A Period Of Reflection For Monk?

[Owls-Fan]

2 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

Because all our centre backs are injured at the moment. We easily have 4 players who could play as the two centre backs. 

 

I just dont believe when coming up with this formation Monk thought it was because of a lack of centre backs.

 

Because of injures we would have struggled.

Maybe Odubajo Palmer Iorfa Reach.

 

But he wanted to play three at the back, he didnt do it because of a lack of options. 

Even in the previous two games with the options of a decent back four he choose not to.

Fair enough, yes it seems he’s realised during the break that 352 gets the best out of most of the squad that’s remaining so he wasn’t keen to change it. Particularly as Lees got injured in the warm up pre-Match 
 

[pazowl55]

24 minutes ago, Owls-Fan said:

Fair enough, yes it seems he’s realised during the break that 352 gets the best out of most of the squad that’s remaining so he wasn’t keen to change it. Particularly as Lees got injured in the warm up pre-Match 
 

Do you think as soon as we have the options again he will change it to a back four then.? Because I dont think he will.

[Owls-Fan]

6 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

Do you think as soon as we have the options again he will change it to a back four then.? Because I dont think he will.

No I think he’s sticking with 352 for the rest of this season at least. And that suits the players we have available 

[@owlstalk]

 

Press conference coming up...

[Blatter]

10 hours ago, Owls-Fan said:

Out of interest who would you have played in a back 4 yesterday? 

Not really sure what happened with Tom Lees. He was said to have been injured in the warm up. When the squad was announced 60 minutes before kick off I didn’t see his name.

Normally though when you have this sort of problem you would bring in the best of your U23 central defenders and nurse him through the game. So, Urhoghide Iorfa Palmer.  It couldn’t have been worse really. I think playing Odubajo who is really an attacking wingman there was an accident waiting to happen. Uhrogide acquitted himself well enough away at Leeds earlier this season.

 

Point is though we are desperately short of defenders now but have 7 midfielders to choose from. Playing 5 across midfield both protects the bare bones of a defence and allows two up front.

 

I don’t think Monk has had many options.

[myHero]

11 hours ago, Blatter said:

Being rather short of central defenders might have the starting point for deciding to play 3-5-2 don’t you think?

 

Another benefit. Its a shame Fox isnt staying as being the left side of a back three would have suited him.

 

I also think 3-5-2 allows Iorfa to push forward into midfield. I just think 3-5-2 on balance fits our playing squad, and I can see Monk has given it some serious thought.

[room0035]

The problem is we have let about 15 players leave the club from the first team and youth team, we did not recruit very well in January, signing 4 players who in large have look unfit, or the lad from the Italian none league, not for the first team (though Monk I believe said he would be involved)

 

Monk has now decided he wants to play a 3-5-2 with 3 centre backs at the club, no left wing backs and 1 right wing back (Odabajo), we have only 3 strikers and none pre lockdown had any scoring form what so ever.

 

I am all for changing formation but if you don't have the players to do the formation, you just end up looking like a bit of a prat when you get an injury and have to play players in silly positions and as we saw on Wednesday, that player cost us the game. Or he should have given a youth player a chance, but that just does not seem to be the Monk way. Do we have no centre defenders in the under 23's or the under 18's that we could not have given a chance too?? - if not then why have we released them all, or why did Monk not swollow his pride and keep Bates and play him.

 

Unfortunately for me this just sound too much like closing the door after the horse has bolted - and the throwing Lees under the bus on Wednesday for me is very low and not the sort of manager I want - these things are sorted behind closed doors not in the press.

 

 

 

 

[mcmigo]

We are playing better than pre lockdown but we still haven’t scored from open play. I believe that is now 5 matches without a goal in open play. As he has identified, there is a good flow to our play but that vital last part is missing. We so desperately need Jordan Rhodes to get an ounce of confidence back and score one in open play. For all the better running  work of da cruz, he isn’t cute enough with positioning or the ball to be a danger to teams.  Rhodes has that in him somewhere. 

