I like your optimism We must surely also be on for some kind of record for playing the most ten man teams in one season
I go back to my point before the game. Why the hell start Montero on the bench? He generally takes 10-15 minutes to get into a game and start to work his full back out - and to be honest, the fact that I don't remember Wayne even once taking on their RB means that the RB would have been as fresh mentally and physically as he could've been when Montero was introduced. Wayne is almost finished as a Swansea player. He offers no attacking threat at all any more, and keeping the ball is not enough to start in the Premier League as a winger. In 30 minutes, Jeff had more attacking moments and one-on-one situations than Routledge had all game, and this is against a Watford side who were shutting up shop during the last 30 minutes. Alright, Montero's crossing was absolutely woeful today, but if you give a guy 30 minutes on a small pitch against a team with everyone back. you're asking a lot. He must play from the start next game. The one thing you can guarantee with Montero on from the start is that their RB will be working his socks off for the length of time that Jeff is on the pitch. He might win the battle or lose the battle, but he'll try his hardest to create chances. Wayne does not offer that. Additionally, Jeff forces the whole opposition back - they'll double team him and drop deeper to combat his acceleration, creating more space in the middle. It's beyond my comprehension that Monk could leave a fit Jefferson Montero on the bench. Ludicrous. My only other take on the matter is that IF we have to play Routledge for whatever reason, it has to be Franck Tabanou playing behind him. Franck loves overlapping his winger and has a mean cross on him. With Routledge going backwards/sideways every time he received the ball and Taylor's inability to overlap meaningfully or put in a decent cross of any kind, it would make sense to start Franck behind Routledge so that we at least have a decent overlapping/crossing option - something that with Eder, Gomis and Ayew in the box we missed tremendously in the last 10 minutes. Overall though, everyone was **** today. I'm only picking out Routledge because he's been **** for a length of time - it was a surprise to see Jonjo, Gylfi, Cork and Ayew so slow and sloppy in possession. We didn't seem up for the fight and played as if we expected Watford's level to drop off and then we'd win. Well they didn't. So we have to worry about ourselves in the future and play 100% every game - if we do that we are a very, very good side in this league.
Why is it always a good time to play the Swans after an international break? Shelvey and Fernandez need their wages docked this week............. Funny old season this one is shaping up to be, Chelski got creamed by Bobby brown shoes boys......
Was Cork one of the few players who had not been on international duty? Why take him off, lots of tired players playing sloppy football. Very early on for Edgar but doesn't to seem to provide as much movement as hoped. Think we needed someone to provide some ball from right, particularly at the end. Ayew not that sort of player.
We have played two teams away Sunderland and Watford that we should have put to the sword and have failed dismally. Anyone who has followed the Swans for as long as I have knows this is par for the course and nothing to get overly concerned about.
Routs is one of our steady good players, what are you talking about..? We will lose more games against lesser gifted teams than watford this season thats for sure. Its no good blaming anyone as that's the nature of football, You have a bad day at the office for whatever reason against a team at the bottom who has managed to have their best game of the season. Ill take one loss in four any day of the week. Our defence was again good with conceding just one goal where our midfield and forwards had a bad day when nothing worked......
Won't argue with you as you see what you see. But I challenge you to watch the game back and find me 5 instances where Routledge worked the full back. I'm genuinely struggling to remember one. The only reason why I've picked him out is because he's been well below par for a long time now. It's no good being "steady" in the Premier League. Steady isn't good enough. He's been incredible for us over the years he's been with us, I won't deny it, and I won't stand in the way of people defending him because he should have the respect of all of our fans. To be honest, it hurts me to see him performing so badly - it's hard to understand why he can't beat a man any more. It's hard for me to see him play the ball backwards and sideways without even squaring up the man in front of him. It's sad to see, but the guy is struggling to do his job at this level now, and this level has no place for sentiment. If Montero is fit, he has to start. It was foolish to start Routledge ahead of him, and Routledge did nothing today to justify why he was picked to start.
