MATCHWATCH : Stevenage (a)

[West F]

Are you genuinely comparing a player with 40odd England caps and nearly 400 premier league games with one with 5 caps for Ireland and 7 top flight games.

Yeah.
Right.
Good one.

I guess the point is at 35, Welbeck looks as good a player as he has ever done, and that's very impressive for a player who based his game on pace and physicality.

Keane looks a million miles off a L1 golden boot winner, which is what he was.

Talent and ability is all relative, but Keane's drop off by age 33 is huge relative to some of his peers.

Keane had a raft of serious injuries during the early part of his career. This has likely caught up with him. In his defence, he is a striker who had one outstanding season in his career, which was unfortunately with Wigan when Leam was there. His golden boot season came when his experience met his physical peak and was multiplied by playing at a comparative low level, never to be replicated.
All this being said does not excuse the fact that Leam is playing him as a false 8. Which leaves us short up top and simultaneously short in midfield. What should in the managers eyes and imagination be a fulcrum for sustaining possession and attacks is more or less like a vacuous hole that breaks such intent down.
I expect nothing other than what we see at the moment. A team battling for points in an effort to stay up. He gets a pass until we see what we are like and where we are a couple of months into next season. It is then that I expect to see the front foot attacking football he promised. Not the wispy memories of his own singular past glory.

[Hound]

Keane had 4 good to very good seasons in a row. Scored 25 in 80 champ games for Wigan and Preston after the golden boot season. That’s a decent effort, and that only a couple of years ago

Not to say he’s played well since he’s been here, he hasn’t. Doesn’t look fully fit and agree he should be 9 and Kelvin LW if they both start

[Sutekh]

Are you genuinely comparing a player with 40odd England caps and nearly 400 premier league games with one with 5 caps for Ireland and 7 top flight games.

Yeah.
Right.
Good one.

I guess the point is at 35, Welbeck looks as good a player as he has ever done, and that's very impressive for a player who based his game on pace and physicality.

Keane looks a million miles off a L1 golden boot winner, which is what he was.

Talent and ability is all relative, but Keane's drop off by age 33 is huge relative to some of his peers.

Keane had a raft of serious injuries during the early part of his career. This has likely caught up with him. In his defence, he is a striker who had one outstanding season in his career, which was unfortunately with Wigan when Leam was there. His golden boot season came when his experience met his physical peak and was multiplied by playing at a comparative low level, never to be replicated.
All this being said does not excuse the fact that Leam is playing him as a false 8. Which leaves us short up top and simultaneously short in midfield. What should in the managers eyes and imagination be a fulcrum for sustaining possession and attacks is more or less like a vacuous hole that breaks such intent down.
I expect nothing other than what we see at the moment. A team battling for points in an effort to stay up. He gets a pass until we see what we are like and where we are a couple of months into next season. It is then that I expect to see the front foot attacking football he promised. Not the wispy memories of his own singular past glory.

Sorry, for the benefit of us that don’t really drill down into the technicalities of formations and tactics, can you clarify what a false 8 is/does?

[traff]

Scored 2 goals but has looked less impactful than O'Mahoney...go figure!

[Armadillo Roadkill]

I guess the point is at 35, Welbeck looks as good a player as he has ever done, and that's very impressive for a player who based his game on pace and physicality.

Keane looks a million miles off a L1 golden boot winner, which is what he was.

Talent and ability is all relative, but Keane's drop off by age 33 is huge relative to some of his peers.

Keane had a raft of serious injuries during the early part of his career. This has likely caught up with him. In his defence, he is a striker who had one outstanding season in his career, which was unfortunately with Wigan when Leam was there. His golden boot season came when his experience met his physical peak and was multiplied by playing at a comparative low level, never to be replicated.
All this being said does not excuse the fact that Leam is playing him as a false 8. Which leaves us short up top and simultaneously short in midfield. What should in the managers eyes and imagination be a fulcrum for sustaining possession and attacks is more or less like a vacuous hole that breaks such intent down.
I expect nothing other than what we see at the moment. A team battling for points in an effort to stay up. He gets a pass until we see what we are like and where we are a couple of months into next season. It is then that I expect to see the front foot attacking football he promised. Not the wispy memories of his own singular past glory.

Sorry, for the benefit of us that don’t really drill down into the technicalities of formations and tactics, can you clarify what a false 8 is/does?

I too wonder what a "false 8" was but didn't want to ask.

