Good write up. Sincerely hope things change as it's plain to see we are not playing football atm and until we address this hoof and hope (better service) which to be honest was the catalyst to Stevenage keeper kicking a clearence which was in all intence and purposes was to be a ball for forwards to get onto to from midfield. Go lads chase this, please pass some.
It's on the other thread but I'll put it here as well because I just don't get it:
We have to start with Harriman. Simple - he's probably our best player so why would GA put him on the bench? Can some one please give me a logical explanation?
Harriman probably hasn't trained in a while and bringing him on could therefore have constituted quite a gamble. Understandably we aren't privy to the fitness of players and without this knowledge, team selection can often seem odd.
Of the times I've seen Bean have a mare, I think most were in windy conditions - his ball control is marginal at the best of times but he usually makes up for it with positional sense and sheer hard work. Add wind into the equation (as yesterday) and he looks like a refugee from a pin-table.
Assuming both are fit, I just wonder why Ugwu gets the nod over Holloway.
Holloway is such an irritating enigma. Played well at the end of last season, looked to be the revelation we needed up front this season. Started the first game well, but has completely dropped off the starting 11, yet appears to do quite well from the bench.
@scarlet said:
Ugwu came straight in and benched AAH so him not playing he may of lost fitness.
Same goes for Banton who had to be Wycomised for a fair few games, to score then benched the following match. These actions have consequences some are bad or for the good of the team.
As for AAH he was benched on the arrival of Ugwu so maybe he is miffed too who knows. A familiar pattern of under performing attackers that's what I know, why ?
I do think Gaz has a love or hate mindset with attacking players.
While he obviously rates a player he brings in, he also seems to either get the best out of them or the worst. He's still learning, remember.
But we have certainly had some talent capable of goals who have not performed or been selected under him, including the likes of Angol, Morgan and McClure. Likewise he seems to have done a good job with others where other managers couldn't, as was the case with Grant and Paris.
Is that not just down to luck rather than anything Ainsworth does? Players sometimes play well for a period of time, sometimes play badly; so it follows that some players will play better for Wycombe than they have at other teams, and the reverse.
I would love to see Kretch and AAH play alongside side each other as they seem to compliment each others game.
Desperately need some partnerships forming as in the attacking half we look like a bunch of strangers who don't read each's others game or play to their strengths.
Another positive from yesterday, I was very impressed with young Macarthy. Thought he was very quick, showed good anticipation and was very strong, coping very well with the powerful Gnandulet. On that showing, he is deffo worth an extended loan period.
Agreed Mc Carthy looked fine, although it is tricky trying to judge how good a player really is from watching him play just the one match. I would not call Donacien a poor signing. GA only took him on loan for four matches as cover and I have a feeling that he may well be rather better than we were able to determine from the meagre evidence of a couple of matches. Having said that - I hope he puts one in his own net Tuesday night (if he plays).
I think it was his fifth. I remember Bean and Pierre both being on 4 a couple of weeks ago. Bean served his one match suspension by missing the JPT match. I hope I'm wrong about Pierre.
Comments
Good write up. Sincerely hope things change as it's plain to see we are not playing football atm and until we address this hoof and hope (better service) which to be honest was the catalyst to Stevenage keeper kicking a clearence which was in all intence and purposes was to be a ball for forwards to get onto to from midfield. Go lads chase this, please pass some.
It's on the other thread but I'll put it here as well because I just don't get it:
We have to start with Harriman. Simple - he's probably our best player so why would GA put him on the bench? Can some one please give me a logical explanation?
Because he isn't fully fit?
That must be the explanation. We need to wake up and realise width is key in this league
Harriman probably hasn't trained in a while and bringing him on could therefore have constituted quite a gamble. Understandably we aren't privy to the fitness of players and without this knowledge, team selection can often seem odd.
Of the times I've seen Bean have a mare, I think most were in windy conditions - his ball control is marginal at the best of times but he usually makes up for it with positional sense and sheer hard work. Add wind into the equation (as yesterday) and he looks like a refugee from a pin-table.
Assuming both are fit, I just wonder why Ugwu gets the nod over Holloway.
Holloway is such an irritating enigma. Played well at the end of last season, looked to be the revelation we needed up front this season. Started the first game well, but has completely dropped off the starting 11, yet appears to do quite well from the bench.
Ugwu came straight in and benched AAH so him not playing he may of lost fitness.
Taking crumbs from yesterday's game, I thought Kretzchmar put in a decent shift.
Same goes for Banton who had to be Wycomised for a fair few games, to score then benched the following match. These actions have consequences some are bad or for the good of the team.
As for AAH he was benched on the arrival of Ugwu so maybe he is miffed too who knows. A familiar pattern of under performing attackers that's what I know, why ?
I do think Gaz has a love or hate mindset with attacking players.
While he obviously rates a player he brings in, he also seems to either get the best out of them or the worst. He's still learning, remember.
But we have certainly had some talent capable of goals who have not performed or been selected under him, including the likes of Angol, Morgan and McClure. Likewise he seems to have done a good job with others where other managers couldn't, as was the case with Grant and Paris.
Is that not just down to luck rather than anything Ainsworth does? Players sometimes play well for a period of time, sometimes play badly; so it follows that some players will play better for Wycombe than they have at other teams, and the reverse.
Pretty depressing read...
I would love to see Kretch and AAH play alongside side each other as they seem to compliment each others game.
Desperately need some partnerships forming as in the attacking half we look like a bunch of strangers who don't read each's others game or play to their strengths.
Another positive from yesterday, I was very impressed with young Macarthy. Thought he was very quick, showed good anticipation and was very strong, coping very well with the powerful Gnandulet. On that showing, he is deffo worth an extended loan period.
Yep, McCarthy is miles better than Donacien, one of the few signings Ainsworth has got wrong in the past couple of years.
Agreed Mc Carthy looked fine, although it is tricky trying to judge how good a player really is from watching him play just the one match. I would not call Donacien a poor signing. GA only took him on loan for four matches as cover and I have a feeling that he may well be rather better than we were able to determine from the meagre evidence of a couple of matches. Having said that - I hope he puts one in his own net Tuesday night (if he plays).
Am i right in thinking Pierre is now banned for Tuesday? In which case McCarthy and Rowe v Newport? Or McCarthy and Sido with Harriman at RB?
@TheAndyGrahamFanClub Don't worry, it was Pierre's third yellow card of the season.
I think it was his fifth. I remember Bean and Pierre both being on 4 a couple of weeks ago. Bean served his one match suspension by missing the JPT match. I hope I'm wrong about Pierre.
You are. It was Bean and Harriman that were on 4. Harriman still is.
Thanks for that. Sometimes it's good to be proved wrong!