Why is Routs picked most weeks if he is that bad....i see him as a steady reliable player in his position, You cant get everything right, no player can at the end of the day and things were made worst by most of the midfield and strikers having a bad day. We will get back to the training field next week and get back on track until the next international break where our top players will be asked to play a different way.....
Ok here's my problem. Against Manu Monk made a mistake by starting routs on the left, ultimately taking our left flank out of the game. However he rectified this mistake by taking routs off and bringing Ki on. This has an instant impact and we banged in 2 goals, winning the game. Whether we won that game or not, I would have had no problem with Monk making that mistake. What I do have a problem with though is making that exact same mistake the very next game. What made him think that by starting the same failed lineup that the outcome would suddenly be different? People make mistakes, I can accept that. But after rectifying that mistake then going on to make the same one again, that is unforgivable. Monk deserves praise for the brilliant start we have had, but he also deserves criticism as his tactical **** up cost us 3 points today. The players may have been gash, but for me we were set up completely wrong today, the blame goes to the manager.
He's not woeful by any means. But he's stopped taking risks - something that as a winger you have to do. He doesn't take people on anymore. Take a player on and win a throw. Take a player on and win a corner. Take a player on and win an attacking free kick. Take a player on and lose the ball, but keep your head up, keep working and tiring the defender out and go again next time. Not receive the ball and give it back to Neil Taylor, or give it sideways to Jack Cork. It's too safe and stifles us time after time after time. I can remember the good ol' days of Routledge being our most skillful and gifted player, with a turn of acceleration and the ability to glide past or skill his way past players. He hasn't done that for 18 months (perhaps the last time I remember him doing that was at Old Trafford when we beat United in the FA Cup - that skill, acceleration and floated cross for Bony was what we see from Montero these days). There must be a reason why he can't replicate that now - the most obvious one being age. We haven't got anyone else for left wing other than Jeff and Wayne, and the main point I'm making is that if both are fit, I see absolutely no reason to pick Wayne over Jeff. Montero has been one of the standout players in the entire division - so to not start him was a huge mistake from Monk for me. I fully agree that the whole team was poor today. While the defence didn't concede more than one, our passing throughout the entire team was terrible for the duration of the match and we lost the majority of 50/50s all over the pitch. The international break certainly wouldn't have helped anyone, and I understand that - sometimes having so many internationals isn't such a good thing with the amount of travelling involved. As already mentioned, I'm picking out Routledge because he's been below his usual standard in mine and many peoples' eyes for 12-18 months now. The strikers and midfield, perhaps bar Gylfi, have been fantastic for quite a while and we'll have to move on and hope that they return to form next game. It seems that I've been waiting for Routledge to return to form for an absolute age.
Routs would not get into my starting 11, he offers nothing these days, and slows our offensive game right down, he needs moving on..........
I have no sentiment, Routledge IS woeful and as Phil said should be on the bench at best. Monk deserves a kick up the arse for playing him ahead of Montero, once again Monks lack of tactical nous comes to the forefront.
It seems Routs is taking the brunt of things again so there must be something in it ? Maybe hes just not good enough anymore ? just coasting making the safe plays to keep under the radar which is not working for him anymore. Like Dyer he needs to take some chances and bust a gut to stand out even if it means taking chances that could make him look bad and get subbed which is happening a lot any way ? If it pays off he will gain confidence for himself and the fans in his ability again ?
I think Routledge is just supremely unlucky that we have one of the current best left wingers in the division in Montero. We now compare everything he does to Montero, and I think he's feeling the pressure to live up to it. If we didn't have Montero, we'd probably still be happy with Routledge and Dyer - but Montero has taken our wing-play up to the next level - and it's up to our current wingers to catch up or move on. Eventually our scouts are going to find another winger in the Montero mould (whether it be a new signing or Barrow/Gorre stepping up to the plate), and if Routledge hasn't caught up by then, he'll be a squad player looking for a loan for game-time just like Dyer. It's just the way football works.
kidderz I said last season that Dyer and Routledge were both crap, was never happy with either, one has moved on, time for the other imo