As numbers no longer really relate to positions or tactics, it's much easier to understand if people use actual words to describe positions. Is a false 8 a player in centre of midfield who should be just behind the (sole) forward, but their position is "false" because they're actually playing a little deeper? So they end up having to make late runs to support the attack?

So they're an attacking centre mid?

[Snowflake Royal]

Keane had a raft of serious injuries during the early part of his career. This has likely caught up with him. In his defence, he is a striker who had one outstanding season in his career, which was unfortunately with Wigan when Leam was there. His golden boot season came when his experience met his physical peak and was multiplied by playing at a comparative low level, never to be replicated.
All this being said does not excuse the fact that Leam is playing him as a false 8. Which leaves us short up top and simultaneously short in midfield. What should in the managers eyes and imagination be a fulcrum for sustaining possession and attacks is more or less like a vacuous hole that breaks such intent down.
I expect nothing other than what we see at the moment. A team battling for points in an effort to stay up. He gets a pass until we see what we are like and where we are a couple of months into next season. It is then that I expect to see the front foot attacking football he promised. Not the wispy memories of his own singular past glory.

Sorry, for the benefit of us that don’t really drill down into the technicalities of formations and tactics, can you clarify what a false 8 is/does?

I too wonder what a "false 8" was but didn't want to ask.

As numbers no longer really relate to positions or tactics, it's much easier to understand if people use actual words to describe positions. Is a false 8 a player in centre of midfield who should be just behind the (sole) forward, but their position is "false" because they're actually playing a little deeper? So they end up having to make late runs to support the attack?

So they're an attacking centre mid?

I would hazard a guess that in comparison to a false 9 - a striker who is actually more of an attacking midfielder, a false 8 is an attacking midfielder who is actually more of a striker.

I would have thought 10 would be the more appropriate number for it.

I also don't see what he brings, or what he's even there to bring.

He's not particularly mobile. He's not especially good in possession, hold up or passing. What he brings is some height to attack crosses from slightly deeper. But given we don’t do a whole lot of accurate crossing, I don’t get it.

Especially when Doyle is far more creative, finds far more space and is wasted out wide. Doyle is very rarely out there and crossing in to take advantage of Keane's height for example. And neither Yids nor Nyambe are great crossers.

[Sutekh]

Keane had a raft of serious injuries during the early part of his career. This has likely caught up with him. In his defence, he is a striker who had one outstanding season in his career, which was unfortunately with Wigan when Leam was there. His golden boot season came when his experience met his physical peak and was multiplied by playing at a comparative low level, never to be replicated.
All this being said does not excuse the fact that Leam is playing him as a false 8. Which leaves us short up top and simultaneously short in midfield. What should in the managers eyes and imagination be a fulcrum for sustaining possession and attacks is more or less like a vacuous hole that breaks such intent down.
I expect nothing other than what we see at the moment. A team battling for points in an effort to stay up. He gets a pass until we see what we are like and where we are a couple of months into next season. It is then that I expect to see the front foot attacking football he promised. Not the wispy memories of his own singular past glory.

Sorry, for the benefit of us that don’t really drill down into the technicalities of formations and tactics, can you clarify what a false 8 is/does?

I too wonder what a "false 8" was but didn't want to ask.

As numbers no longer really relate to positions or tactics, it's much easier to understand if people use actual words to describe positions. Is a false 8 a player in centre of midfield who should be just behind the (sole) forward, but their position is "false" because they're actually playing a little deeper? So they end up having to make late runs to support the attack?

So they're an attacking centre mid?

I’ve always thought of an 8 as a 10 but with more of a box to box role (ie. defensive stuff). Not really seen too much of Keane being box to box. Therefore not entirely sure how you can have a false 8.

When there weren’t squad numbers, back in the day, and all teams were pretty much glued into 4-4-2 the positions used to generally be as per below:

- 1 -
2 - 5 - 6 - 3
7 - 4 - 8 - 11
9 - 10

Not sure I like teams playing with “falsies”, though in 1997 I remember Reading playing with a false 1 against Bolton to great effect.

[RoyalBlue]

Have to also accept Stevenage aren’t a bad side and v difficult to beat on their home pitch

Any team is likely to be very difficult to beat when you can't muster a single shot of any kind in 71 minutes of football !

[Snowflake Royal]

Sorry, for the benefit of us that don’t really drill down into the technicalities of formations and tactics, can you clarify what a false 8 is/does?

I too wonder what a "false 8" was but didn't want to ask.

