Garry Monk and Adam Reach both agree he's a striker now

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

Every time Monk says or does anything it's like throwing a biscuit in the middle of a pack of starving dogs. If he says Reach didn't play well he gets a kicking for ruining his confidence or blaming someone else for his own mistakes. If he says Reach did play well he's branded delusional and a liar.

 

 

Or Monk could just hold his hands up and say it was his fault Reach didn't play well due to the terrible tactics and positions he chose to employ?

 

Fans aren't blind. 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

Every time Monk says or does anything it's like throwing a biscuit in the middle of a pack of starving dogs. If he says Reach didn't play well he gets a kicking for ruining his confidence or blaming someone else for his own mistakes. If he says Reach did play well he's branded delusional and a liar.

 

 

57 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

In the interests of honesty, we should probably acknowledge that Monk said: 'I wouldn't say he's an out and out striker...' and has made no reference to Reach being used as a centre forward as the OP suggests.

 

 

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/adam-reach-best-position-swfc-18888614

 

Read the article and say he makes no reference to using him as a centre-forward.

 

I can see why some fans have a go at others for constantly jumping on Monk but equally, certain fans seem too eager to jump to his defence and try to justify his every move, even when it makes little or no sense. 

[billyblack]

1 hour ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Pretending that Adam Reach is a striker wont make that situation any better though will it?

absolutely it wont

[DJMortimer]

5 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/adam-reach-best-position-swfc-18888614

 

Read the article and say he makes no reference to using him as a centre-forward.

 

I can see why some fans have a go at others for constantly jumping on Monk but equally, certain fans seem too eager to jump to his defence and try to justify his every move, even when it makes little or no sense. 

 

I didn't justify (or otherwise) what he said in any way; only the reactions of some to it.

 

[royalowlisback]

With Adam Reach it is simple, play him out wide, or don't play him at all.

 

He is still the best crosser of a ball at the club, he needs to be out wide for that to happen.

 

I think Derek Geary playing up front would be about as effective as Reach, it doesn't work and it never has.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

I didn't justify (or otherwise) what he said in any way; only the reactions of some to it.

 

 

So do you think there is something justifiable in him saying:

 

 

"He can move out wide, where he can do that job. But I spoke with him and we both agree that centrally is where he's going to be most effective.

But there's an opportunity to use him in certain games or certain situations where his quality in terms of that striker position can be effective."

"I thought he did some really good work (against Walsall)."

 

 

[shandypants]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

So do you think there is something justifiable in him saying:

 

 

"He can move out wide, where he can do that job. But I spoke with him and we both agree that centrally is where he's going to be most effective.

But there's an opportunity to use him in certain games or certain situations where his quality in terms of that striker position can be effective."

"I thought he did some really good work (against Walsall)."

 

 

I take it back. That definitely says Monk is going to play Reach as a striker at times. 
 

I’m not just going to instantly condemn them both though. Monk sees Reach in training every day. There must be a reason for trying Reach there. I would see Reach more as a striker though where he plays off a centre-forward rather than a centre-forward as I don’t think he has tge physical attributes to be a centre-forward. 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

23 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/adam-reach-best-position-swfc-18888614

 

Read the article and say he makes no reference to using him as a centre-forward.

 

I can see why some fans have a go at others for constantly jumping on Monk but equally, certain fans seem too eager to jump to his defence and try to justify his every move, even when it makes little or no sense. 

 

He literally makes no reference to using Reach as a centre forward. The journalist does, though.

 

I also listened to the interview these quotes are taken from, and what Monk 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.

 

He's basically saying that Reach will be used centrally more than he'll be used at wingback, but not as 'an out and out striker', and again only 'in certain games or certain situations'. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

He literally makes no reference to using Reach as a centre forward. The journalist does, though.

 

I also listened to the interview these quotes are taken from, and what Monk 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.

 

He's basically saying that Reach will be used centrally more than he'll be used at wingback, but not as 'an out and out striker', and again only 'in certain games or certain situations'. 

 

These are direct quotes from the article, are you saying he has been misquoted?

 

"He can move out wide, where he can do that job. But I spoke with him and we both agree that centrally is where he's going to be most effective.

But there's an opportunity to use him in certain games or certain situations where his quality in terms of that striker position can be effective."

"I thought he did some really good work (against Walsall)."

 

What really good work did he do against Walsall? What in the last 18 months makes you believe that a central position is his most effective?

 

As much as some will pick at Monk for anything, having a go at this seems more justifiable than trying to defend it.

[sage owl]

I've not been one for having a go at Monk but anyone who thinks that Reach " did some really good work " against Walsall . Is either deluded, lacking football knowledge or just plain lying. 

[royalowlisback]

1 minute ago, sage owl said:

I've not been one for having a go at Monk but anyone who thinks that Reach " did some really good work " against Walsall . Is either deluded, lacking football knowledge or just plain lying. 

Maybe he did a bit of grouting or something at Half-Time?

[Tarquin]

The best thing Reach could offer the team centrally is to shoot from outside the box, but his brain tells him that he should take just one more touch. Ergo he is living on a good season before last. Nice lad but no cigar. 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

4 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

These are direct quotes from the article, are you saying he has been misquoted?

