I am very confused by what is going on in that position. Worked with Hill there yesterday, because Bolton play very narrow. As for his assist, who fed him the monkey glands - great stuff. But Hill himself is not happy there and after the match Harold said he was a CB. I think H will play Hill a lot because of the 'spirit' factor. We know H does not have any more time for Traore's endless injuries, and I don't blame him. Clear he will go if anyone will have him. Yun? What's going on? Harold seems to have gone off him, though by all reports he has been solid to date. And why have both Traore and Yun on the bench yesterday? I'm beginning to think we may be in the market for another LB.
Yun was suspect defensively against Huddersfield - he was partially responsible for their goal. Would like to see us persevere with him, though, and he should start against Swindon, in my opinion. As for Traore, wouldn't mind seeing him as an attacking sub more often. His pace worried BW and he got into a couple of good positions.
I think with Traore its more than just the injuries, sure he has ability and decent pace but he is so dozy it's painful, he switches off far to easily and that can cost us dearly. I know a lot of people are saying Suk Yun should be first choice but I'm not sure we have seen enough of him to be saying things like that, similar to those saying Hitchcock should be played ahead of Bobby based solely on 7 minutes and a tap in. I'm sure there will be a transfer development in the LB position before the window closes.
Yun covered centre/left back. Could replace Hill or, if either of the CBs went of, Hill would move in and Yun would come on as LB. Traore left/right midfield. Not much cover here with Hoilett out. Replaced SWP. Might have replaced O'Neill with SWP switching sides.
Not anymore................ QPR boss rules out move for Leicester defender By Paul Warburton Aug 23 2013 QPR have poured cold water on a move for Paul Konchesky. The former Fulham left-back has been linked with a move from Leicester to either Brighton or Rangers, but Rs boss Harry Redknapp is not so sure. Konchesky is understood to be on big money with the Foxes, especially after his move there from Liverpool, and despite a connection to the Hoops boss from way back, Redknapp is keen to look elsewhere. He said: “Paul Konchesky’s a good player and I’ve known him since he was about 12 at West Ham, but at the moment we’re not really looking in that area. “If Armand Traore stays fit then that’s got to be a help.” Read more: Fulham Chronicle http://www.fulhamchronicle.co.uk/london-qpr/2013/08/23/82029-33763923/?#ixzz2d01cKwY0 I know I've said it before, but MK Dons left back Dean Lewington seems like the 'right sort' of player. His always impressed me when I've seen him play.
Hill can put in a shift and is solid at the position. It worries me what will happen when he has to face a pacy skillful winger as he will get shown up. Traore has always seemed to me to be a better fit as a left midfielder than as a defender. He has pace to burn and his general doziness wont be punished as often in that position. Yun I simply haven't seen enough of. He looked good in preseason and against Huddersfield but is a bit questionable in defence and is still adjusting to the English game. We've got 3 perfectly capable left backs, its up to Redknapp to decide which one gives him the best chance to win the game.
I think it's pretty clear tbh. A lot of teams in the Championship are full of giants. Bolton were no different yesterday. Hill was picked for his aerial ability, especially from opposing dead ball deliveries. As it happens, Clint played really well with the ball at his feet too!
Yun is a TF signing, Redknapp doesnt want to play him because of that. He played him when he had no other choice in the hope he could drop him after poor performances. Yun then screwed that up by playing well and was wrongly dropped. Hill will get murdered by a team who puts a pacy winger on him and thats why Yun should play and Hill should battle with Dunne for the 2nd slot alongside Onuoha.
Reckon we could play 3 at the back for the land of the giants games Col? Ned is quick enough to cover the pensioners, would give us numbers in the middle to get forward. Oops, silly me, we play 4-4-2 against everyone. Well it worked yesterday, lets keep it going.
Oh dear. All this conspiracy stuff is nonsense. Against Huddersfield Yun was defensively suspect - was at fault for their goal and caught out of position a few times; he's very much a work in progress and HR's trying to get us out of the division. He was not wrongly dropped: two clean sheets are testimony enough to that. Besides, how are any of us expected to know - as you seem to do - what the next selection will be?
Hill was great yesterday, I think his great, but is not our full time left back, you need pace in the backs and I'm afraid he doesn't have it, him and Dunne should be rotating at CD to make sure they stay fresh. Traore just doesn't learn, lots of potential but doesn't follow the basics of defending and you see the same basic mistakes occur time and time again, which is strange as it's low level training for a defender. For me he's had his chance, shame because he has the ability. Yun we haven't seen enough off to make a complete decision, he has looked good in spells and I think should be our first choice at the moment and given the opportunity to gain confidence and learn from his mistakes, obviously we don't see them in training though.
I like 3 at the back mate, but it's a notoriously difficult system for players to just switch to. It needs to be in place all the time and practised over and over again!! I don't like 4-4-2, but Harry loves his 2 wide men so looks like we're stuck with it. Mind you........ain't going so bad eh?
Trouble is, we are playing 442 with 1 wide man on the wrong side who always cuts in and a CM on the other side. Theres no width or crossing at all.
Did you watch the game yesterday Flyer? It was our width that undid them. And we must have crossed in about 100 balls - albeit with little effect with Austin and Johnson winning nothing in the air against that giant of a center back. You do come out with some strange opinions Flyer.
Yesterdays wasnt a cross, it was a pass, big difference. Same goes for at least one of the other games, both were passes from inside the area. Ironically the one cross for a goal I can remember was from Yun which backs up my point even further.
A cross is a type of pass from the wing to centre. The speed and trajectory of the ball are additional factors, not the defining ones. Those 3 goals were from 3 different (though the 2nd and 3rd were similar) types of cross - that the latter two weren't lofted in the from the wing doesn't change that.
You must be on a wind up, no one can believe that. A cross comes from outside the width of the penalty area and a pass from inside it.