As numbers no longer really relate to positions or tactics, it's much easier to understand if people use actual words to describe positions. Is a false 8 a player in centre of midfield who should be just behind the (sole) forward, but their position is "false" because they're actually playing a little deeper? So they end up having to make late runs to support the attack?

So they're an attacking centre mid?

I’ve always thought of an 8 as a 10 but with more of a box to box role (ie. defensive stuff). Not really seen too much of Keane being box to box. Therefore not entirely sure how you can have a false 8.

When there weren’t squad numbers, back in the day, and all teams were pretty much glued into 4-4-2 the positions used to generally be as per below:

- 1 -
2 - 5 - 6 - 3
7 - 4 - 8 - 11
9 - 10

Not sure I like teams playing with “falsies”, though in 1997 I remember Reading playing with a false 1 against Bolton to great effect.

What was it with the 5-3-2 wingback... the way we played mid-90s just before squad numbers...

1
2 - 5 - 4 - 6 - 3
7 - 8 - 11
9 - 10


Bernal played 2, Gilkes 3, wasn't Gooding 11, Osborn 8, Taylor 7?

[Hound]

Have to also accept Stevenage aren’t a bad side and v difficult to beat on their home pitch

Any team is likely to be very difficult to beat when you can't muster a single shot of any kind in 71 minutes of football !

And they have no influence on that?

[leon]

Have to also accept Stevenage aren’t a bad side and v difficult to beat on their home pitch

Any team is likely to be very difficult to beat when you can't muster a single shot of any kind in 71 minutes of football !

And they have no influence on that?

Probably less than our own incompetence

[Sutekh]

I too wonder what a "false 8" was but didn't want to ask.

As numbers no longer really relate to positions or tactics, it's much easier to understand if people use actual words to describe positions. Is a false 8 a player in centre of midfield who should be just behind the (sole) forward, but their position is "false" because they're actually playing a little deeper? So they end up having to make late runs to support the attack?

So they're an attacking centre mid?

I’ve always thought of an 8 as a 10 but with more of a box to box role (ie. defensive stuff). Not really seen too much of Keane being box to box. Therefore not entirely sure how you can have a false 8.

When there weren’t squad numbers, back in the day, and all teams were pretty much glued into 4-4-2 the positions used to generally be as per below:

- 1 -
2 - 5 - 6 - 3
7 - 4 - 8 - 11
9 - 10

Not sure I like teams playing with “falsies”, though in 1997 I remember Reading playing with a false 1 against Bolton to great effect.

What was it with the 5-3-2 wingback... the way we played mid-90s just before squad numbers...

1
2 - 5 - 4 - 6 - 3
7 - 8 - 11
9 - 10


Bernal played 2, Gilkes 3, wasn't Gooding 11, Osborn 8, Taylor 7?

It was all very changeable then, players did not necessarily always have the same shirts unless they were a keeper. A typical 93-94 team selection, I think from memory, would have been…

Shaka (1)
Bernal (2)
Wdowczyk (5)
McPherson (6)
Kerr (3)
Parkinson (4)
Gooding (7)
Taylor (8)
Gilkes (11)
Quinn (9)
Lovell (10)

Subs:

Williams (12)
Jones (14)

[Snowflake Royal]

Have to also accept Stevenage aren’t a bad side and v difficult to beat on their home pitch

Any team is likely to be very difficult to beat when you can't muster a single shot of any kind in 71 minutes of football !

And they have no influence on that?

They've only conceded the second fewest goals in the division, but of course that's got nothing to do with anything.

[Snowflake Royal]

I’ve always thought of an 8 as a 10 but with more of a box to box role (ie. defensive stuff). Not really seen too much of Keane being box to box. Therefore not entirely sure how you can have a false 8.

When there weren’t squad numbers, back in the day, and all teams were pretty much glued into 4-4-2 the positions used to generally be as per below:

- 1 -
2 - 5 - 6 - 3
7 - 4 - 8 - 11
9 - 10

Not sure I like teams playing with “falsies”, though in 1997 I remember Reading playing with a false 1 against Bolton to great effect.

What was it with the 5-3-2 wingback... the way we played mid-90s just before squad numbers...

1
2 - 5 - 4 - 6 - 3
7 - 8 - 11
9 - 10


Bernal played 2, Gilkes 3, wasn't Gooding 11, Osborn 8, Taylor 7?

