Adama Traore

[Zatman]

that starting line up vs Norwich is not the team of a man looking to win games. It was gutless and safe which usually means shit players

[supernova26]

6 hours ago, Keyblade said:

At one point Alan Hutton furiously gestured at him to make a run, or just move dammit. Kinda sums up his playing style so far. Just stand there and wait for the ball so you can attempt to take on 3+ defenders. 

That one ball that Hutton played over the top for him that got him clean through should have got him to rethink his strategy. Clearly he would be devastating running in behind defences given his pace but he's just content with coming short for the ball instead. It's very frustrating, and I can definitely see why Garde does not start him.

Arhh, Alan Hutton, that bastion of football! Adama should have nutted him and just said "give me the ball you jock strap".

Adama starting is as much as a no brainer now as it was 10 matches ago.

I know there's a danger he may forget which goal he's playing towards and score an hat-trick of own goals, but that's the risk we take with such a "raw, young *insert another lazy cliché here* talent".

It's obviously down to some dressing room hierarchy/politics as to why he doesn't get played.

Edited December 30, 2015 by supernova26

[DCJonah]

2 hours ago, Rob182 said:

Here's that logic again, 'Playing Traore isn't going to make things worse, as the players he'd be replacing haven't contributed anything'. That's not true is it? We HAVE scored goals at times, and our players HAVE tracked back to defend well as a team at times. Even though we've not mustered a win since the first day of the season, we have fought hard for a point against Man City and we have also scored to get us level to earn a point against other teams.

Overall, it's still poor for a team in our position, but saying 'It can't get any worse' is wrong. It can.

I agree that now is the time to try something new. But 'throwing caution to the wind' can be dangerous. How about we play 3 at the back, and go all-out attack? That's on the spirit of 'it can't get any worse', but obviously it can, and if Garde played a 3-4-3 and we lost, he would get slaughtered for throwing away another game.

 

Of course things can get better Jonah, that much is obvious, but the point that I've made repeatedly is that the manager sees these players more than us. If he thinks that Traore playing for a full game will result in less tracking back, will result in more break downs of the attacking game plan and COULD result in a mazy run leading to a goal, but overall hamper us in the rest of the game, then I'm inclined to trust his judgement until he starts to make huge errors.

Simply calling for the next saviour is easy, but until it happens and we see what the result is, it's nowhere near a certainty that it will actually be fruitful.

Of course the rest of us are worried about being bottom/ embarrassment / nailed on for relegation, but some of us will refrain from calling on a supposed saviour because we have doubt that he is one, or have concerns that he won't fit the tactics that the current manager has been drilling into the team for the past two months.

No one has called him the saviour. You've put that to to make it sound daft. No one believes Adama will save us all on his own. A lot do believe he can have a positive effect. That's a huge difference from the claim he's our saviour. 

His judgement has resulted in no wins and the gap to safety increasing. I'm not sure why those 8 games continue to give you trust. His judgement is to be negative and so far its not working. 

No one is claiming it's a certainty. No one. There's every chance starting Adama for a few games will make little difference. But while you and others are concerned with not getting worse (don't know why) a few of us would like the team to try something different to be better. I'm not worried about it being worse, honestly who gives a shit if we lose the next couple of games? I'd much rather lose having given it a go than see the shit we saw in the last game. 

You're concerned about Adama playing? What about Clark playing? Richardson playing as lb or a lw? Sanchez in midfield? Gestede up top? 

It's unbelievable utter madness that some are more concerned with the flaws of a guy who doesn't play, over the flaws of the players who have made us the worst team in the league. And in terms of the tactics the manager has been drilling into the team, it seems to be focused on do not lose and that's only worked 50% of the time. 

[Dodgyknees]

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

that starting line up vs Norwich is not the team of a man looking to win games. It was gutless and safe which usually means shit players

Yet you wished for Sherwood back, the man who picked similar players consistently. 

[villa4europe]

I watched him vs Norwich when Ayew had the ball wide left, he didn't move inside and gamble on a cross missing everyone in the box, he stayed hugging the touch line, the left back was 15 yards from him

Young to Downing, downing to young, that was one of our main threats under MON, if you're playing 1 up top with 2 wingers he has to do it, back post tap ins

Was really disappointed with it

He had the left back on toast but he still needs so much coaching it's scary, however we still have more chance of him doing something than most of the others, still hoping he gets a stint up top

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, supernova26 said:

It's obviously down to some dressing room hierarchy/politics as to why he doesn't get played.

