Gary O'Neil

[morty 0]

[quote user="Indy"]Let''s not get carried away with O''Neil, he did indeed do well, but Swansea didn''t exactly throw the kitchen sink at us and for 60 minutes we just sat back with about 30 % possession, not like our normal style.

Tettey, Bennett and Wisdom made us look solid, Bassong got rid of the ball when needed and Brady was outstanding.

I''m looking to a long term Mulumbu / Tettey backbone with Wes / Dorrans / Howson / Brady / Redmond / Jarvis options to get us the goals.

The ironic thing was no Martin & Whittaker and we looked well organised with a clean sheet.

O''Neil did well enough to push for a start next game but can see Mulumbu being back in.[/quote]Sorry but more about the gameplan, and setup of the whole team than about two players that weren''t even playing.

[Indy 3,300]

No way morty, do you really think it would have been the same with Martin & Whitts there?

Watch the highlights and see just how well Bennett takes control of the back 4 talking to Wisdom, keeping things simple and organised, not ball watching which has cost us goals all season.

Still we each see things from our own view.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Indy"]No way morty, do you really think it would have been the same with Martin & Whitts there?

Watch the highlights and see just how well Bennett takes control of the back 4 talking to Wisdom, keeping things simple and organised, not ball watching which has cost us goals all season.

Still we each see things from our own view.[/quote]Bennet and Bassong are developing a good understanding.Well we have no way of really knowing, do we? Like I say, it was more about how the team was set up, as a whole, than individuals for me.Of the three players I have seen at right back, in recent games, I still consider Whittaker to be the best in that position.

[hogesar 9,672]

Like I''ve said elsewhere, I appreciate the back 4 probably deserve to keep their place after a clean sheet, however I don''t think Bennett and Wisdom are any better than Martin & Whittaker. Both have played in Premier League clean sheets before under Hughton.

[GJP 79]

I''m no lover of Martin at centreback (or rightback) but I suspect we''d have kept a clean sheet with him and Whittaker because of the way we set up.

Having Bennett in the centre probably at least reduces the threat of that diagonal ball into the box that Martin struggles to deal with. Whether Swansea would have looked to exploit that is another thing because it''s not really their style.

[Indy 3,300]

I''d agree with Whitts till this weekend, but Wisdom was solid, didn''t dive into challenges like Whitts does and looked worth keeping his place.

Even Bassong looked more confident.

The system wasn''t really changed though was it? We had two sitting midfielders and the only change was we allowed Swansea the ball while picking up their players and looking solid for the first time this year.

I''d stick with the same for the next game, Redders off the bench and maybe Mulumbu on as he''s got a bit more about him than O''Neil.

But a great result ground out by a solid performance. We need points at this stage, performances will come with confidence and points on the board.

[GJP 79]

Have to bear in mind that Whittaker''s brief is usually to push high and then receive little help from Redderz defensively.

Wisdom''s brief was to sit deep and had Howson doubling up with him. It''s a bit easier to look "solid" like that.

[morty 0]

[quote user="GJP"]Have to bear in mind that Whittaker''s brief is usually to push high and then receive little help from Redderz defensively.

Wisdom''s brief was to sit deep and had Howson doubling up with him. It''s a bit easier to look "solid" like that.[/quote]^^^This.You really don''t think we changed how we set up on Saturday Indy?

[Indy 3,300]

No not really Morty, we just didn''t bomb forward as we have been leaving areas exposed, not the set up still 4-4-1-1 the same as it has been, Howson one side, Bradey the other Wes in the middle and two holding players in front of the defence.

The players were better organised, understood what the manager wanted and executed it very well.

It''s no coincidence that AN for the past 5 weeks and the season has been critical of the same mistakes which disappeared this weekend.

The players all deserve credit for once looking so solid.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Indy"]No not really Morty, we just didn''t bomb forward as we have been leaving areas exposed, not the set up still 4-4-1-1 the same as it has been, Howson one side, Bradey the other Wes in the middle and two holding players in front of the defence.

The players were better organised, understood what the manager wanted and executed it very well.

It''s no coincidence that AN for the past 5 weeks and the season has been critical of the same mistakes which disappeared this weekend.

The players all deserve credit for once looking so solid.[/quote]Well shall we meet half way and say the system was the same, but individual players in certain positions had a different brief to previous weeks?Alex Neil said in his post match interview that he changed the style, and opted for a different tack.Yes the players deserve credit, but theres no need to temper that with discrediting players who weren''t even on the pitch.

[Tumbleweed 106]

Well AN had been increasingly critical of mistakes and players not carrying out their instructions. Just wonder if the RM suspension gave him an "out" in terms of not being seen to drop him, and that Whitts was another culprit, perhaps Redmond also?

He did seem to tweak things rather than re-engineer, but maybe he also had people doing what he wanted a little more consistently?

[Indy 3,300]

Agreed Morty but I''m not discrediting players at all, these players have been dropped by the manager in favour of those who played, they did indeed change style and that we can really agree with.

