JANUARY WINDOW THREAD | Page 23 | Vital Football

JANUARY WINDOW THREAD

WN2 said:
I hope not as that would mean we are giving game time to another team’s 22 year old rather than our own 20 year old top prospect.
I hope this lad makes me eat my words but any minutes he gets at the expense of Chris Sze might just be lost minutes. This season will rapidly fizzle out in February once we have gained enough points to not be looking over our shoulders and therefore, game time for our own youngsters is surely a must.
Anyway, if he’s picked, he’ll be getting my full backing. I just don’t understand the logic.
Like others have said, thanks for feedback from last night. Top stuff!
Click to expand...

The thing that gets me about this deal, (if we have brought him in to be a striker) is our inability to hold the ball up front has been one of our biggest issues all season. So if we were going to sign a striker that would surely be the attribute we'd be looking for most and it doesn't look like Kelman is that type.

That's not to say he can't be a good player in his own right but he isn't likely to solve the issue we have in giving us someone who can get us playing higher up the pitch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WN2
king_dezeeuw06 said:
The thing that gets me about this deal, (if we have brought him in to be a striker) is our inability to hold the ball up front has been one of our biggest issues all season. So if we were going to sign a striker that would surely be the attribute we'd be looking for most and it doesn't look like Kelman is that type.

That's not to say he can't be a good player in his own right but he isn't likely to solve the issue we have in giving us someone who can get us playing higher up the pitch.
Click to expand...
But Lang wasn't in there for that role ... Wyke and Magennis (and at times ) Humphrys were. Lang was No 10, where Thelo's now playing ... sometimes ok, sometimes not.

I see the logic re the Sze comments, but let's give this lad a chance.
 
Frank Bullitt said:
Kelman must be fuckin' desperate if he wants to play for Tinkerbell for a few months ffs.

And the biggest piss take of all he said 'Humphrys sold the club to him and Maloney plavs some good stuff'

Has Humphrys got him to sign so he can piss off?
Click to expand...
YOU REALLY ARE A PIECE OF WORK FRANK
 
moonay said:
But Lang wasn't in there for that role ... Wyke and Magennis (and at times ) Humphrys were. Lang was No 10, where Thelo's now playing ... sometimes ok, sometimes not.

I see the logic re the Sze comments, but let's give this lad a chance.
Click to expand...

I just read Maloney saying he sees Kelman as a no9. So doesnt seem like he's going to play the role Lang did.

It seems like Kelman is more the type of striker who'd be better playing off a target man, the issue is our 2 strikers struggle playing that role and we only tend to play 1 up front anyway.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
I just read Maloney saying he sees Kelman as a no9. So doesnt seem like he's going to play the role Lang did.

It seems like Kelman is more the type of striker who'd be better playing off a target man, the issue is our 2 strikers struggle playing that role and we only tend to play 1 up front anyway.
Click to expand...
Not read that what Maloney's said, but would agree with your second point.
 
Just read that Maloney comment, "different profile to our other No 9s", which at the very least suggests he'd play him.in a different way ... maybe still alongside a No 10?
 
Bloody hell, sounds like the lad is gonna be running up his own arse, he'll have enough on his plate on his debut once Maloney starts with his game plan and tactics.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
The issue is the transfer embargo pretty much limits our recruitment exclusively to loans, we can only play 5 of them and Goode is one of 7.

We are undeniably weaker in other areas than centre back with us having 4 now Kerr is fit plus Clare and Chambers have also been used there.

Kerr was superb for us in the past and brings the type of leadership, extra physicality and experience as Goode. We aren’t likely to play both at once but if we play Goode it forces us to drop another loanee who may otherwise have played while Kerr avoids that.

An injury free Goode may be useful in our side and if we hadn't already maxed our loans or he was free then no issue. But unfortunately that's not the position we find ourselves. It's a juggling act trying to make the most of the limitations we have on the squad.
Click to expand...
You say we are weaker in other areas than centre back, I somehow do not think Stevenage's players or management would agree with you on that claim.

As for playing the loan players, it's highly unlikely that we will see much of Kell Watts except in emergency, but he has been a little disappointing this season, that probably leaves a straight choice between Morrison and Goode in the matchday squad, Sessegnon is the utility player in the squad who can fit into the full back, central defence or midfield rolls, so essential to cover those areas.

I fully agree with you that there are other areas we need to recruit far more, but we all know the restrictions that are preventing us doing so. I think Maloney's reasoning is strengthen the defence to cut out the 'soft' goals we concede, which are mainly from errors and being out muscled, with that he believes we just have enough to get us a few goals and some points board so we don't have any relegation worries, which was always his brief this season.

