It's less debatable in my mind, I'll be very disappointed if he's not recalled. We're talking about a team who've scored one goal in a calendar year, he could absolutely offer something, whether that be an option when chasing a goal in Serbia or a much more creative force against Luxembourg than most our other options. The aesthetics might not look great, pulling a 34 year old League One player out of enforced retirement, but needs must.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
I thought Matt Doherty was comfortable at centre half against Wales, arguably his best game so far for us. Rather play him there than in a central midfield position. Not sure if I'd experiment so far as to starting him there against Serbia but it allows Coleman to play RB and it gives a competence to playing out from the back.
You have a day to respond to the request.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnapshotQuote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
It's an opinion on a football forum - surprisingly enough about a footballer. Do you supply stats for every opinion you offer on a footballer, team or manager? If I accused you of the above (emboldened), I'd probably be red-carded - but, hey, feel free.
No surprise in this non-response. You don't have an answer so you throw a strop and hope nobody notices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapshot
Opinions are fine, they don't need to be backed up. But you made a strong assertion that Matt Doherty would be a better centre midfielder and score more goals than regular specialist central midfielders. Now if you're backtracking and downplaying that assertion to an opinion, that's fine - I have my own view of the value of your opinions, and it doesn't need any extra validation. But if you're doubling down on the assertion - produce the stats.
I offered an opinion on Doherty playing midfield. I'm now ordered to qualify it with statistics within one day? Is that fair and reasonable? My opinion was not contingent on statistics - only that I think Doherty would do a good job in midfield. What's unreasonable or objectionable about that? Fair go, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Just read EM's post above. Assertion v Opinion? Semantics, surely.
Two days. You were asked on the 10th.
In my line of work, to opine is to state a subjective view. If it's honestly held and amenable to a robust but friendly discussion, no matter how dogmatic it appears to be, there's usually no issue. You say tomahto, I say tomayto. To assert is to state an objective view with evidence. You're not open to discussing your view on Doherty, it's counter-factual to what we know of the player and his career, and given your contributions here I question whether it is a sincerely held view or simply stirring the pot to see who bites. Maybe you're not a wum and you've got off to a rocky start misreading the tone here. I'm open to be persuaded. On that and Doherty. The ball's in your court.
For what it's worth, I'm confident I would be held to the same standard by any of the mods here. It's the fear of a public scolding that from Tets keeps me in line (mostly - sorry about the puns, Tets. I am trying:culpability:).
The only recollection I have of Doherty playing midfield is in Gibraltar and it did not work at all.
And he played wide, not central.
Your reply is eloquent and modest. That you are of high morals is not in question. I certainly cannot claim such standards - but do I really need to? It's a football discussion and your strict adherence to protocol in such an environment seems unwieldy. My Doherty comment was harmless - not unlike thousands of others here. To be press ganged for forensic data to back it up, to my mind, is over the top. It's just my opinion, irrespective of what the stats or what other posters say. Do with it what you will. You remind me of Jaggers in Great Expectations - the letter of the law swamps everything. But in the end he's a good guy. No offence intended - and no stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
Also lets be fair everybody apart from randy was dreadful that day.
I thought it was poor management to give up on the idea of playing both Seamus and Matt in the same team, based on that philosophy the whole team should have been dropped
I'm happy to park it. What makes this forum so good is exactly that we look for a higher input than you'll find on other boards, and we've had a few contributors in recent years whose posts were like yours to begin with - a bit contrarian, maybe a flash of the studs in the tackle, nothing outrageous or OTT, everybody gave as good as they got, and no offence given or taken. But a few of them were let go too far and really dragged down the enjoyment levels. I suppose that's behind the thinking of some of us, and maybe we're a bit more wary because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapshot
Clean slate?
FWIW, maybe Doherty could be the answer to all our prayers (and God knows enough are being said) but offhand any rare time we've played FBs in CM it's been a disappointment (Terry Phelan, iirc, Cyrus Christie). I think one of the great failings of the management over the years has been playing square pegs in round holes for short term, game to game benefits and no long term thinking. We've eviscerated our domestic game, relied on the UK to coach players (and even give birth to them!), depleted the player pool by capping guys six or seven years too late* so we have a dreadful situation that won't be solved in eight games or 20, whether it's Kenny or a world class coach in charge. Our problems are systemic - cash, coaching, confidence, administrative - and need root and branch reform over the next decade. Sure, we can play Doherty in midfield against Serbia and see what happens, and try something similar with another player in the game after that, or we can take the medium term hit of poor results while we improve domestic youth coaching, encourage players to consider other leagues than the UKs and gradually claw our way back.
