The Generic Not606 QPR World Cup Banter Thread
- Thread starter West London Willy
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
It must be off-putting though when the opposition are trying to suck you off.
Someone on 'Reddit' has done a 'where are they now' article regarding Italy's 1934 World Cup winning squad ...
You must log in or register to see images
Kane did nothing. His ‘movement’ was away from the danger area whenever we got the ball out wide. We had no central threat whilst he was on, and his goal was down to the keeper letting it go underneath him. Lingard also seemed to have the knack of running wherever the ball didnt go.
We really need to be far more solid, far more consistent, and offer far more threat going forward than we saw yesterday. Otherwise we won’t be getting out of the group.
On Kane I think that was intentional. You want him to mix it up to be hard to mark, especially in the first two games where they’re likely to pack the defence.
We’ll stumble through this group. I don’t think the Belgians will go far even if they beat us.
He made it difficult for his supply players to find him. Thats a big problem. We need a target man (which is the role he plays) who makes himself a target, not someone who makes himself scarce.
That’s one way of playing. Arguably a bit old-fashioned for this level. I’m glad we tried something and expect Kane’s role will vary by game.
I get you and I don’t think he did enough of that. Tunisia and Panama will want us lobbing balls at Kane. They won’t want Sterling/Alli/whoever running from deep. If it’s done right, Spain and others have shown how effective it can be.
"Running where the ball didn't go" is what it's all about mate. Making space for other players to exploit.
Lindgard and Sterling were excellent in that regard.
We don't play a "pump it up to a target man" game.
Unfortunately the thing lacking is a real creativity in midfield. A fit Wilshire or Lallana could have given us that.
I'd have liked him to have given Shelvey a chance. His long passing into channels could have exploited the pace we have in the team, which is probably our biggest asset.
If everybody ran where the ball didn’t go, we’d lose every game. Kane is supposed to be leading the line, and he did nothing of that yesterday. He’s slow, both in thought and in pace. He’s really not my choice for a line striker. The way we play, Defoe would be better. Heck, Charlie Austin would be better than what I saw yesterday from Kane. I cannot believe that in the back of one good season he’s now our best and only hope.
And if his job is making space (instead of wasting it) he’s most definitely not our best option, because he doesn’t have the speed or the brain to make the defenders second guess themselves.
? One good season? He’s scored 135 goals in the past 4 seasons. Any of the leading clubs in Europe would pay a fortune for him.
I think the player you would prefer is Andy Carroll. We tried him at the Euros in Ukraine/Poland, didn’t go well.
Quite enjoyed it - he's going around some of the host cities, taking in the grounds and some local culture. Spends a day with a Cossack rapper and his family who have a cellar full of home-brew vodka!!
During filming the Salisbury attack happened, which is interesting in itself, although he doesn't get caught up in any problems.
Part 2 on next week.
No, not Carroll. We have strikers who know how to lead a line. Kane doesn’t. And when we play with him as a lone striker, that means we don’t HAVE a line.