​

 
moonay said:
Not read that what Maloney's said, but would agree with your second point.
Click to expand...

Maloney said 'He is a different profile to our other number 9s, and will add a new dynamic'

He's clearly a different type of striker which isn't a bad thing in general and if we had a good target man already it would be a very good thing. But there lies the issue.

Whoever we've tried up front this season Wyke, Magennis, Humphrys, even Sze and Aasgaard at points or whatever tactics or system we've generally had the same struggled that the central striker is bullied and loses the ball constantly. So I'd have thought if we were after a striker addressing that weakness would've been the priority.

Kelman might be a good player if we can get the ball to his feet facing goal but in our system we generally play one up front up front with their back to goal. On paper he doesn't seem like that's his natural game but that is most likely the role he'll end up in.
 
St. Column Major said:
You say we are weaker in other areas than centre back, I somehow do not think Stevenage's players or management would agree with you on that claim.

As for playing the loan players, it's highly unlikely that we will see much of Kell Watts except in emergency, but he has been a little disappointing this season, that probably leaves a straight choice between Morrison and Goode in the matchday squad, Sessegnon is the utility player in the squad who can fit into the full back, central defence or midfield rolls, so essential to cover those areas.

I fully agree with you that there are other areas we need to recruit far more, but we all know the restrictions that are preventing us doing so. I think Maloney's reasoning is strengthen the defence to cut out the 'soft' goals we concede, which are mainly from errors and being out muscled, with that he believes we just have enough to get us a few goals and some points board so we don't have any relegation worries, which was always his brief this season.

​

Click to expand...

As I said no issue with Goode if we didn't have the loan issue. But for me under the circumstances where you can't have everything, using Kerr then adding a more physical def mid would probably give us more overall strength than if we played Goode with our current central mid options. We've been crying out for a midfield enforcer type all season more than anything. If we could start to break up more in midfield the defence wouldn't be so over worked, but unfortunately we've been very soft in the middle of the park. I can't see us sign any more loans now.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
Maloney said 'He is a different profile to our other number 9s, and will add a new dynamic'

He's clearly a different type of striker which isn't a bad thing in general and if we had a good target man already it would be a very good thing. But there lies the issue.

Whoever we've tried up front this season Wyke, Magennis, Humphrys, even Sze and Aasgaard at points or whatever tactics or system we've generally had the same struggled that the central striker is bullied and loses the ball constantly. So I'd have thought if we were after a striker addressing that weakness would've been the priority.

Kelman might be a good player if we can get the ball to his feet facing goal but in our system we generally play one up front up front with their back to goal. On paper he doesn't seem like that's his natural game but that is most likely the role he'll end up in.
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree more. You provided the answer yourself, quoting the same comments as I did ... " a different profile to our other No 9s etc ".

Surely that suggests he'll be used in a different way to Wyke or Magennis.
 
moonay said:
I couldn't disagree more. You provided the answer yourself, quoting the same comments as I did ... " a different profile to our other No 9s etc ".

Surely that suggests he'll be used in a different way to Wyke or Magennis.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is we play 1 up top and as a lone striker you inevitably end up back to goal more often than not battling for the ball with a centre half who sticks to you and is man handling all game.

Im sure Kelman brings different attributes to Wyke and Magennis, like more pace, movement, dribbling skills etc. But so does Humphrys and when he has been tried up front he struggles to fight off defenders and get the ball facing goal to show the different dynamics he's got.

I think Maloney probably wants to play football so fluid that you don't need to battle off centre halves at all but that is really hard to do in L1.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
Maloney said 'He is a different profile to our other number 9s, and will add a new dynamic'

He's clearly a different type of striker which isn't a bad thing in general and if we had a good target man already it would be a very good thing. But there lies the issue.

Whoever we've tried up front this season Wyke, Magennis, Humphrys, even Sze and Aasgaard at points or whatever tactics or system we've generally had the same struggled that the central striker is bullied and loses the ball constantly. So I'd have thought if we were after a striker addressing that weakness would've been the priority.

Kelman might be a good player if we can get the ball to his feet facing goal but in our system we generally play one up front up front with their back to goal. On paper he doesn't seem like that's his natural game but that is most likely the role he'll end up in.
Click to expand...
How many times this season have you seen us play well knocking the ball up to a target man with their back to goal, him holding it up or laying the ball off and do it competently ? Do you not think that is an outdated concept.
Man City (sorry to use them) among many other teams don't play with any form of target man, Haaland might be a 'big un', but he is not that type of player you want and it certainly isn't his game.

