Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bradwell canary

Brady, what a waste it is!!

Recommended Posts

MArtin O''Neil saying in today''s Mail on line, that he could take a more goal scoring role in future. Scored this week in his true midfield role. I for one fully respect M O''Neils judgement, one has to ask therefore why on earth does our manager keep him as full back where his is not able to influence the game, as much. The other 26,000 people watching can see it, why can''t AN.

Let make the most of him while he is here.

Did he have a great Euro 2016? Not as a full back that''s for sure.

It seems that AN may have not got the best out of Remond either. Be interesting to see what progress he make this season at the Saints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe try finding a real reason to have a go at AN - there''s much more reasonable arguments to use.
Because, let''s face it, Brady is only playing LB whilst Olsson is injured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that is why Neil deserves criticism. We have no genuine LB cover, our only other LB was shipped out on loan. Brady, playing wide LM, should be the first name on the team sheet imo

Because of Neils determination to play Naismith AND Hoolahan, our best wide player is stuck at LB. When Olsson is back, what happens to Brady?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe Toffolo isn''t deemed good enough?
And with Brady, he''s not the greatest left back but should be good enough for this league whilst still providing some attacking flair.
On balance, it''s obvious why that''s currently the decision.
And to some idiot asking why didn''t we buy cover - keeping Brady meant we don''t need to. And we still have more than enough attacking players in that attacking 3 without Brady there every week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i do agree i think bradys best postion is CM / AM as played in euros with a slight drifting to the left

AN should never of bought pritchard instead of a striker as we have enough midfielders

Toffolo is he good enough yes for a couple of games when Olsson is injured

If not then you have question when Toffolo will he be good enough full season no a couple of games yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="hogesar"]Maybe Toffolo isn''t deemed good enough?
And with Brady, he''s not the greatest left back but should be good enough for this league whilst still providing some attacking flair.
On balance, it''s obvious why that''s currently the decision.
And to some idiot asking why didn''t we buy cover - keeping Brady meant we don''t need to. And we still have more than enough attacking players in that attacking 3 without Brady there every week.
[/quote]

I''m an idiot for suggesting we should have maybe brought cover at LB in the transfer window instead of loaning out our only other LB and playing our best attacking wide player there?

We still have enough attacking players in the attacking 3? Maybe, but Naismith has done an awful job there so far this season...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brady - if on form - is good anywhere on the ptich - his pace sees to that.  If he is temporarily at LB, that is a good thing because not many wingers will outpace him.  When Olsson is fit again, results will determine if he goes straight back in allowing Brady to move to a forward position. If - with Brady at LB - we start doing well and getting great results, then there will be a strong argument to keep him there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don''t have unlimited funds. Spending a couple of mill on a reasonable championship back up left-back would be a significant waste of funds when we have a player in Brady who can cover there and still provide an attacking option as we push our full-backs so high anyway.
I agree re Naismith - but that''s not my point. We have Hoolahan, Naismith, Pritchard, Canos, Howson, Josh & Jacob who can all play in that attacking 3. So moving Brady into LB for a few games isn''t an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toffolo falls into the ''let''s play the youngsters'' category that ''fans'' like spouting when we get relegated, as if that''s the best and quickest way to get back up again (worked well last time right?).

I like Toffolo but from what I''ve seen of him he simply isn''t good enough to be backup LB at this level if we seriously want to go straight back up. Potential is there that''s why he''s on loan and not been released, but he won''t get game time and isn''t good enough to replace when Olsson is injured. Like it or not, Brady is.

But hey, ''Brady''s sh** at LB'' is another in a long list of reasons to have a go at the club. With the whole ''we don''t have enough strikers'' been done so much, I''m surprised this thread has taken so long to appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Fiery Zac"]But hey, ''Brady''s sh** at LB'' is another in a long list of reasons to have a go at the club. With the whole ''we don''t have enough strikers'' been done so much, I''m surprised this thread has taken so long to appear.[/quote]

What a bizarre post. Where does anybody say ''Brady''s sh** at LB'' in this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="hogesar"]Maybe try finding a real reason to have a go at AN - there''s much more reasonable arguments to use.
Because, let''s face it, Brady is only playing LB whilst Olsson is injured.
[/quote]Brady is only playing left back because we didn''t buy cover for Olsson in the summer. Once Redmond''s departure was assured, the finance from that deal should have been reinvested in buying another striker (in addition to Oliviera) and another left back. With Jarvis, Brady and the Murphys already in the squad, there is no need to have spent money on Canos as we have plenty of option out wide, especially if you throw in Wes. And although I am not writing Canos off as an investment, I am just pointing out that the money spent on him could and should have been invested into a position which needed strengthening more urgently. The same can be said of the money spent on Pritchard, it should have been spent on a striker, not another attacking midfielder, something that we have far too many of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He certainly isn''t great at LB. defending not great and often falls asleep at the far post leaving people un marked. Agree with playing him LM/AM. Toffolo would have been adequate cover at LB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuff said,

We have a defender on our books who would probably do as well as Brady at LB in RM, played there before and did OK, this would release Brady to the midfield, it would also allow us to go three at the back during a game if we wanted without too much fiddling/tinkering.

RM may not be (or may be) the best LB at the club but the combination of playing his experience as a defender and moving Brady into a more productive role is surely more likely to see us, be more creative, put the oppo under more pressure by giving them something else to worry about in our attacking midfield, score more goals and win more games.

The above assumes Pinto is fit and that RM is not playing at RB, which surely he must do if Pinto is still injured, especially after Whitts last two outings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"][quote user="Fiery Zac"]But hey, ''Brady''s sh** at LB'' is another in a long list of reasons to have a go at the club. With the whole ''we don''t have enough strikers'' been done so much, I''m surprised this thread has taken so long to appear.[/quote]

What a bizarre post. Where does anybody say ''Brady''s sh** at LB'' in this thread?[/quote]

Ok where did I say anybody had said that in this thread in my post? If you want to be pedantic, I can play the game too.

At numerous times (this season and last) it has been stated in opinion that Brady is not good enough at LB. I believe he is a good backup option, and better than Toffolo. I also believe he will only play there whilst Olsson is injured and will return to his more attacking role when Olsson is fit.

Also with our current setup being very attacking full backs (much more so than last season) AN obviously feels Brady is well equipped to fill this position. Agreed he''s not been great so far but too early to write him off.

A little wasted at LB yes but the best cover we have and definitely more than good enough for the championship. I it as a positive that we''re moaning about playing a player we''re lucky to have kept hold of temporarily in the (slightly) wrong position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"]Brady - if on form - is good anywhere on the ptich - his pace sees to that.  If he is temporarily at LB, that is a good thing because not many wingers will outpace him.  When Olsson is fit again, results will determine if he goes straight back in allowing Brady to move to a forward position. If - with Brady at LB - we start doing well and getting great results, then there will be a strong argument to keep him there.

[/quote]
How long would you wait to see, Lakey. If it''s as long as you waited for Hughton we''ll all be "left back."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toffolo will finish up playing for Lowestoft at best and working at either Primate or Mc Donald''s

never going to make it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...