[oldishowl]

2 hours ago, room0035 said:

The problem is we have let about 15 players leave the club from the first team and youth team, we did not recruit very well in January, signing 4 players who in large have look unfit, or the lad from the Italian none league, not for the first team (though Monk I believe said he would be involved)

 

Monk has now decided he wants to play a 3-5-2 with 3 centre backs at the club, no left wing backs and 1 right wing back (Odabajo), we have only 3 strikers and none pre lockdown had any scoring form what so ever.

 

I am all for changing formation but if you don't have the players to do the formation, you just end up looking like a bit of a prat when you get an injury and have to play players in silly positions and as we saw on Wednesday, that player cost us the game. Or he should have given a youth player a chance, but that just does not seem to be the Monk way. Do we have no centre defenders in the under 23's or the under 18's that we could not have given a chance too?? - if not then why have we released them all, or why did Monk not swollow his pride and keep Bates and play him.

 

Unfortunately for me this just sound too much like closing the door after the horse has bolted - and the throwing Lees under the bus on Wednesday for me is very low and not the sort of manager I want - these things are sorted behind closed doors not in the press.

 

 

 

 

So we have Murphy and Harris doing well as wing backs but you don’t see them as wingbacks.

 

Explain to me how Monk was supposed to solve the problem of only having 3 strikers now. What should he have done differently.

Edited July 3, 2020 by oldishowl

[room0035]

8 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

So we have Murphy and Harris doing well as wing backs but you don’t see them as wingbacks.

 

Explain to me how Monk was supposed to solve the problem of only having 3 strikers now. What should he have done differently.

Murphy and Harris your are right are playing wing backs, Stephen Fletcher can play in goal but that does make him a goal keeper. 

 

As for the striker issue that all Monks work he had 7 strikers on his books and 2 or 3 in the under 23's he has decided he does want to keep any of them and released them now he is short of strikers. 

[oldishowl]

1 minute ago, room0035 said:

Murphy and Harris your are right are playing wing backs, Stephen Fletcher can play in goal but that does make him a goal keeper. 

 

As for the striker issue that all Monks work he had 7 strikers on his books and 2 or 3 in the under 23's he has decided he does want to keep any of them and released them now he is short of strikers. 

So how do you think they have played as wing backs in the 3 games?

 

Assuming Monk had any input to the decision on offering new contracts, which is not certain as some of it is a purely financial decision, who out of the first team strikers do you think we should have offered a new contract to and what makes you think they would have signed. 

[room0035]

7 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

So how do you think they have played as wing backs in the 3 games?

 

Assuming Monk had any input to the decision on offering new contracts, which is not certain as some of it is a purely financial decision, who out of the first team strikers do you think we should have offered a new contract to and what makes you think they would have signed. 

I think Murphy is doing well since about January going forward but is not a defensive wingback in any way, which put more pressure on the defense.

 

I think Harris has offered very little to the team in the last 20+ matches, he started the season well and has fallen away but seem untouchable in the line up no matter what little he brings to the team his last assist was 7th December - 21 games ago. There was better players in his position at the club in Fessi and Reach, Reach has double the assist of Harris in less games and Fessi 1 less assist in a lot less games, but neither were getting played presumably because Harris is a Monk favourite. I know Reach was injured but even before then Harris was first choice every game. 

 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

3 hours ago, room0035 said:

throwing Lees under the bus on Wednesday for me is very low and not the sort of manager I want - these things are sorted behind closed doors not in the press.

 

In what way did Monk 'throw Lees under the bus' on Wednesday?

[Inspector Lestrade]

We have along way to go, as we stand now the squad isn't realistically strong enough to mount a promotion bid next season.  

 

The search for strikers must be top priority as the cupboard is very threadbare at the moment.  Not even sure that Wickham is the long term answer, will be expensive wages wise, and doesn't look as sharp as he used to be, Rhodes should only be used when other players aren't available.  

 

We have lost some very decent players throughout the squad and these need to be replaced ASAP.  Looks like Monk is going to be here, barring any major collapse. He is looking for a more attacking style (thankfully) so hopefully he has done his homework and has a few ideas who he wants to bring in.  

 

I would be look at players who can offer experience and youth not easy or cheap to find, but to sign to many promising untried youngsters will be a big gamble.