It was all very changeable then, players did not necessarily always have the same shirts unless they were a keeper. A typical 93-94 team selection, I think from memory, would have been…

Shaka (1)
Bernal (2)
Wdowczyk (5)
McPherson (6)
Kerr (3)
Parkinson (4)
Gooding (7)
Taylor (8)
Gilkes (11)
Quinn (9)
Lovell (10)

Subs:

Williams (12)
Jones (14)

Was thinking a bit later, more 95-97 ish... Gilkes was definitely wing back, and I thought 3, but time dims the not very good memory. I only saw Osborn and Taylor in about one and a half games.

[under the tin]

We’re not going to make the playoffs

Tru dat ^^^

Maybe it's as well. A summer clear out of dead wood, coupled with a structured summer recruitment, as opposed to the farce that preceded this season will leave the club stronger in the longer term.
Look on the bright side. We'll be better placed to give our neighbours down the M4, and up the A4074 a good thrashing next year!

My money's on Argyle to go up with Lincoln and Cardiff. They've got the same thing that we had in 2012. Momentum.

I don’t disagree. But isn’t a sorry state of affairs that we need to clear out deadwood when we only had 7 in contract players at the beginning of the season. One might suggest that the deadwood had already been cleared, and then some… to have deadwood already…? Heads should roll.

You've kind of misconstrued the point I was trying to make.
Bold bit for emphasis.
A summer clear out of dead wood, coupled with a structured summer recruitment, as opposed to the farce that preceded this season will leave the club stronger in the longer term.

The fact we only had 7 contracted players was more to do with the goings on "upstairs": stuff out of Noel's control.
Due to the timing of the club's sale, and appointment of senior positions within the new set-up, our pre-season (lol) recruitment ensured we were the last at the buffet table, picking from the curled-up cheese and egg sarnies, the remnants of the twiglets, and the strange looking stuff in that tureen that nobody else fancied the look of.
IMHO, it is obvious that deals were made with personnel whom we might well have otherwise overlooked, but needs must, and I'll wager that the club spent a hell of a lot more than it wanted to in order to secure Marriot's services.

One of our Brian's favourite quotes was "we work with what we've got"
I think this has been Leam's attitude since he came in, and you cannot argue with his stats, points-wise.
He probably has already decided who in the current squad won't be here next season.
I fully agree with those who say that the quality of the on-pitch football entertainment has regressed, but in doing so, the ship has been steadied in preparation for the re-build.
We will evolve.
URZ

[Sutekh]

What was it with the 5-3-2 wingback... the way we played mid-90s just before squad numbers...

1
2 - 5 - 4 - 6 - 3
7 - 8 - 11
9 - 10


Bernal played 2, Gilkes 3, wasn't Gooding 11, Osborn 8, Taylor 7?

It was all very changeable then, players did not necessarily always have the same shirts unless they were a keeper. A typical 93-94 team selection, I think from memory, would have been…

Shaka (1)
Bernal (2)
Wdowczyk (5)
McPherson (6)
Kerr (3)
Parkinson (4)
Gooding (7)
Taylor (8)
Gilkes (11)
Quinn (9)
Lovell (10)

Subs:

Williams (12)
Jones (14)

Was thinking a bit later, more 95-97 ish... Gilkes was definitely wing back, and I thought 3, but time dims the not very good memory. I only saw Osborn and Taylor in about one and a half games.

By 1996/97 things were a lot different, more something like….


Mihailov
Bernal
Bodin
Hunter
McPherson
Booty
Caskey
Lambert
Meaker
Lovell
Morley

[MR. CYNICAL]

Have to also accept Stevenage aren’t a bad side and v difficult to beat on their home pitch

Any team is likely to be very difficult to beat when you can't muster a single shot of any kind in 71 minutes of football !

And they have no influence on that?

Why can't you accept that we are a poor side?

[Hound]

Any team is likely to be very difficult to beat when you can't muster a single shot of any kind in 71 minutes of football !

And they have no influence on that?

Why can't you accept that we are a poor side?

I’ve been pretty critical of the team throughout the season tbh

[Extended-Phenotype]

The prefix “False” usually denotes playing deeper than. I don’t see Keane playing deeper than a central midfielder.

I suspect the user above meant false 9.

[Snowflake Royal]

Any team is likely to be very difficult to beat when you can't muster a single shot of any kind in 71 minutes of football !

And they have no influence on that?

Why can't you accept that we are a poor side?

Why can't you accept we're a good side? Poor sides don't find themselves in PO contention with 7 games left.