Jump to content

pudil


Recommended Posts

I knew he was going to get murdered last night.  Not going to give him criticism based on last nights performance given he was up against the best player in the league. Knock1aert is seriously good!  However, he has been very poor since February last year and he needs taking out of the team as soon as possible.  When he first came to the club, he was very good but for some reason he has completely lost it.  Other teams are now targeting him and he is looking very vulnerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the first goal can be traced back to Reach's poor cross at the other end, but at the point of the final pass to Knockaert he was in front of his 'marker' who I assumed was Pudil. Now Pudil may have been under instruction to support the attack, which Reach broke down, and consequently found himself out of position. 

 

However, we'd have several warnings from Knockaert and the right flank, so why was Knockaert allowed to be on his own - did Lovens and CC instruct Pudil to go forward or did Pudil simply drift out of position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ash77 said:

Why sign fox if he cant get a chance, pudil is being targetted by managers who know he cant run anymore so nows the time to see if fox can do better and maybe upset some game plans

Chill out... we signed Fox and less than one week later we had the local derby against Huddersfield, then the following week we're away against the best team in the division against the best player in the division attacking our left fullback.

What game do you propose we throw in the young league 1 left back? Because if he had played against 'Udders you can guarantee there'd be a plethora of people on here saying "Well he isn't used to the system, that's too much a big game to put him in for his first start" and if he'd started against Brighton it would have been "Why are you putting a player that hasn't had a minute of Championship football in 7 months up against the best player in the league Carlos you thrower!"

 

So genuine question, do you think it would have been appropriate to start him in either of those two games? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BULGARIA
6 minutes ago, Ash77 said:

Why sign fox if he cant get a chance, pudil is being targetted by managers who know he cant run anymore so nows the time to see if fox can do better and maybe upset some game plans

 

it must be the weight of that fat new contract thats slowing him down.  Bit harsh maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tamworthowl said:

 Pudil was a minor culprit.

 

Knockaert is Brighton's main threat.

If your job is marking Knockaert, why would you be in a center forward position, half the pitch away from him, giving him the perfect opportunity to counterattack?

Sure, we overload out wings regularly, with the fullback going ahead of the winger, but this wasn't that. Pudil is central, on the edge of their area.. he's just completely gone walkabout.

 

Hunt and Palmer actually marked their winger and we basically saw nothing of Murphy all night as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pride_of_the_road said:

Dont think it was Pudils fault for the first goal,  we were pushing up and got caught on the break.

 

AKs touch was sublime to keep the ball under control,  99/100 he doesnt control it that good.

His touch took it to Westwood who should have cleared 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

Chill out... we signed Fox and less than one week later we had the local derby against Huddersfield, then the following week we're away against the best team in the division against the best player in the division attacking our left fullback.

What game do you propose we throw in the young league 1 left back? Because if he had played against 'Udders you can guarantee there'd be a plethora of people on here saying "Well he isn't used to the system, that's too much a big game to put him in for his first start" and if he'd started against Brighton it would have been "Why are you putting a player that hasn't had a minute of Championship football in 7 months up against the best player in the league Carlos you thrower!"

 

So genuine question, do you think it would have been appropriate to start him in either of those two games? 

 

Both udders and brighton got joy down our left but luckily udders' crosses came to nothing.

 

I said 'nows the time' in the post u quoted meaning next game, maybe cc was right to persevere with pudil, but if fox is good enough and trains well whats the problem, hes not a teen and may have done better, its pointless speculating now anyway.

 

Next up are bristol c away, off memory we got pasted 1-4 last season and pudils demise probably started around then as he was v poor.

 

If opponents have a quick right winger its risky pudil starting, but as pace doesn't seem to matter with most of our signings, im not sure if fox could do any better yet so only time will tell.

 

Also off memory cc said when he signed that fox is a player for now n the future, so unless hes talking pp again, i'd assume he's ready and that hopefully he wont be any worse!

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ash77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's idiotic posts like this that irritate the hell out of me.

 

Anthony Knockaert is the best player in this league by a mile. Daniel pudil and anyone else in the lb position are simply going to get torn apart by this this guy. Why can't we just accept this? Why do we always need to jump to the conclusion that it's our player who's rubbish rather than the opposing players excellence?

 

The next time forestieri rips someone to pieces I'll be sure to put it down to their defenders faults rather than forestieri's brilliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, poite said:

It's idiotic posts like this that irritate the hell out of me.

 

Anthony Knockaert is the best player in this league by a mile. Daniel pudil and anyone else in the lb position are simply going to get torn apart by this this guy. Why can't we just accept this? Why do we always need to jump to the conclusion that it's our player who's rubbish rather than the opposing players excellence?

 

The next time forestieri rips someone to pieces I'll be sure to put it down to their defenders faults rather than forestieri's brilliance.

 

Pudils positioning was atrocious, caught so many times in the wrong area of the pitch 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching the Huddersfield game last week time and time again our left side was so open and if Huddersfield had exploited it it could have been a different result. Walking out I feared the worst coming up against one of the best players in the league. To be fair to Pudil Knockaert switched flanks during the game. Our wide midfielders and forwards don't offer many options to our full backs and are reluctant to run the channels. I would like to see Hunt and Pudil put the ball in behind the full back rather than go backwards. Defenders dont like it when they have to turn and face their own goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ronnie Starling said:

. I would like to see Hunt and Pudil put the ball in behind the full back rather than go backwards. Defenders dont like it when they have to turn and face their own goal.

 

Sadly I fear that what we used to call 'turning them round' is in these modern times seen as giving he ball away.

 

Not sure why it has become such a no no.  Mixing things up a bit has surely got to be worth the chance from time to time.

 

There is a real possession obsession these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pride_of_the_road said:

Dont think it was Pudils fault for the first goal,  we were pushing up and got caught on the break.

 

 

There was no way Pudil could have got back into position, the main fault for me was Westwood he made a complete mess of challenging Knockaert, but after he was past Westwood Pudil was then at fault for completely sliding in and buying the dummy, should have stayed on his feet and blocked the space allowing Westwood to recover or for other defenders to recover and get into position.

Edited by Grimbarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Grimbarian said:

 

There was no way Pudil could have got back into position, the main fault for me was Westwood he made a complete mess of challenging Knockaert, but after he was past Westwood Pudil was then at fault for completely sliding in and buying the dummy, should have stayed on his feet and blocked the space allowing Westwood to recover or for other defenders to recover and get into position.

Bang on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Grimbarian said:

 

There was no way Pudil could have got back into position, the main fault for me was Westwood he made a complete mess of challenging Knockaert, but after he was past Westwood Pudil was then at fault for completely sliding in and buying the dummy, should have stayed on his feet and blocked the space allowing Westwood to recover or for other defenders to recover and get into position.

 

I understand your comments about how the goal came about, but why, when Knockaert is possibly the most dangerous player in the league, and he had given us warnings earlier in the game, was Pudil out of position? if Pudil had been 'allowed' to push forward, someone should have covered - they didn't.

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...