Mr. Hockey, not an honest assessment of your plodding trier's severe limitations.

So no we don't miss Monty. Any decent opposition midfielder will though. He's a pushover for anyone with a bit of quality.

What we actually miss, and desperately so, is a midfield that can pass to each other; that plays with style and invention. The present manager is unwilling and incapable to fashion such a team. Coppell would; O'Driscoll might. If they did you'd forget Monty as quickly as a misplaced pass or despairing lunge at thin air.

You and Monty are safe enough with Blackwell though. A lot of people are planning to leave you to enjoy it next season. Watch the season ticket sales tell the story.

Join the Campaign for Real Football.

Blackwell [and Monty] OUT.

Look at the Man Utd. Carrick holds and protects the back 4 like monty does for us. We need someone to go forward with the ball. And don't say that it doesn't work, they won the title last season.

I also noticed that before monty was injured, he was doing the attacking while harper sat back and tried covering the back 4. He wasn't fit enough to do the running forward.

 

[JohnDenver]

Have I bored you all already with how much I rate Monty?

If not, here's a summary: he's the answer to all the world's problems. Philosophically, tactically, intellectually.

Whichever way you slice it, Monty is the solution. OK?

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Look at the Man Utd. Carrick holds and protects the back 4 like monty does for us. We need someone to go forward with the ball. And don't say that it doesn't work, they won the title last season.

I also noticed that before monty was injured, he was doing the attacking while harper sat back and tried covering the back 4. He wasn't fit enough to do the running forward.

Now if only Monty could pass like Carrick...................He'd not be playing for us.

Let's face it ,every player at this level has some deficiency with their ability that is stopping them playing at a higher level.

Building a team at this level is about creating something greater than the sum of their parts. Cardiff are hardly full of premiership quality players are they?

I love Monty to bits, and it's no surprise to me that our dip in form recovered after he was brought back into the fold last season. Yes the fella has limitations, but name a united player that doesn't. I simply can't understand why Pinchy insists on singling Monty out as what's holding us back. (note to pinchy: i know what you feel about Monty so there's absolutely no need to remind me.)

 

[The One]

Monty is GOD...end of

 

[Dog Blade]

Look at the Man Utd. Carrick holds and protects the back 4 like monty does for us. We need someone to go forward with the ball. And don't say that it doesn't work, they won the title last season.

I also noticed that before monty was injured, he was doing the attacking while harper sat back and tried covering the back 4. He wasn't fit enough to do the running forward.

Really understand what you are saying there keenzy, however...

I never really understood why Ferguson bought Carrick - thought he was a good player but not Man Utd level. Then when they played us at the lane it was so easy to see why - tall, strong, dictated the pace of the game, tackles well, uses the ball excellently, can sore a goal or two and so on.

These are the attributes of a first class 'protector' - Monty has energy and a willingness to work his nuts off. Not a lot else for me. IF we are to play more football and use the ball more and maybe even keep possession every once in a while then Monty needs to move on. I'll get slaughtered for this but we looked as good defensively but ALSO had some composure on the ball to start attacks (and get the odd goal himself) when O'Toole did a bit for us last year.

Until things change I'll stand and applaud Monty all day long - you can't fault his commitment to the club and he doesn't pick himself - however he's another one that for me should move on when the time is right, or be given a chance to show he can play football (like he did when he was allowed in the desperation against Ipswich).

 

[Pinchy]

Highbury,

I was responding to a post that was quite specific in it's message: We miss Monty. That is what singled him out, not me.

It is a misguided and dismaying sentiment with which I vehemently disagree. I said so with a reasoned argument. I shall continue to Campaign for Real Football. It holds no place for The likes if Monty and Elpiton.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Highbury,

I was responding to a post that was quite specific in it's message: We miss Monty. That is what singled him out, not me.

It is a misguided and dismaying sentiment with which I vehemently disagree. I said so with a reasoned argument. I shall continue to Campaign for Real Football. It holds no place for The likes if Monty and Elpiton.

Cobblers. I have never heard you criticise another player with the same vitriol that you reserve for Montgomery.

Have a look at your posts man, the vast majority slide a critique of Monty in there somewhere. Your obsession is bordering on unhealthy.

 

[Pinchy]

Which bit was 'cobblers'?

It's others' obsession with Ploddy, not mine mate. The thread was about missing Monty, not Ward or Naysmith or Paddy. I joined in with an intelligent analysis: You respond with 'cobblers'.

I'm obsessed with Sheffield United and good football. The two should be synonymous. That is not possible whilstever our midfield is manned by mediocre battlers who lack basic football ability.

Still, as I said earlier, public opinion will decide. I hope the 15,000 will be happy with Blackwell, Monty et al next season. Alternatively we can drag ourselves out of the caveman days of hoofball and try football for a change. That would not involve Monty for obvious reasons.

 

[Blade]

Totally agree with Guesty, totally disagree with Pinchy.

Our team does not need 11 Nick Mongomerys although 11 with his energy and work ethic would be great. He does his job extremely well in what should form a midfield department within our team. It's the others in that midfield dept that have really been letting us down over the last year and more. Yes we were struggling a bit before Monty got injured and he had put in a few disappointing games - at a time nearly all the team have been and for him off the back of a massive run of good games in a row - but I can't understand anyone that would say we have a single player in our squad that would offer more protection to the defence and his midfield partners in the role he plays.

That's the crux of the matter for me. I don't presume to think he is the best defensive midfielder in the world and will readily acknowledge his weak points but he's the best we have and I would put him amongst the best outside the premiership (any many more in the premiership). He'll run all day long, close players down and not give the opposition a moment of peace. If I was an opposition midfielder playing against us then he'd be the last united midfielder I'd want to see fit to play.

