It seems that Tom's influence is decreasing with each game that passes. Is this just a dip in form or have teams changed their game to neutralise his threat? Just wondering like!
I honestly forgot he was on the pitch last night until he went in goal He plays well when teams give us a bit of space and he gets time on the ball. Close us down, get in our faces, he goes completely missing in a scrap. Needs to play with more intensity, he's not mobile so needs to use that size of his and start playing ugly when a game gets rough.
He was fine last night, pinpointed Elmo and Rosey numerous times with lovely balls. Had a cracking free kick saved from almost the half-way line. Not sure what more you want him to do.
I guess the basic premise is that he's not playing as well now as he was towards the start of the season, or at least not having the same influence in midfield. If you don't accept that well then that's a matter of opinion and only time will tell. If you accept he's not so influential now as he was well then my answer is I want him to play as good as before. That brings us back to the original question, is it a dip in form or is it as some have suggested he is not able to dominate when the opposition pay him a little bit more attention by changing their game. BTW PLT you can't answer an either or question with no unless of course you're suggesting that he's playing just as well now as ever!
Beginning to feel like a stuck record on my current theory but I think he has been worse, as several others have , since we went to 3-5-2. I know he always tends to play a little deep but as part of the a central 3 in a 5 man midfield he just seems to play so deep, thinking Livermore and AN other will do the forward movement. He was doing perfectly well as a 4--4-2 earlier in the season and I think getting into more influential positions. And we played 4-4- 2 against Fulham didn't we? I think last night Palace must have been thinking 'I don't mind him passing it nicely in front of his own back three as it's not hurting us'
It is either 1. he is getting worse or 2. the other players in our team are getting better, so that Thud isn't standing out against their mediocrity.
Exactly my point on the Brady thread. We lack any sort of penetration in a 352. We need a set of decent wingers (Elmo and Brady) supported by a pair of decent full backs (Rosie and Figgy) to turn opposition defence. We'd still get the balls into the box, but more defenders would be pulled out wide dealing with the wingers\fullbacks meaning more space for the strikers in the box.
This. People need tactical reasons to blame when we lose. We played well and didn't deserve to lose. We had more chances and more possession. They created one chance with two lucky bounces and scored. We were extremely unlucky. No use blaming Huddlestone or Bruce. I was responding to the thread title "Have they figured out Thud?" to which my answer is no. See above for further details.
He just doesn't seem to control some games like Norwich and Palace we needed Tom to get on the ball and control the game (Dare I say, like Bullard did when fit) Bullard was brilliant at it, I think the whole side our out of form at the minute a big win on Saturday will hopefully turn things around.
Why do you think any single player needs "figuring out"? Seems a strange question. All managers do homework on all teams they're playing and they play their teams accordingly. We did a job on Suarez when we beat them, and most teams know who on the other side is the key danger. Sometimes you cope with that, other times you don't. Its sorta the joy of football. Singling out Thudd seems silly.
Just don't understand the notion that because he's not as influential that he's somehow not playing well. You can play well and just not have an impact if the rest of the team isn't playing well enough, or the other team is defending well.
The one thing I will say is him taking corners is kind of pointless. Can't recall a single time we've actually had a decent corner this season.
I'd rather Elmo or Boyd take them and have Thudd sat on the edge of the box to lash in a rebound. Couple of times it fell to Jake and he just couldn't get in the right position to get a shot off quick enough.
As much as I think he's great, his shooting has been poor - even his goal wasn't great. Jake's shooting from deep has been better I think.
Jake was decidedly average last night, I must say. Should have taken the shot on when he had the angle rather than running to the byline for Rosenior.
Sorry, I didn't mean Jake's been great at shooting from deep either, just better than Tom's. Our shooting from deep is quite poor. Koren probably remains our best, not that he seems to take many on these days.