 

"He can move out wide, where he can do that job. But I spoke with him and we both agree that centrally is where he's going to be most effective.

But there's an opportunity to use him in certain games or certain situations where his quality in terms of that striker position can be effective."

"I thought he did some really good work (against Walsall)."

 

What really good work did he do against Walsall? What in the last 18 months makes you believe that a central position is his most effective?

 

As much as some will pick at Monk for anything, having a go at this seems more justifiable than trying to defend it.

 

They've not quoted the bit where he says: 'I wouldn't say he's an out and out striker', no. We can only guess as to why.

 

Have a listen for yourself, if you like: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08qmwns

 

I don't believe Reach's best position is central, but I'm pretty sure Monk doesn't either: '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?' - the key phrase there being: 'with the system that we're using'.

 

It sounds as if Monk and Reach are both aware that he's most effective as a winger, but seeing as we're not going to be using wingers too often, we need to try something else with him.

 

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 where his defensive frailties will be more exposed.

 

Post lockdown, Reach featured for 191 out of a possible 810 minutes - unless his form improves, I imagine he'll continue to be used sparingly, but we're going to need every player in our squad at some point during the season.

 

Given that we don't play with wingers or wide midfielders, where would you play Reach?

[royalowlisback]

1 minute ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

They've not quoted the bit where he says: 'I wouldn't say he's an out and out striker', no. We can only guess as to why.

 

Have a listen for yourself, if you like: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08qmwns

 

I don't believe Reach's best position is central, but I'm pretty sure Monk doesn't either: '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?' - the key phrase there being: 'with the system that we're using'.

 

It sounds as if Monk and Reach are both aware that he's most effective as a winger, but seeing as we're not going to be using wingers too often, we need to try something else with him.

 

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 where his defensive frailties will be more exposed.

 

Post lockdown, Reach featured for 191 out of a possible 810 minutes - unless his form improves, I imagine he'll continue to be used sparingly, but we're going to need every player in our squad at some point during the season.

 

Given that we don't play with wingers or wide midfielders, where would you play Reach?

He competes with Penney for the left wing-back slot, until the formation changes, and he can then play left wing.

[flo]

He's a better striker than Jordan Rhodes so may as well play him there

[smhouston]

 

2 hours ago, oldishowl said:

Adam Reach was a good player when we signed him.

Since then all our managers , starting with Carlos who I remember playing Reach up front at Derby, have managed to ruin him and completely devalue him as an asset for the club.

Nice dig at Carlos, yet since DCs reign, he is arguably the only manager who has managed to get Reach producing. That could be said for many of our players

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 minute ago, royalowlisback said:

He competes with Penney for the left wing-back slot, until the formation changes, and he can then play left wing.

 

In theory, that sounds good.

 

Unfortunately, Reach's lack of defensive ability means he's not a great option at wingback.

 

If we do switch to a formation which uses wingers on occasion, then I'm sure Reach will be at the front of the queue. After all, as Monk made clear when discussing the option of using Reach centrally, he's only talking about 'certain games or certain situations'.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

They've not quoted the bit where he says: 'I wouldn't say he's an out and out striker', no. We can only guess as to why.

 

Have a listen for yourself, if you like: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08qmwns

 

I don't believe Reach's best position is central, but I'm pretty sure Monk doesn't either: '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?' - the key phrase there being: 'with the system that we're using'.

 

It sounds as if Monk and Reach are both aware that he's most effective as a winger, but seeing as we're not going to be using wingers too often, we need to try something else with him.

 

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 where his defensive frailties will be more exposed.

 

Post lockdown, Reach featured for 191 out of a possible 810 minutes - unless his form improves, I imagine he'll continue to be used sparingly, but we're going to need every player in our squad at some point during the season.

 

Given that we don't play with wingers or wide midfielders, where would you play Reach?

 

I'd play our players in the positions that suit them best rather than trying to shoehorn them into a formation. Harris is not best as wing-back, Reach is not best centrally, Palmer is not a wing-back. 

The formation that he turned to after the abysmal form from Christmas to March worked for about 2 or 3 games during the restart before we reverted to type and ended up with 8 points from 9 games and continued to leak goals.

 

Yes we have some new players but in terms of Kachunga, he has spent a lot of his career playing as a winger or wide in a front 3 so possibly another we will be trying to shoehorn in. Hopefully Brown will get to play in a role that suits him, it took Monk 70 minutes to put him in the right position in his first competitive game. 

 

I'll watch in hope rather than expectation that anything Monk is doing will bring any relative success.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

In theory, that sounds good.

 

Unfortunately, Reach's lack of defensive ability means he's not a great option at wingback.

 

If we do switch to a formation which uses wingers on occasion, then I'm sure Reach will be at the front of the queue. After all, as Monk made clear when discussing the option of using Reach centrally, he's only talking about 'certain games or certain situations'.

 

Can you explain the 'really good work' Reach produced against Walsall -  a certain game & situation - the first of the season in which Monk decided to play reach in that role and thinks it is something worth continuing with? The role in which Monk feels "will certainly be the most effective" for Reach.

[sonofbert2]

We’ve only played 2 games with Reach “up front” and I could see him quite easily fitting in behind a lead striker in a free role but we need 2 lead strikers, a quick one and a target man, for him to do that.