Is this the real Garry Monk?

[cookeh]

15 hours ago, kazads said:

Happened to Derby and Cardiff... They must have crap managers as well... Better players than ours I'm sure you would aggree

 

What you say isn't true tho is it. Both Derby and Cardiff played with actual bonafide center forwards on the pitch.

 

It's one thing to struggle in a game, it happens.

 

It's something else to struggle in a game because you've picked an utterly stupid starting lineup with no strikers.

 

[prowl]

Fourteen points after 10 games is my minimum.

 

We need to win 62 points over the season to stay up . That gives us 50 after deducting the 12. It works out at 1.34 points per game which is how I calculated my minimum. If we fall below that unless there are obvious outside factors that explain the shortfall he's on extremely thin ice.

 

We will still be bottom but on target.

[N0rtherner]

On 06/09/2020 at 03:40, cookeh said:

Yep, all those saying "judge monk once he's got his feet under the table"

Well they're firmly under now.. and he's fielded a team with no strikers in it, getting past a div 4 side in a penalty lottery.

 

The problem is not the players, or the squad, or the chairman (right now).. it's this dullard of a manager.

 

I think you missed the bit where OP said

 

Quote

If we're trying to be as positive as possible...

 

[gurujuan]

His latest offering, is that he, and the player himself, see Reach as a central midfielder Ponder that pearl of wisdom

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

His latest offering, is that he, and the player himself, see Reach as a central midfielder Ponder that pearl of wisdom

 

I was puzzled by that comment too, but having listened again, what he actually said was:

 

I spoke to Adam. I think it's a case of this season, with the system that we're using, where can we make him play where he can be most effective?

 

So moving him in off the wide - where he can do that job - I spoke with him and we both agree that centrally is where he's going to be most effective. He can play deeper than that but also I think there's an opportunity to use him in certain games or certain situations where his quality - I wouldn't say he's an out and out striker, but in that striker position where he can be effective.

 

To me, that sounds like Monk and Reach both recognise (as you yourself have pointed out in the Reach thread) that he's not a natural fit out wide in the system we're likely to be using from the start of most games this season. 

 

Therefore, unless we sell him - and let's face it, his value is rock-bottom right now - then we need to find a position for him. He's not a natural central attacking midfielder either, but I can see the logic in playing him further up the pitch where he might at least be able to play to his strengths a bit more than at wingback. 

 

Now that I've had time to digest what Monk was saying, it sounds as if he and Reach are both aware that he's a winger, but seeing as we're not going to be using wingers too often, we need to try something else with him.

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

I was puzzled by that comment too, but having listened again, what he actually said was:

 

I spoke to Adam. I think it's a case of this season, with the system that we're using, where can we make him play where he can be most effective?

 

So moving him in off the wide - where he can do that job - I spoke with him and we both agree that centrally is where he's going to be most effective. He can play deeper than that but also I think there's an opportunity to use him in certain games or certain situations where his quality - I wouldn't say he's an out and out striker, but in that striker position where he can be effective.

 

To me, that sounds like Monk and Reach both recognise (as you yourself have pointed out in the Reach thread) that he's not a natural fit out wide in the system we're likely to be using from the start of most games this season. 

 

Therefore, unless we sell him - and let's face it, his value is rock-bottom right now - then we need to find a position for him. He's not a natural central attacking midfielder either, but I can see the logic in playing him further up the pitch where he might at least be able to play to his strengths a bit more than at wingback. 

 

Now that I've had time to digest what Monk was saying, it sounds as if he and Reach are both aware that he's a winger, but seeing as we're not going to be using wingers too often, we need to try something else with him.

 

 

I'll level with you... I"m REALLY scared

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

Just now, @owlstalk said:

I'll level with you... I"m REALLY scared

 

Why?

 

Monk's not saying that he sees Reach as a first choice centre-forward; he's saying that given the system we're looking to play, Reach's best position is central, most likely as an attacking midfielder. I can see the logic in that.

 

It's not ideal, but I'm not sure where else we can play him? As Monk says - he can do a job at wingback, but he's not a natural fit there, either. 

 

To be honest, I imagine Monk would prefer to sell Reach and reinvest the money in a player who better fits the system he wants to use, but with a year left on his contract and after the worst season of his Wednesday career to date, Reach's value must be rock-bottom right now.

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

he's saying that Reach's best position is central

I'll level with you... I'm REALLY scared

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

6 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

I'll level with you... I'm REALLY scared

 

Given that we're going to play a 3-5-2, where would you play Reach?

[@owlstalk]

Just now, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Given that we're going to play a 3-5-2, where would you play Reach?

 

 

I wouldn't

Garry Monk shouldn't

 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

I wouldn't

Garry Monk shouldn't

 

I doubt he will on a regular basis, but we're going to need every player in our squad at some point during the season. If that means Reach makes the odd appearance as an attacking midfielder, then fair enough. 

 

Post lockdown, Reach featured for 191 out of a possible 810 minutes.

 

3 times he was subbed on as an attacking midfielder; once he started as an attacking midfielder; twice he was subbed on at left wingback; and once he started at left wingback.

 

Unless another club makes us an offer for Reach, then he's a Wednesday player; we're going to have to use him at some point.

[@owlstalk]

Just now, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

I doubt he will on a regular basis, but we're going to need every player in our squad at some point during the season. If that means Reach makes the odd appearance as an attacking midfielder, then fair enough. 