I''ve been one of the few who have stood up for Martin as he''s put points on the board this year with his goals.

It''s a good start in looking solid and we can build on this weekend.

Will be interesting to see who we get in come January and who will be dropped to accommodate the new players.

Just happy to see a solid performance with little to be critical of our defence.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I think its clear that Wisdom offers less going forward than Martin or Whitaker but to me he is more solid defensively. He had an iffy first half against Bournemouth positionally (although never really got caught out badly) but in the second half of that game and again on Saturday I think he''s looked very solid. Right now, we just need a right back who can do their job defensively which is why i would persist with him. he also has a bit more pace which leaves him slightly less exposed against quick wingers than the other two. Montero did him once early on on Saturday but after that he dropped off and dealt with the threat well.

Olsson is also getting back his fitness on the other side which has helped as well. He though also carries more of a forward threat.

[chicken 0]

Hang on! Stop! Hold on a second there and take a few steps back . . . . .

Indy says we musn''t get carried away with O''Neil as Swansea didn''t play very well . . . .

. . . . . and then argues that Bennett and Wisdom are better and looked far more comfortable than Martin and Whittaker?!!!

Double standards? I think so. Swansea have so far probably served up the worse opposition performance of the season at Carrow Road so far.

Not only that but the team were clearly given an entirely different brief. One that would arguably suit Martin''s game better.

So if people are not allowed to be happy for O''Neil because it wasn''t a tough game - you most certainly can''t get all happy about Bennett and Wisdom and all down about Martin and Whittaker.

Right, back as you were.

[Indy 3,300]

No I didn''t say that at all Chicken, I said

Re: Gary O''Neil

Let''s not get carried away with O''Neil, he did indeed do well, but Swansea didn''t exactly throw the kitchen sink at us and for 60 minutes we just sat back with about 30 % possession, not like our normal style.

Tettey, Bennett and Wisdom made us look solid, Bassong got rid of the ball when needed and Brady was outstanding.

I''m looking to a long term Mulumbu / Tettey backbone with Wes / Dorrans / Howson / Brady / Redmond / Jarvis options to get us the goals.

The ironic thing was no Martin & Whittaker and we looked well organised with a clean sheet.

O''Neil did well enough to push for a start next game but can see Mulumbu being back in.

Nowhere did I say O''Neil was shite but that Swansea didn''t press us through the midfield.

I do wish some on here would debate instead of trying to pick fights!

[morty 0]

[quote user="Indy"]No I didn''t say that at all Chicken, I said

Re: Gary O''Neil

Let''s not get carried away with O''Neil, he did indeed do well, but Swansea didn''t exactly throw the kitchen sink at us and for 60 minutes we just sat back with about 30 % possession, not like our normal style.

Tettey, Bennett and Wisdom made us look solid, Bassong got rid of the ball when needed and Brady was outstanding.

I''m looking to a long term Mulumbu / Tettey backbone with Wes / Dorrans / Howson / Brady / Redmond / Jarvis options to get us the goals.

The ironic thing was no Martin & Whittaker and we looked well organised with a clean sheet.

O''Neil did well enough to push for a start next game but can see Mulumbu being back in.

Nowhere did I say O''Neil was shite but that Swansea didn''t press us through the midfield.

I do wish some on here would debate instead of trying to pick fights![/quote]People are debating Indy, I don''t see any fight here. Please don''t start the "because people disagree with me they are out to get me" thing, theres been more than enough of that.Its about the differing slants different people can put on the same thing. Let me digress slightly here. I used to draft appraisals for technicians that worked under me, not an easy job, but one that I took seriously. Someone once gave me a bit of a pep talk about it, they said " If you have someone working for you, and all you have done is asked him to make tea, and he has done that really well, then you have no grounds to criticise him"Expanding on that, if you ask a man to do a job, and he does what he is required of him, then he has fulfilled his brief. You can''t criticise someone for something they weren''t asked to do, or subsequently didn''t do.Did we keep a clean sheet? Did we score a goal? Did we win the game? Were we disciplined? Did the players carry out the managers plans? Did we win the game, or did Swansea give us it?And theres really no irony in the fact that we kept a clean sheet without Martin and Whittaker, thats not irony at all. As previously said, its just as conceivable that if either of those players had played, given the same tactical brief, the outcome could well have been the same.

[Indy 3,300]

No Morty lets get it correct, where have I criticised anyone? Chicken made a wrote a statement making out I''ve been critical of O''Neil that''s not right!

I''m not going there but I can see how people on here derail certain posters rather than debate to get the bite, you won''t see it that way no doubt.

So I''m not going into this again but keeping to the thread.

All I''m saying is that one good performance doesn''t make a star player, like said he deserves the chance next game but can see Mulumbu in as he''s got more about his game IMO.

Irony is that so many have been defending Martin saying he''s our best defender and yet without him we kept a clean sheet for the first time this season. ( incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result).

[morty 0]

Yeah, I think we''ll leave it there[Y]