Jovon Makama | Page 3 | Vital Football

Jovon Makama

JohnGee said:
Possibly a little unfair assessment on Kendall, I don't think he has been given the opportunities that Makama has had, in contrast he was signed and shipped out as soon as possible, so the comparison between Makama and Kendall is a bit like apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

That was almost my point....Kendall we don't know for sure what would happen (although we may have a view)...

We do know Makama would at least do moderately well because he has...
 
nlondonimp said:
fyi. Shaw quote from post match: ‘I only know him (Chris Cohen) because i am a forest fan’
they have not worked together as players or coaches. shaw also quoted as saying it is a great move by the club, so the club are responsible for bringing Cohen in, not shaw.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we have hired the assistant manager before we have hired the manager, possibly?
 
Ruskingtony said:
Could radio Lincs loan Hortin out to radio Shetland if there is one?
Click to expand...
60 North is Shetland based & on TuneIn, Airable and other streaming services)
It‘s a great radio station and a long way north of Lincoln.
I guess it’s been a long and exciting week for Hortin.
On a serious note, does anyone know how Thommo is?
 
Makama definitely needs a loan at a decent standard, maybe at the Drogs this summer.

Whether he makes it though is probably in his own hands. He has undoubted skill on the ball, but his pressing is just not good. Ten years ago a central forward could amble towards in-possession defenders, but not in today's game when most teams press high.

I know he has a languid style of running, but he shows too little desire to stop the opposition defenders from passing the ball. This is most likely what MK had in mind when he criticised Makama alongside Danny and TJ.

He has the height. He has decent body strength. He has good close control. At his age, he must have decent fitness. But in todays game he must put the effort in to close down opposition defenders, or he just will not make it unfortunately,
 
Apparantly not MK's type, hope when called back he deserves a run same as other players, or was he a JG buy that MK did'nt like. If TS gets the job at least he knows JG, having played for him at Cambridge, so hopefully things can work out.
Come on Boys
 
Jules said:
No, it's opinion. Sorry to disappoint you...
Click to expand...

No, fill your boots, I'm not disappointed.

What would disappoint me is knowing that we had included a player who has just come back off 2 injuries in our squad when hes not fit to play.

The FACT that he was on the bench tells you he is fit and available to come on if required.

You don't honestly think we included a player on the bench who wouldn't be able to come if required do you??
 
To save you all from playing Miss Marple and to counter some disappointing comments, I will explain the strategy behind this.

Tom elected to put 2 CFs (JM & JV) on the bench so he could play with a front two under various pre-empted/considered scenarios.

Going into the game, we all knew JV was load-compromised, and anything above 30 minutes had increased risk, but under the most likely scenarios, this was enough to warrant a spot in the 18.

Knowing a second ‘half’ is somewhere IRO 49-58 minutes, the enforced change with only 5 minutes on the clock (when RH was injured), Tom opted (rightly IMO) to use JM as his like-for-like change.

As the game developed, the two #9s scenario was never executed (or required). Also, given the profile of 1 (forced), 1 (tactical) then + 1 substitutes, the final change (HA for TB) was aimed at maintaining overall aerial profile (to deal with the inevitable ‘Alamo’ - which we had seen LJ use in the past) but have a fresh ‘ball handler’ to retain the ball when we did have possession.

Should Tom have opted to make 2 changes in his final round of substitutions (eg JM for JV), we would have lowered the team total aerial profile.

The only other way to have done this, was JV on at 50 and then back off at 80, but this would have used a substitute that we may have wished to have used differently should the game have taken an alternative pattern.

Hopefully puts a few conspiracy theories to bed.
 
Last edited:
Liam Scully said:
To save you all from playing Miss Marple and to counter some disappointing comments, I will explain the strategy behind this.

Tom elected to put 2 CFs (JM & JV) on the bench so he could play with a front two under various pre-empted/considered scenarios.

Going into the game, we all knew JV was load-compromised, and anything above 30 minutes had increased risk, but under the most likely scenarios, this was enough to warrant a spot in the 18.

Knowing a second ‘half’ is somewhere IRO 49-58 minutes, the enforced change with only 5 minutes on the clock (when RH was injured), Tom opted (rightly IMO) to use JM as his like-for-like change.

As the game developed, the two #9s scenario was never executed (or required). Also, given the profile of 1 (forced), 1 (tactical) then + 1 substitutes, the final change (HA for TB) was aimed at maintaining overall aerial profile (to deal with the inevitable ‘Alamo’ - which we had seen LJ use in the past) but have a fresh ‘ball handler’ to retain the ball when we did have possession.

Should Tom have opted to make 2 changes in his final round of substitutions (eg JM for JV), we would have lowered the team total aerial profile.

The only other way to have done this, was JV on at 50 and then back off at 80, but this would have used a substitute that we may have wished to have used differently should the game have taken an alternative pattern.

Hopefully puts a few conspiracy theories to bed.
Click to expand...
Oh, those pesky facts!!
 
If Hortin would of asked the appropriate question in the post match interview I think TS would of been able to explain the situation in less than 30 seconds.
 
Excellent explanation from Liam, and much as many of us thought.

Nothing wrong with having Vale on the bench and giving him 20-25 minutes. However Reeco's injury rightly changed the thinking on that.

I'm sure Vale will get his 20-25 minutes on Tuesday. Unfortunate that Reeco's injury will probably mean he can't really be risked for longer on Tuesday though.

Personally I thought the tactics and the substitutions on Saturday were spot on.

Looking forward to Tuesday which will now be a real challenge tactically with Reeco not being fit.
 
clanfordimp said:
By the way I was in total support of what Kennedy said about Mandroiu, that was nothing but the hard truth and in no way should that be held against by anyone. As his coach he has every right to say what he feels about people who ultimately affect his employment.
Click to expand...
Does this work both ways though? Can a player question the coach/managers training methods or team selection in an after match interview. For me this opens up a can of worms and is something that should be kept in house IMO.
 
clanfordimp said:
If Hortin would of asked the appropriate question in the post match interview I think TS would of been able to explain the situation in less than 30 seconds.
Click to expand...
I think most of us assumed that was the situation without it needing to be explained? Common sense with a new player and recovering from injury then the early substitution of Reeco, Makama was the only option.
 
Last edited:
Chesterimp said:
I think most of us assumed that was the situation without it needing to be explained? Common sense with a new player and recovering from injury then the early substitution of Reeco, Makama waa the only option.
Click to expand...
I think perhaps the only thing we might not have considered is the potential to change formation to 2 up front, presumably if we were behind in the game. A genuine plan B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.