Without Monty it's so obvious that our midfield struggle to close down, block, tackle and generally harass the opposition. Quinn is the only other one who tries to do this but he's nowhere near as effective. If you have a problem with Monty being picked or with the fact we don't have anyone in the squad who can do as good a defensive midfield job then you really should direct that towards Blackwell. I'd like someone else who can do that role in the squad precisely for times like this butbelieve there have other areas much more needing of concentration during the last few transfer windows.

In reference to your last point Pinchy why the hell do the 15000 who value what Monty offers us have to be happy with Blackwell and why do you believe that we'd be incapable as a team in changing from hoofball to football unless Monty isn't involved? I fully believe that we could do that with most of the current players, there's only a few that hoofball actually suits and we've played enough footballl in games with Monty involved to show that he doesn't singlehandedly prevent it.

It's much more about the manager focusing on how he wants us to play and then getting the players to do it as a team. At the moment under Blackwell he's either just telling them to play like they are doing or it's something they do themselves as soon as things don't go to plan/work at first. To be honest I don't really care which it is any more because I can only count around 10 games where I've been really happy with our performance since the start of last season even with the run that we had last year many of the actual performances were poor.

I think Blackwell's gone as far as he can with us (if not a few months further), he balanced the ship at a time it was needed but now's the time to get someone in who can get us crashing through the waves at a great rate o knots again, at the moment it feels like our ship has turned into a pedalo and we're all having to work like bastards on a matchday just in case we look like capsizing again.

 

[The One]

Awesome post Blade. Game, set and match

Agree entirely with what you say.

 

[Trevor Hockey]

Most on here will agree that the best footballing side the Blades had in living memory was in the Currie and Woody era.

Central to their success was the hairy Monty - Trevor Hockey.

When he was signed he gave an interview in the Star / Green 'Un where he said that he knew he wasn't the greatest with a ball but that John Harris had told him his job was "...you get the ball and give it to Currie".

UTB

 

[Revolution]

Central to their success was the hairy Monty - Trevor Hockey.

When he was signed he gave an interview in the Star / Green 'Un where he said that he knew he wasn't the greatest with a ball but that John Harris had told him his job was "...you get the ball and give it to Currie".

Whereas Monty gets the ball and gives it (or is supposed to give it) to the likes of Quinn and Harper.

And that is part of the problem for me. As I have said before, you can't have a good midfield if one of your midfielders is an ultra-defensive midfielder in the Monty mould unless:

1. Your other central midfielder is really good, like TC, or Michael Brown. We don't have anyone good enough to compensate for Monty's limited attacking ability.

2. You play 4-5-1, which has the consequential effect of weakening the forward line.

Hockey also scored more often than Monty did, but he's hardly alone in that.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Central to their success was the hairy Monty - Trevor Hockey.

When he was signed he gave an interview in the Star / Green 'Un where he said that he knew he wasn't the greatest with a ball but that John Harris had told him his job was "...you get the ball and give it to Currie".

Whereas Monty gets the ball and gives it (or is supposed to give it) to the likes of Quinn and Harper.

And that is part of the problem for me. As I have said before, you can't have a good midfield if one of your midfielders is an ultra-defensive midfielder in the Monty mould unless:

1. Your other central midfielder is really good, like TC, or Michael Brown. We don't have anyone good enough to compensate for Monty's limited attacking ability.

2. You play 4-5-1, which has the consequential effect of weakening the forward line.

Hockey also scored more often than Monty did, but he's hardly alone in that.

Or alternatively you play with two sitting midfielders and two pacy tricky wingers. We have the personnel to do just that. I'd rather we played like this and freed up our attackers to do what they're best at.


4-5-1 can easily become 4-3-3 or 4-1-4-1. Depends on how the midfield is deployed. What's criminal is when a 451 is played with no real creativity on the flanks.

It all comes down to finding a system to suit your available players.

 

[Fiery Blade]

Most on here will agree that the best footballing side the Blades had in living memory was in the Currie and Woody era.

Central to their success was the hairy Monty - Trevor Hockey.

When he was signed he gave an interview in the Star / Green 'Un where he said that he knew he wasn't the greatest with a ball but that John Harris had told him his job was "...you get the ball and give it to Currie".

UTB

Unfortunately thats where the similarities end, Monty gives the ball to anyone as long as they are not wearing a red and white shirt :thumbup:

 

[Trevor Hockey]

A bit slow this morning Fiery - 21 mins to reply with very very old 'funny'.

Get some more caffiene in yer lad - oh and a new joke book.

 

[Fiery Blade]

A bit slow this morning Fiery - 21 mins to reply with very very old 'funny'.

Get some more caffiene in yer lad - oh and a new joke book.

Morning Trevor, Glad to see I'm missed - Sorry about the delay had to take the dogs for a walk first thing!
But, if we had a Trevor Hockey and Tony Currie now we wouldn't be posting doom and gloom messages!

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

How's Harper going to press on, only been ahead of the ball about 3 times since he's been here. He's crap and people knock Monty???

 

[Torrix1889]

Harper was good at Reading when he had Sidwell next to him. At the moment he's got the headless chicken that is Quinn next to him, (or anywhere but next to him as is often the case).

Put an (elusive) creative midfielder in there and allow Harper to do the "Monty" role and he will do it better than Monty could ever dream of doing.

For me it says it all if SUFC are are waiting for Nick Montgomery to come back from injury and all our problems will be solved.............

 

[shorehamview]

....But, if we had a........Tony Currie now we wouldn't be posting doom and gloom messages!

We do, it's just a shame that he's 59.

 

[Pinchy]

Check Harper's career stats against Monty's. Harper is twice the player and more. So was Trevor Hockey by the way so that comparison falls flat too.