| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? 09:01 - Apr 11 with 1001 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
Didn't know any team news until the players were out on the pitch as I was driving up, so haven't seen any social media or anything about why Woolfy was dropped. Was a bit of a surprise. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |  |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:07 - Apr 11 with 960 views | pointofblue |
Rested, I assume. He's looked one of the sharper players of late (Burgess too) so I'm not sure if he's been ill. As much as he's maligned on here, I think we missed him in terms of getting the ball forward from the back. |  |
| |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:12 - Apr 11 with 922 views | portmanking |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:07 - Apr 11 by pointofblue |
Rested, I assume. He's looked one of the sharper players of late (Burgess too) so I'm not sure if he's been ill. As much as he's maligned on here, I think we missed him in terms of getting the ball forward from the back. |
Laid back though he may be, Woolfie definitely moves the ball quicker and sharper than Edmundson. George took the safe option almost every time last night, which played right into Watford's hands. Too often he'd dally on the ball and miss the spare man and allow Watford to get set. | | | |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:28 - Apr 11 with 845 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:12 - Apr 11 by portmanking |
Laid back though he may be, Woolfie definitely moves the ball quicker and sharper than Edmundson. George took the safe option almost every time last night, which played right into Watford's hands. Too often he'd dally on the ball and miss the spare man and allow Watford to get set. |
Yeah. I was always of the option that Edmundson was a ball playing centre half. That was often the argument used last season by some to put him in the team ahead of Burgess. But I was disappointed with his distribution last night. He also looked a bit nervy at times.
Woolf, despite looking a little too laid back at times, is by far our best option alongside Burgess. |  |
| |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:34 - Apr 11 with 807 views | _clive_baker_ |
I thought Edmundson was really good last night. He's a real leader on the pitch, I love the way he high fives and fist pumps every defensive contribution, he really organises the defence well and I noticed he was very vocal towards Clarke, which positionally I do think he needs at times and proved effective last night at keeping him honest. We were pretty tight defensively I thought, didn't really give a lot away against a dangerous attacking side, other than a few speculative long range efforts. |  | | |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:36 - Apr 11 with 782 views | pointofblue |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:12 - Apr 11 by portmanking |
Laid back though he may be, Woolfie definitely moves the ball quicker and sharper than Edmundson. George took the safe option almost every time last night, which played right into Watford's hands. Too often he'd dally on the ball and miss the spare man and allow Watford to get set. |
And his runs forward as well. If he sees a gap he takes the opportunity and pushes us up the field. He's the only centre back on our books who does that. Tuanzebe, when played there, Edmundson and Burgess are far more traditional. | |
| |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:50 - Apr 11 with 733 views | pointofblue |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:34 - Apr 11 by _clive_baker_ |
I thought Edmundson was really good last night. He's a real leader on the pitch, I love the way he high fives and fist pumps every defensive contribution, he really organises the defence well and I noticed he was very vocal towards Clarke, which positionally I do think he needs at times and proved effective last night at keeping him honest. We were pretty tight defensively I thought, didn't really give a lot away against a dangerous attacking side, other than a few speculative long range efforts. |
I do wonder if that was part of the reason why Edmundson came in - because he perhaps is slightly more solid than Woolfenden and offers more support to Clarke. However, it's easy to be defensively solid when the opposition aren't making much effort to attack.
But what we may have gained in defence I do think we lost in attack. | |
| |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:58 - Apr 11 with 674 views | _clive_baker_ |
| Was Woolfy just rested/had a bit of the illness? on 09:50 - Apr 11 by pointofblue |
I do wonder if that was part of the reason why Edmundson came in - because he perhaps is slightly more solid than Woolfenden and offers more support to Clarke. However, it's easy to be defensively solid when the opposition aren't making much effort to attack.
But what we may have gained in defence I do think we lost in attack. |
I think that's probably true, we did compromise our ball playing ability from the back somewhat, but I also think we were perhaps tighter as a result. Watford are so quick and athletic that they can be frightening going forward, we saw it at their place when Williams got absolutely ripped apart on the right hand side and taken off at half time. Edmundson is a really good organiser, I thought he did a good job of keeping Clarke on his toes. Felt like a more pragmatic defensive approach perhaps.
We were perhaps a Moore header away from what would've been seen as a perfect night. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