You think he's not getting played because what? He's not French enough, he's not English enough, he's too pretty, he's a big fan of the works of Plato in a dressing room full of those who prefer Aristotle, he doesn't have the right boot deal, he's friends with Gabby, he's not friends with Gestede, he prefers Italian wines to French wines? 

Please, do tell...

 

[chrissmith921]

He should play because for those paying to get in, its more entertaining watching him run at players than it is Ashley Westwood passing sideways.

Nothing against Westwood, but we're done in terms of our survival - it should just be about entertaining those who pay to watch it from here on in.

[Hanky]

I watched him vs Norwich when Ayew had the ball wide left, he didn't move inside and gamble on a cross missing everyone in the box, he stayed hugging the touch line, the left back was 15 yards from him

Young to Downing, downing to young, that was one of our main threats under MON, if you're playing 1 up top with 2 wingers he has to do it, back post tap ins

Was really disappointed with it

He had the left back on toast but he still needs so much coaching it's scary, however we still have more chance of him doing something than most of the others, still hoping he gets a stint up top

Absolutely no doubts he has faults, and that is a very big one you highlight. Shame really as a bit more movement from him and he'd look more like a top player (probably wouldn't be here).

The last sentence is the one I completely agree with and I think most who are calling for him to play are saying (although just my opinion there).

[Keyblade]

2 hours ago, supernova26 said:

Arhh, Alan Hutton, that bastion of football! Adama should have nutted him and just said "give me the ball you jock strap".

Adama starting is as much as a no brainer now as it was 10 matches ago.

I know there's a danger he may forget which goal he's playing towards and score an hat-trick of own goals, but that's the risk we take with such a "raw, young *insert another lazy cliché here* talent".

It's obviously down to some dressing room hierarchy/politics as to why he doesn't get played.

That is a pretty damning indictment of him then don't you think? When Alan Hutton is schooling you on how to attack, a bit of introspection is in order I'd imagine.

In any case, you didn't address a single point I made, just a bunch of non sequitur and a nice little conspiracy theory to top it all off. 6.5/10 would bite again.

[Dr_Pangloss]

4 hours ago, Rob182 said:

Here's that logic again, 'Playing Traore isn't going to make things worse, as the players he'd be replacing haven't contributed anything'. That's not true is it? We HAVE scored goals at times, and our players HAVE tracked back to defend well as a team at times. Even though we've not mustered a win since the first day of the season, we have fought hard for a point against Man City and we have also scored to get us level to earn a point against other teams.

Overall, it's still poor for a team in our position, but saying 'It can't get any worse' is wrong. It can.

I agree that now is the time to try something new. But 'throwing caution to the wind' can be dangerous. How about we play 3 at the back, and go all-out attack? That's on the spirit of 'it can't get any worse', but obviously it can, and if Garde played a 3-4-3 and we lost, he would get slaughtered for throwing away another game.

 

Of course things can get better Jonah, that much is obvious, but the point that I've made repeatedly is that the manager sees these players more than us. If he thinks that Traore playing for a full game will result in less tracking back, will result in more break downs of the attacking game plan and COULD result in a mazy run leading to a goal, but overall hamper us in the rest of the game, then I'm inclined to trust his judgement until he starts to make huge errors.

Simply calling for the next saviour is easy, but until it happens and we see what the result is, it's nowhere near a certainty that it will actually be fruitful.

Of course the rest of us are worried about being bottom/ embarrassment / nailed on for relegation, but some of us will refrain from calling on a supposed saviour because we have doubt that he is one, or have concerns that he won't fit the tactics that the current manager has been drilling into the team for the past two months.

Ah yeah, worked well hasn't it? 20th with 8 points, excuse some of us for thinking it couldn't get worse. 

Categorically, the players who have played ahead of Traore have not delivered, some of them do not even deserve to be here past January, it's time to give Traore a go, it's as simple as that.

[Rob182]

As I've said, I'm not against Traore getting a go, but the constant scream for this 'no brainier' is based on nothing, other than a few tricky runs, one deflected goal and that it's 'better than what we have', which is utterly flawed and simple-minded logic, I'm afraid.

How about I scream from the rooftops that our back 4 should be 'Cissokho Clark Okore Richards'.... It's better than what we have, because we're bottom of the league, therefore it's a no brainier, and I will shoot anyone down who suggests otherwise because 'Well durr, we're bottom of the league so the current back four ain't working!'

