A fantastic fight back. But I have a negative. (Shackell)

[Hardhouse44 289]

Wow, we showed passion, commitment, pride and quality.

I have a negative I wish to discuss however.

Shackell. He is in my view clearly out of his depth.

He is to easily brushed of the ball, he loses to many 50/50 headers and he turns to slow.

I in no way wish to be negative about the day or to single out players for no reason but if we are to grow and improve and to take it to another level after today’s fantastic show of character I would be looking to cut out the mistakes that lead to their goals.

I guess I''ll be slated for not being 110% positive about the team after today but for me there is a bigger picture.

[I am a Banana (All Grown Up) 0]

shackell was awsome!!!!!

[T07 0]

100% correct. He  should never have been made captain, he should never have been put in the team. Doc hasn''t been great but Shack makes him look 10 times worse. He has no discipline, he is the reason the back 4 loses shape and consequently makes Doc cover two positions.He is extremely poor. He has potential however now isn''t the time to nurture it.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Hardhouse44"]

Wow, we showed passion, commitment, pride and quality.

I have a negative I wish to discuss however.

Shackell. He is in my view clearly out of his depth.

He is to easily brushed of the ball, he loses to many 50/50 headers and he turns to slow.

I in no way wish to be negative about the day or to single out players for no reason but if we are to grow and improve and to take it to another level after today’s fantastic show of character I would be looking to cut out the mistakes that lead to their goals.

I guess I''ll be slated for not being 110% positive about the team after today but for me there is a bigger picture.

[/quote]

Yup, you''re right. Shackell is a bit of a weak link. He did ok today but in general people go past him too easily and he doesn''t dominate in the air.

 

[can u sit down please 0]

[quote user="GJP"][quote user="Hardhouse44"]

Wow, we showed passion, commitment, pride and quality.

I have a negative I wish to discuss however.

Shackell. He is in my view clearly out of his depth.

He is to easily brushed of the ball, he loses to many 50/50 headers and he turns to slow.

I in no way wish to be negative about the day or to single out players for no reason but if we are to grow and improve and to take it to another level after today’s fantastic show of character I would be looking to cut out the mistakes that lead to their goals.

I guess I''ll be slated for not being 110% positive about the team after today but for me there is a bigger picture.

[/quote]

Yup, you''re right. Shackell is a bit of a weak link. He did ok today but in general people go past him too easily and he doesn''t dominate in the air.

 

[/quote]

Agree with everything you say. We still looked a wee bit shakey at the back, how the hell we conceeded 2 i will never know!

[henners 0]

did you actually watch the game? Shackell played well today. I can see a good partnership forming between him and Taylor.

[Hardhouse44 289]

[quote user="Rob Henry"]did you actually watch the game? Shackell played well today. I can see a good partnership forming between him and Taylor.[/quote]

Yeah, I was there. We conceded 2 goals and think that Shackell was poor for both of them. He lost a header for the first one (to easily bullied when jumping with an attacker) then turned like a bus and was left for dead by Lee. Second he was just standing watching as 3 of their players followed in with anticipation.

Sorry but you and I watched the same game but saw different things. I have also been at all the other home games this season and all the one last and a few away. These are not isolated incidents.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Rob Henry"]did you actually watch the game? Shackell played well today. I can see a good partnership forming between him and Taylor.[/quote]

I think the comments refer more to Shackells performances in general rather than one single game. He did alright today, but usually he''s average at best.

I''d be happier if we added another good centreback to go with Taylor.

[blahblahblah 2]

Interesting analysis HrH.  Who should be our central defensive partnership ?

Assuming Taylor keeps his placce for Watford, would you try Taylor - Murray ?  Or Taylor - Doherty ?

[Hardhouse44 289]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

Interesting analysis HrH.  Who should be our central defensive partnership ?

Assuming Taylor keeps his placce for Watford, would you try Taylor - Murray ?  Or Taylor - Doherty ?

[/quote]

Well blahx3 I''d give Taylor-Murray a go. From what I''ve seen Murray is not a bad centre back. I think he has been another victim of the madness that was Grant. He has been demoralised by playing out of position at fullback, a position he himself admits he is not comfortable with.