Post lockdown, Reach featured for 191 out of a possible 810 minutes.

3 times he was subbed on as an attacking midfielder; once he started as an attacking midfielder; twice he was subbed on at left wingback; and once he started at left wingback.

Unless another club makes us an offer for Reach, then he's a Wednesday player; we're going to have to use him at some point.

 

 

I fundamentally disagree that Reach should get any games centrally for us this season when we are battling relegation and have a minus 12 point deduction

It's been proven time and time and time and time and time again he's a totally ineffective player if he's not out wide putting crosses in or cutting in and scoring long distance goals (nether of which he does anymore)

To play him centrally either in midfield, attacking midfield or up front is the absolute equivalent of playing Jordan Rhodes up front

It leads to disappointment, effectively playing with 10 men.

How many times do you have to smack yourself in the face with a cricket bat before you realise it hurts?

 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

2 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

I fundamentally disagree that Reach should get any games centrally for us this season when we are battling relegation and have a minus 12 point deduction

It's been proven time and time and time and time and time again he's a totally ineffective player if he's not out wide putting crosses in or cutting in and scoring long distance goals (nether of which he does anymore)

To play him centrally either in midfield, attacking midfield or up front is the absolute equivalent of playing Jordan Rhodes up front

It leads to disappointment, effectively playing with 10 men.

How many times do you have to smack yourself in the face with a cricket bat before you realise it hurts?

 

So we play him at left wingback, then?

 

Fair enough - I can see the pros and cons of him playing in either position.

 

Either way, unless his form picks up, I doubt he's going to be a regular starter.

[@owlstalk]

5 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

So we play him at left wingback, then?

 

No - we offload him 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

2 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

No - we offload him 

 

In an ideal world, I agree.

 

He's a good player, but not in the system we're going to use.

 

Unfortunately, he's got one year left on his contract, is reportedly on around £20k per week, and has just had the worst season of his career.

 

We'd do well to find any takers.

[@owlstalk]

5 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

In an ideal world, I agree.

 

He's a good player, but not in the system we're going to use.

 

Unfortunately, he's got one year left on his contract, is reportedly on around £20k per week, and has just had the worst season of his career.

 

We'd do well to find any takers.

 

 

True!

 

Doesn’t mean he should play though 

 

[parajack]

16 hours ago, ashley8 said:

Sick of all these let's give Monk a chance Bolderdash !!! Four transfer windows !!! Are you all that stupid. Come on this isn't his first game, he hasn't shown ANYTHING AT ALL !!! What are you talking about we payed a league 2 side we looked flat and our new recruits looked like they are  disastrous waste of time. We are -12 points with a shocking manager who could inspire anyone! He's depressing. You can say he's got his own team in and players but so what, the players are not good enough we haven't bought quality in just bottom of the league players. How long are you going to give him a chance for...... Because every game lost will in effect increase the points minus. Unless there are three teams who are not going to get any points for several weeks our season will be done very quickly . Right now we have a weaker squad with a failure in charge and minus 12 points!!!! I know I sound extreme but right now this could get us relegated with Monk. When he is sacked who will want to take us on then and if they do we would be in a worse place then we are now! 

 

Sticking your heads in the sand and crying let's be positive won't do any good at all. Monk is done Chansiri unfortunately has made so many mistakes because he's only known football for a few years. There is nothing to be positive about that's why I'm so angry that we are flogging a dead horse. How many games in before you accept that and then will we be doomed....

What a silly post....Bruce the 'saviour'(in his 18 games) said we needed 3,4 transfer windows to turn things around,many including you apparently dont rate monk...but expect him to do the same job,without the same chance? The points deduction is nothing to do with monk,he has a budget to work within,again nothing to do with him(FFP) & can only bring in players both available & willing to come to S6....

Calm the ******** down,show some balls,and get behind the manager & the team....

[parajack]

On 06/09/2020 at 02:40, cookeh said:

Yep, all those saying "judge monk once he's got his feet under the table"

Well they're firmly under now.. and he's fielded a team with no strikers in it, getting past a div 4 side in a penalty lottery.

 

The problem is not the players, or the squad, or the chairman (right now).. it's this dullard of a manager.

silly..

[parajack]

On 06/09/2020 at 09:08, cookeh said:

 

Time to work out that every other team in the world has strikers for a reason?

But why do you blame monk for that?...cant majic another couple...out of a hat...

[parajack]

22 hours ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

 

Im not so sure on that. Bruce didn’t seem to see it that way and certainly made a decent start, with Monk possibly starting well on the back of what he had started to create.

 

As fans, part of the debate is we really don’t know who causes these situations.  Did Carlos really insist on playing Lee when told he was still injured, did Jos want to ostracise Hutch, did Monk have no way of starting the season with no strikers etc?  I’m not sure, for instance, if we’d be in this position with a manager who had more clout, know how and more drawing power. I half think that if we were starting this season with Bruce in charge we’d still have Fletcher and Fox at the club and he’d have started integrating younger signings. But I could be completely wrong.

 

 

Fox was a bang average Championship player,& Fletcher an alleged aging injury prone striker,who struggled to put in a full season...their wages were unsustainable(Fletchers anyway)..and they had both been here too long.Need to move on...Bruce left,dont know why he still has the adoration he has.His behaviour in leaving,was part of the problems we allegedly had(have?)& could well have got us relegated.Thats how he should be remembered.