Jump to content

Matt Smith, the man who's been written off...


Recommended Posts

For the next game, I'd like to see a plain old 4-4-2 (not because I buy into this nostalgic all-you-need-is-wingers and we'll reincarnate the spirit of 1990 stuff, but because it's about the most simple tactic you can hammer into a player's head):

 

Cisak

 

Brown

Byrne

Mvoto

Grounds

 

Croft

Furman

Mchangama

Hughes

 

Smith

Taylor

 

Would this be guaranteed to do better? No. But Tarky and Simpson aren't firing on all cylinders and should be rested (as much to spare them from boo boys as anything), Smith and Taylor haven't been tried as a combination, and Hughes for all his inexperience is at least an out-and-out winger. Montaño needs to gain fitness and I reckon for a couple of games would have more impact coming on from the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He takes so, so long to do everything! He seems to be about 5 minutes behind the rest of the team, and that's saying something. If we're resorting to starting him already we are in big, big trouble. He does essentially the same job M'Voto would do if he was a striker, but at least Jean can win a header.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes he did... I had a perfect view in the main stand.

By won do you mean he headed a couple of balls aimed right at his head, or do you mean 50/50's? If it's the latter, then no he didn't. He has the incredible ability to shrink from 6ft 6 to 5 ft 6 at times. I hate to be overly critical, but he's a non-league player. The very thought of us resorting to starting him is depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people on this forum are completely ignorant to the good things Smith did in favour of pointing out some errors he made.

He's not the perfect article.

He's young.

He doesn't get a game.

He probably has 0 confidence.

But he did some decent things and brought promise yet you choose to not recognise this and get on his back. Any wonder BP is a graveyard for strikers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over near near the touch line he won a couple of flick ons, the problem was no one was on the end of them. Whether thats down to misguided flicks or others not being on the same wave length I don't know. Either way smith did win the headers, when he didn't he put enough pressure on to ensure the defender couldn't get a clean header in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

But he did some decent things and brought promise yet you choose to not recognise this and get on his back. Any wonder BP is a graveyard for strikers?

On the contrary, people are suggesting we start a player who is sluggish, unbelievably off the pace in possession and quite frankly looks completely out of his depth in this division to solve our goal scoring problem. The decent things seem to be that he won a couple of basic headers, and fired a shot over the bar. I don't see it, and most of the people I spoke to after the game don't see it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likei stated previously....sit n watch him for ten mins....he knows where to go and where to run....shame the rest don't know where to find him. He scored goals at lower league not because he was quicker, better on the ball, or had a better shot than the other players like it sometimes is with those lower league talents...it was because he gets in the right positions. In a decent team which puts the ball in the right place, he'd get a fair few in my opinion...those sorts of players bag at non league and lower league.

 

Beckett always looked sluggish and off the pace....didn't score many did he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beckett always looked sluggish and off the pace....didn't score many did he?

You're honestly comparing Matt Smith to Luke Beckett? Blimey.

 

And I've sat and watched him for far more than 10 minutes. Including him missing a chance against Sheffield Wednesday that I'm fairly confident my Mum would've buried.

Edited by JonesyOAFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, people are suggesting we start a player who is sluggish, unbelievably off the pace in possession and quite frankly looks completely out of his depth in this division to solve our goal scoring problem. The decent things seem to be that he won a couple of basic headers, and fired a shot over the bar. I don't see it, and most of the people I spoke to after the game don't see it either.

 

Well compared to the alternative options; that seem non-existent, he is the best option. Simpson is not a striker. Everybody has slagged off Slew when he played. Taylor has never played in a league match before and Smith did some decent things today. By default Smith is the one to choose and having only started 3 league games before, scoring in 1 of them he deserves an opportunity to prove his critics, like you.

 

Nobody expects you to think he is Lionel Messi or even a Shefki Kuqi but accepting that he did some decent things for a player who seems at a low point at the moment I would say is reasonable request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody has slagged off Slew when he played.

And here lies the problem. People are already slagging off Slew because he hasn't bagged a hatful in the first 2 games, so demand Dickov starts playing Smith. Then when Smith inevitably looks out of his depth in the next few games, there'll be threads started on here demanding Dickov start Taylor. Then when Taylor doesn't deliver...