As for Doherty, my opinion is that he can be brilliant in patches making excellent last ditch tackles but moments later he can be awful. Consistency is the key to getting results in football. That is something that we have lacked in spades.

I would imagine that we will see the same partnership as we did today at the Watford game however.

Managers are loathed to change anything about a team if the overall result was ok in the previous game. We should enjoy the performance today but should also keep out feet on the ground and keep a sense of realism.

We are not bottom of the league by chance. And despite what some more forgiving fans might say some player are to blame. We need to put sentiment to one side and see past today result in to the future of Norwich City. We need to stop conceding sloppy goals. If we don''t we will be relegated.

[breaker2 0]

I think Shackell is the best footballer of the central defenders, but at the moment my choice to partner (who obviously needs to play all game sin his loan period) Doherty or Murray.  Having said this i felt Shackell played okay today, would having Doc or Murray there have made a difference for either of the goals? well for me Counago and Lee both lack pace, and are fairly direct so i would have been tempted to go for Docs. But is that the way to create a successful defencive partnership? My guess is Roeder thinks he can still make Shackell into the defender he has always promised to be, heres hoping anyway!

[Huddy 0]

Shackall was excellant today. The critisicm of him in recent weaks i think is unfair, considering noone has played well!

He was at his best today, and as ive said before and probably will have to agian, he looks good when playing with an experienced, calm head. Taylor, Dublin whoever, he looks better. Thats not them making Shackall look better, it''s Shackall having less to worry about and playing in a more solid unit!

[Hardhouse44 289]

[quote user="HUDDY "]

Shackall was excellant today. The critisicm of him in recent weaks i think is unfair, considering noone has played well!

He was at his best today, and as ive said before and probably will have to agian, he looks good when playing with an experienced, calm head. Taylor, Dublin whoever, he looks better. Thats not them making Shackall look better, it''s Shackall having less to worry about and playing in a more solid unit!

[/quote]

So you didn''t have him at fault for their first goal then?

[Huddy 0]

[quote user="Hardhouse44"][quote user="HUDDY "]

Shackall was excellant today. The critisicm of him in recent weaks i think is unfair, considering noone has played well!

He was at his best today, and as ive said before and probably will have to agian, he looks good when playing with an experienced, calm head. Taylor, Dublin whoever, he looks better. Thats not them making Shackall look better, it''s Shackall having less to worry about and playing in a more solid unit!

[/quote]

So you didn''t have him at fault for their first goal then?

[/quote]

I think the general consensus that if it was anyones fault it was Taylors, but generally he had a very good game as well.

[Tookie140 0]

well the second goal wasn''t just shacks fault it was all the players fault because they were ballwatching

[FU MAN SHOE 0]

I hope that what we are currently seeing in Shacks is not the finished article. He is a big young lad, who obviously had something going for him to bestowed the honour of captaincy, but I agree with others that it may have come too early.

I think he has spent too much time in the company of the Doc and Drury, and needs to learn from others. Today he was good, but can quite often be quite dull, ...clearing headers back to the opposition, hoofing upfield or endlessly passing the ball across the back four, or passing back to the keeper. I''d like to think that Roeder can bring something extra out of this player.

[ZLF 335]

I agree the 2nd goal cannot be Shax fault - he was in the wall so how can it be his job when teh ball break loose behind him?  

However I do agree that the challenge for the first goal against Cuonago was particularly weak and left Taylor exposed,  but it was less a mistake just poor defending all round.

Shacks did look shaky in the first half,  Lee gave him a torrid time and constantly turned him.  However I felt his second half performance was much better as he seemed to committ himself to get the ball first,  and that is when he is at his competetive best.  On that basis I would stick with him and encourage him to give more of the same.  

As far as him being an unfinished article,  how long do we have to wait?  .   He is approaching his mid 20s and is unlikely to improve significantly from here on and has not progressed in the last 50 of his 97 appearances.  Shax is now the player he will be- no more excuses.