 

Will be very interesting to see how the close season shapes up transfer wise as it will have a big impact on the direction the club will be taking over the next few seasons.

 

Is Monk the man to take us on this journey? It won’t take much for the fans to really turn against him as they haven't warmed to him for the most part.

 

Three seasons, I've always thought is what it takes for a manager to stamp his ethos on a club. He's not convinced me one way or the other if he is the man for the job but clearing the decks will give him the chance to shape the club his way. 

 

Hope he has the backing from the players, fans and the management. 

 

 

 

   

 

 

[room0035]

17 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

In what way did Monk 'throw Lees under the bus' on Wednesday?

Did you read the post match comments?

 

Tom was due to start and then he said he felt his hamstring. That threw a bit of our preparation. I didn't want to change to a back four because we didn't have two centre-halves anyway. - just one of the Monk quote intimating that there was nothing wrong with him and he chose not to play.

 

These things should be dealt with behind closed doors not in the media.

[@owlstalk]

Just now, room0035 said:

Did you read the post match comments?

 

Tom was due to start and then he said he felt his hamstring. That threw a bit of our preparation. I didn't want to change to a back four because we didn't have two centre-halves anyway. - just one of the Monk quote intimating that there was nothing wrong with him and he chose not to play.

 

These things should be dealt with behind closed doors not in the media.

He was explaining away the change in lineup due to a last second injury during warmups

[daveyboy66]

2 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Did you read the post match comments?

 

Tom was due to start and then he said he felt his hamstring. That threw a bit of our preparation. I didn't want to change to a back four because we didn't have two centre-halves anyway. - just one of the Monk quote intimating that there was nothing wrong with him and he chose not to play.

 

These things should be dealt with behind closed doors not in the media.

Or a player getting a pull while warming up...somethings that's never happened in the history of football...pathetic

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

Just now, room0035 said:

Did you read the post match comments?

 

Tom was due to start and then he said he felt his hamstring. That threw a bit of our preparation. I didn't want to change to a back four because we didn't have two centre-halves anyway. - just one of the Monk quote intimating that there was nothing wrong with him and he chose not to play.

 

These things should be dealt with behind closed doors not in the media.

 

Eh?

 

How did you reach that interpretation based on what he said!?

 

Tom was in to start. In the preparation, within the first few minutes he said he felt his hamstring was a bit tight and we had to do a reshuffle.

 

Where has he suggested that he doesn't believe Lees was injured?

[room0035]

6 minutes ago, Dagmeister's Shadow said:

Blimey. Player says he felt his hamstring before the match. He's pulled out of the squad as you'd expect with hamstring to avoid longer term damage. This equates to throwing player under a bus !?

From an earlier post posted by our very own admin

 

Comments made after the game that equated to there is nothing wrong with him but he didn't want to play, what do you think he is saying when he says there is nothing clinically wrong with him. I am obvious reading it a different way to others, this to me sounds like he is saying there is nothing wrong with him and it was his chose not to play. If that is not what Monk meant then I misheard.

 

 

From todays thread I think the Press conference when asked about Lees

 

GM on Tom Lees: When we did the prep on Tuesday he felt his hamstring, scan came back clear.

 

We're dictated by Tom and how he feels.

 

We'll see if he's able to train this morning. We go by his symptoms and how he feels.

 

There's nothing clinically wrong with him.

 

 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

It's only one game, so nobody should be getting carried away, but I thought today it was great to perhaps see a bit more of how Monk wants to shape our team going forward.

 

Pacy forwards who never stopped running until they were gasping for breath made such a difference to our entire style of play, and it's not hard to see why it feels like a novelty when we've had Fletcher, Nuhiu, Rhodes, and Winnall to choose from for much of the season.

 

It would have been easy for heads to drop after failing to win as many points as we've deserved in recent matches, or after missing so many chances yet again today, but the players stuck at it, followed a clear plan, and reaped their overdue rewards.

 

Rome wasn't built in a day, and we'll almost certainly lose again before the season's out, but I'm seeing enough green shoots of recovery with what is - let's be honest - a massively understrength and threadbare squad, to give Monk the benefit of the doubt for now.