 

Slew has already shown us he knows where the goal is with a smartly taken finish against Wednesday, and got a few decent shots off against Walsall despite the non-existent service. If he's fit, I'd start him over Smith every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Slew has already shown us he knows where the goal is with a smartly taken finish against Wednesday, and got a few decent shots off against Walsall despite the non-existent service. If he's fit, I'd start him over Smith every time.

 

Completely agree with the fact Slew is better than the criticism he has recieved implied. He has got an eye for goal, he has pace, contrary some posts on here. Personally, I think they'd compliment one another. The traditional combination of the big man, flicking the ball to the pace-man who has the finishing ability. There is something there for a partnership I reckon.

 

And the whole dropping Simpson argument is ludicrous too. Get him to supply the strikers opposed to him being supplied as the striker. That triplet would get some goals I predict. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Completely agree with the fact Slew is better than the criticism he has recieved implied. He has got an eye for goal, he has pace, contrary some posts on here. Personally, I think they'd compliment one another. The traditional combination of the big man, flicking the ball to the pace-man who has the finishing ability. There is something there for a partnership I reckon.

 

And the whole dropping Simpson argument is ludicrous too. Get him to supply the strikers opposed to him being supplied as the striker. That triplet would get some goals I predict. Thoughts?

There's already a bit of me that says Dickov should say "screw" it, blow his bugle and go all out attack with at least 3 forwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's already a bit of me that says Dickov should say "screw" it, blow his bugle and go all out attack with at least 3 forwards.

 

That would be irresponsible by Dickov to do that and completely commit to scoring goals but there has to be an element of adventure that we've not seen yet. 2 strikers full-time strikers would be more attacking than a lone midfielder up front of course and would still allow us to stay relatively solid in defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're honestly comparing Matt Smith to Luke Beckett? Blimey.

 

And I've sat and watched him for far more than 10 minutes. Including him missing a chance against Sheffield Wednesday that I'm fairly confident my Mum would've buried.

 

Am I balls comparing....merely pointing out that sluggish doesn't always mean cr@p....seems to me reading your posts you may have watched him today but ignored anything worthwhile he actually did....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That would be irresponsible by Dickov to do that and completely commit to scoring goals but there has to be an element of adventure that we've not seen yet. 2 strikers full-time strikers would be more attacking than a lone midfielder up front of course and would still allow us to stay relatively solid in defence.

If the opposition are playing 4-2-3-1, playing 3-4-1-2 could be a useful counter and we have the players who can play in that formation. Aside from Croft and Montano who wouldn't fit and are 2 of our better players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I balls comparing....merely pointing out that sluggish doesn't always mean cr@p....seems to me reading your posts you may have watched him today but ignored anything worthwhile he actually did....

The decent things seem to be that he won a couple of basic headers, and fired a shot over the bar.

 

Can you point out what I missed, because I feel like I might have been watching a different game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the opposition are playing 4-2-3-1, playing 3-4-1-2 could be a useful counter and we have the players who can play in that formation. Aside from Croft and Montano who wouldn't fit and are 2 of our better players.

 

This is the type of formation that I would select also.

Grounds, Byrne and M'voto as the back 3 with Furman, M'Changama in central midfield, flanked by Croft and Montano, as long as they ensure to cover and track back (which would be the most important element in the system). Then in an attacking midfield position would be Simpson, behind the 2 main strikers: Smith and Slew.

 

I couldnt think of a system that would suit the squad of players any better.

 

Now, anybody got Dickov's phone number?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No he didn't. He won a couple, granted, that went nowhere. On the deck, he's a complete liability. Simple lay offs take him an eternity to complete. Give Taylor a run instead.

 

He won more than a couple of headers, and they went 'nowhere' cause no one was around the guy to feed off his flick ons! Same with his simple lay offs on the floor, he's so hesitant and slow because it's very rare that there's any movement around him so how is he supposed to play the ball succesfully when everyone appears content to lump it to him and stay still?! It really is beyond me what some people expect of the lad, he came on, imposed himself against one of this leagues strongest/biggest centre half partnerships in Roberts and Ashton, and had our best chance of the game which he flashed narrowly over. He was constantly setting off on runs then having to stall because the delivery never came into the areas he was running into, which were, regardless of some peoples opinions, the correct areas to run into.

 

He's a decent player, but unfortunately some people have made up their minds on him and decided that's that, and he's not good enough, when in reality, he's not a bad player at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...