Running and playing through defenders with pace, movement and passing along the floor must be our goal, especially in a league full of defensive 'brutes' many lacking any pace or turning speed, that is the way forward and probably what Maloney is trying to do.

We didn't play with a 'target man' when Maloney played in a front three under Martinez, I suggest that style and ethos is what he is trying to achieve now.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
I think the issue is we play 1 up top and as a lone striker you inevitably end up back to goal more often than not battling for the ball with a centre half who sticks to you and is man handling all game.

Im sure Kelman brings different attributes to Wyke and Magennis, like more pace, movement, dribbling skills etc. But so does Humphrys and when he has been tried up front he struggles to fight off defenders and get the ball facing goal to show the different dynamics he's got.

I think Maloney probably wants to play football so fluid that you don't need to battle off centre halves at all but that is really hard to do in L1.
Click to expand...
Again, I disagree. Though we efffectively played ( though some would argue !) a one up top system, it's really 4-2-3-1. meaning that the central one of the 3 is the one supporting the main striker.

Humphrys has (for whatever reason ) lost his mojo ... Let's see what Kelman brings.
 
Kelman is one of those strange signings in which his goal record doesn't look like he'll do any better than throwing in one of our youth. Could be a deep laying forward and therefore that's why he doesn't score that much.

Happy for him to bang in a hat trick next game and prove me wrong.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
I just read Maloney saying he sees Kelman as a no9. So doesnt seem like he's going to play the role Lang did.

It seems like Kelman is more the type of striker who'd be better playing off a target man, the issue is our 2 strikers struggle playing that role and we only tend to play 1 up front anyway.
Click to expand...
Baloney may see him as our new Will Grigg. (May)
 
St. Column Major said:
How many times this season have you seen us play well knocking the ball up to a target man with their back to goal, him holding it up or laying the ball off and do it competently ? Do you not think that is an outdated concept.
Man City (sorry to use them) among many other teams don't play with any form of target man, Haaland might be a 'big un', but he is not that type of player you want and it certainly isn't his game.

Running and playing through defenders with pace, movement and passing along the floor must be our goal, especially in a league full of defensive 'brutes' many lacking any pace or turning speed, that is the way forward and probably what Maloney is trying to do.

We didn't play with a 'target man' when Maloney played in a front three under Martinez, I suggest that style and ethos is what he is trying to achieve now.
Click to expand...
A cure for insomnia is what he is trying to achieve now and it's working really well.
 
St. Column Major said:
How many times this season have you seen us play well knocking the ball up to a target man with their back to goal, him holding it up or laying the ball off and do it competently ? Do you not think that is an outdated concept.
Man City (sorry to use them) among many other teams don't play with any form of target man, Haaland might be a 'big un', but he is not that type of player you want and it certainly isn't his game.

Running and playing through defenders with pace, movement and passing along the floor must be our goal, especially in a league full of defensive 'brutes' many lacking any pace or turning speed, that is the way forward and probably what Maloney is trying to do.

We didn't play with a 'target man' when Maloney played in a front three under Martinez, I suggest that style and ethos is what he is trying to achieve now.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand what i mean when i am talking about hold up play. Im not saying you kick it long every time to a 6'5 monster wins flick ons is the only way to play.

During Martinez best spells we were keeping the ball on the deck and had DiSanto and Kone who werent particularly strong in winning headers against centre halves if we went long. But they were big strong lads who you could play the ball into their feet and chest and they could hold the ball long enough for your midfielders to push up the pitch to lay it off to.

Arsenal and United used to have Van Persie and Berbatov who again weren't going to win you many aerial duels and they weren't playing long to them but they were still the focal point, strong enough to play with their back to the goal and hold of defenders and lay it off when the balls were played into them - which allowed the team to quickly push higher up the pitch. Their hold up play was often overlooked due to their other qualities but it was a big part of their success.

In L1 defenders get away with murder, so as a 1 up front striker it's very difficult to avoid having to battle as they just stick to you and grapple even if the striker is trying to avoid it. You don't have to beat them in the air but you've got to be strong enough to not get pushed off the ball.

Our best performances this season have largely coincided with the games where our striker held the ball well and our worst performances have largely came when they've been bullied and the ball never stuck. That was the same as it was with Martinez, if your striker can't hold the ball you just can't get the rest of the team up the pitch very effectively.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.