*There was a time we weren't sniffy about capping reserves at good clubs - why are we now? Why are we letting them drift down to L1 or L2, or Scottish Championship and spend half of their twenties scrapping to resurrect their careers? By the time we cap them, they've peaked as lower level players. A twenty-year old with four or five caps who can be considered a regular call-up will be out of reach of L1 clubs - they will have too much to lose by dropping down. On that matter, I don't think we should cap anybody in L1 anyway - all we're saying is that it's OK to lower your standard but we'll still pick you.
Longer answer than intended, and I haven't even addressed your thoughts on Charles D1ckens! He's versatile, has great endurance and is very creative - play him at 10 maybe, instad of McGeady, in a fantasy team?:D
Good stuff, best available outcome. Play on etc :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
This is where SKStu's 3 /5 /2 post again demonstrates why that formation merits discussion, with what we currently have available, as it can put both Coleman & Doherty on the same pitch, I think either could play right of a back three, more so Coleman, and either could play in a midfield three, again Coleman more than Doherty. Now this isn't ideal, ideally we have CBs making the spot their own but we haven't. Also it would be nice to have midfielders making those spots their own, and again we don't. We will need to look after the ball V Serbia, keep giving it back and we will lose, concede early and that loss could be heavy and the whole thing spirals in a bad way.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
I realise it does negate the more eye catching strengths of one of them, however you line them up, but Coleman in particular would recycle possession simply and effectively in the middle, he has become a good all round footballer. Yes, I take EG's point its stop gapping and won't fix anything long term but we need to be competitive in the group for project SK to buy the time it needs.
The 3 / 5 / 2 does fit our present available player pool to the best of their admittedly limited strengths with cover in each spot of a similar calibre player. I know also it probably isn't going to happen.
Don't get me wrong, CTP - stopgapping where appropriate is fine. The problem is we've lurched from one half-baked solution to the next, and we learn nothing from our mistakes (we never fail better). Coleman has often been mentioned here as a possible right of three centre halves, with the ball playing/distribution role. And fullbacks can gravitate laterally more effectively than vertically especially as they age - Stan's latter years, Richard Dunne played a lot of his early Everton games as right back. I wouldn't see that as a stop gap or square peg in a round hole if it were to become Coleman's regular position for us in a settled 352 formation (and somebody else's when he retires), and it would allow us to use Doherty as a wingback which, for me, is his best position. I don't see us using 352 any day soon, despite it possibly fitting our player pool better, so it's academic really.
FWIW, transfermarkt have tracked every second of his career, like any pro at his level, and he's never played a game in CM in his life.
That's not to say he couldn't do it. Gareth Bale had only ever played left back until one day Harry Redknapp, faced with a load of injuries and a defender who kept making costly mistakes, pushed him forward onto the wing.
I'd prefer him in his natural position myself, but that's just me.
And now Gareth Bale is a very good amateur golfer so tis funny how things work out !Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
Im gonna ignore the Doherty playing center midfield debate, because it just wont happen in these games anyway. After Cyrus Christie played there I'll never rule anything out in future.
The more I think about calling up McGeady the more I like the idea. McCarthy called up Judge and Whelan who were playing L1 so I wouldnt really care about the optics of it. McGeady could be a very useful last 20 mins player if we were struggling to unlock a defense, and maybe buys us a bit of time for Byrne to get fit, Ronan to hopefully develop into a realistic option and others like Joe Hodge to hopefully be good enough.
Our biggest issue still remains the strikers. I'll probably get hammered for this but I'd go with Parrott. Ive watch him a lot this season and I still think there is a very good player there. His touch is very good, hes strong and hes a hard worker. He been used in a lot of different positions and Paul Cook spoke the other day about how he needs to stop dropping back into his own half so much and do his main work in the last 3rd. He needs a goal badly and you can see he is trying too hard at times and being a bit greedy, but I still think when he gets one he will go on a run.
What it boils down to is that we have nobody really putting their hand up to say they should be starting, so in a crowded field of mediocrity Id pick the guy who could be a very good player for us for 10 years rather than a James Collins who will never be more than a poor journeyman.
Randolph not going to be available for these games. Kenny hoping that Kelleher will be fit. Mentions Travers being on bench, Bazunu a possibility.
He did also speak briefly about Kieran Westwood but said he has lost his place and is on the bench recently. If I was betting I would say Bazunu might start if Kelleher isnt fit, and apparently its very tight whether he will make it back in time.
Has Westwood recovered from the fractured rib?
I dont think Kenny said anything about injury, I might have missed itQuote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979