What struck me most was how much better we looked after the equaliser(s). We really weren't at it in the first half, and it was only after Nunez's first that we picked up - they got quicker, passes started finding their targets, we had them pinned back. Then you could see them deflate when the second went in - and re-inflate when McCormack (who was poor up til then, I thought) - and once we had the lead we never really looked like losing it. Which to me points to confidence being a massive part of our season, as well as getting the first goals in games. If SG can get everyone motivated, we could be OK.
Clayton's been ten times the player in these two games than he appeared to be last season. Lees had a strong game. Sam did well, although has he been injured? I'm sure he used to be quicker. ED. On 10 August 2011 09:23, Richard Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Parker has never been good enough as a left back - he was responsible for > both their goals. The first he was fast asleep and the second whilst a good > finish he just didn't follow his man. His general play was also very poor. Get > rid. > > > I thought O'Brien looked like an old man. Credit for Grayson for dragging him > off when he was obviously struggling but surely his fitness should have been > assessed prior to the start of the season. > > > 4-5-1 with McCormack doesn't work - in fact take the McCormack bit out of that > statement , it just doesn't work, especially at home. I realise Grayson's > options are limited especially with Paynter being injured (Injured !!!!???? - > he > only came on for 30 mins - Jeeez) ... but this makes Grayson's comments about > not needing another striker a bit strange. > > > Positives - I thought we did take control of the midfield later on when they > ran > out of steam but with Clayton we have a good, industrious midfielder ... > credit > to Dave N for spotting this long before any of us did. > > > I thought Nunez was lively but looked pretty poor at times and McCormack only > came alive after he's scored, he looked lost before that. > > > I'm worried about our keeper. > > Good win though , especially when you look at other results. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: "Kitching, Mark" <[email protected]>; Leeds list > <[email protected]>; Leeds List <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, 10 August, 2011 8:23:23 > Subject: Re: [LU] Quick Thoughts on Last night > > Lees, what an impact. Was telling that an earlier cross sailed over > mccormack's > head. > > Wasn't convinced by clayton on sat as everyone seemed to be but thought he was > good last night. > > Also connolly played some decent passes. > > O'Brien is hopeless, parker wasnt great but let's hope this is match fitness > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kitching, Mark" <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:46:13 > To: LEEDSLIST<[email protected]> > Subject: [LU] Quick Thoughts on Last night > > Thought our passing and movement was brilliant and the midfield as a whole > performed magnificently last night, Clayton again looked very good, not sure > what Brown actually does though. Unfortunalty given Bradford were packing the > defence McCormack and Nunez looked pretty toothless (and THAT miss!? Wow!) and > the good work through midfield fizzled out on the edge of the Bradford area. > > What let us down badly was our defensive frailties again, tonight's culprits > being Parker and ... again... O'Brien, I think Grayson's post match comment of > "There were experienced players out of position making mistakes" could only > have > been aimed at two players given he subbed them off. Bromby and Lee's > introductions made a massive difference and finally underpinned the good work > we > were doing in midfield. > > Mark K. > > Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, > confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views > expressed > may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you > have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and > delete > it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, > use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to > monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. > SKY > and the SKY marks are trade marks of British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and > are > used under licence. British Sky Broadcasting Limited (Registration No. > 2906991), > Sky Interactive Limited (Registration No. 3554332), Sky-In-Home Service > Limited > (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration > No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of British Sky Broadcasting > Group plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the co > mpanies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and > share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. > > > _______________________________________________ > Leedslist mailing list > Info and options: > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > To unsubscribe, email [email protected] > > MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) > _______________________________________________ > Leedslist mailing list > Info and options: > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > To unsubscribe, email [email protected] > > MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) > > _______________________________________________ > Leedslist mailing list > Info and options: > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > To unsubscribe, email [email protected] > > MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) > _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