When we still look poor with that defence (as we probably would, as our collective squad is the problem), I'll then call for a back 4 of 'Lescott Okore Richards Bacuna', it's obviously a no brainier because we're bottom of the league and it can't get worse. Once again, I'll shoot anyone down who disagrees with me, because we're bottom and we can't get worse.

[DCJonah]

Why are people against it? Does anyone want to see Sinclair or Richardson out wide again? What have people seen in these 19 games to make them want more of the same?

[Rob182]

Jonah, I haven't said anyone has called Traore a 'saviour', but our aim right now is to be 'saved', whether by one player or by the right combination of eleven players. With the amount of calls for Traore, and the amount of people moaning that Garde hasn't played him more, I don't think I'm completely out of line to believe that some people believe he is part of the solution, part of what will/could save us, and therefore using the word 'saviour' seemed apt.

[Zatman]

48 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

That is a pretty damning indictment of him then don't you think? When Alan Hutton is schooling you on how to attack, a bit of introspection is in order I'd imagine.

In any case, you didn't address a single point I made, just a bunch of non sequitur and a nice little conspiracy theory to top it all off. 6.5/10 would bite again.

Hutton can teach him how to cross

[Keyblade]

He is an excellent crosser after all

[DCJonah]

1 hour ago, Rob182 said:

As I've said, I'm not against Traore getting a go, but the constant scream for this 'no brainier' is based on nothing, other than a few tricky runs, one deflected goal and that it's 'better than what we have', which is utterly flawed and simple-minded logic, I'm afraid.

How about I scream from the rooftops that our back 4 should be 'Cissokho Clark Okore Richards'.... It's better than what we have, because we're bottom of the league, therefore it's a no brainier, and I will shoot anyone down who suggests otherwise because 'Well durr, we're bottom of the league so the current back four ain't working!'

When we still look poor with that defence (as we probably would, as our collective squad is the problem), I'll then call for a back 4 of 'Lescott Okore Richards Bacuna', it's obviously a no brainier because we're bottom of the league and it can't get worse. Once again, I'll shoot anyone down who disagrees with me, because we're bottom and we can't get worse.

I actually don't see what the problem is. Suggesting a different defence doesn't seem an issue to me. The one we have is performing poorly so I don't see a problem with trying something new. 

There's nothing crazy about suggesting many different options to a team performing as badly as we are. Actually the most crazy idea would be to stick with the exact same players hoping things improve. That's the Lambert approach which led to his eventual sacking. 

Can I ask what you'd like to see and why? You seem dead against Adama starting any games. What would you prefer? What have you seen in these 19 games that makes you want to see more of these players?

Edited December 30, 2015 by DCJonah

[vandaq]

He has something special about him. Just love the ruthlessness of his play. Wish he was a starter but obviously there are some holes in his game too. But what we have now certainly doesn't help.

[Butterfingers]

I'm shifting more and more towards starting him.

After Arsenal, we had 12 points that were winnable. The first 2 ended in draws and (for me) weren't the end of the world, although disapointing. There was enough in those two performances to go with Remi.

Norwich was an utter shambles-A disgrace, given the importance of the game.

Without Jordan A against Sunderland, I fail to see where the threat will come from. We still need 10 wins with 3 less games to get them in.

We have to take the game to Sunderland-Start Traore, go for the lead and then take him off to tighten things up-Lets not do it the other way round & throw him on when we're desperately chasing the game.

The kid makes no more mistakes than the other clowns wearing our colours.

[Stevo985]

22 hours ago, DCJonah said:

Why are people against it? Does anyone want to see Sinclair or Richardson out wide again? What have people seen in these 19 games to make them want more of the same?

I'm not against it, but I can understand why he's not getting more game time.

He's not very good.

The rest of the team aren't very good either, but Adama isn't so much better than every one that it's obvious he should be playing. 

I'd like to see him get more game time, and I believe he will, but I don't think it's outrageous that he isn't at the moment because of his obvious weaknesses.

[GeordieVillan]

I think he should play up front against Sunderland (with Gestede ideally).

He's the only one in our squad with attributes similar to Ayew, assuming that Gabby and Nzog are not options. And he's the only one with pace and strength.

Just play him please. This is as much of a side issue as Gil not playing under Sherwood. If Garde gives him 2-3 starts we can see if he's actually any good or not, and then everyone can move on to focussing on why Kozak doesn't get a game.