Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 71,958
Happy with The Wright Brothers. And Dickinson looked the part. Ashamed to say that at no point did I realise Navarro was actually playing 
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Your early impression of the new signings
- Thread starter The Complete Badger
- Start date
cjd
Well-known member
A
Ashamed to say that at no point did I realise Navarro was actually playing
Navarro was the one who fell over with the ball at his feet, when for the first time in the game he made space for himself...........and then didn't know what to do with it.
For some bizarre reason, which I cannot understand, Mr. Slade obviously thinks he,s a better player than Dicker.
I know Mr. Slade "signed" Dicker, but was he bought in "on loan" by Slade...last season ?
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 71,958
Skaville
Well-known member
Really? I know our midfield weren't exactly world beaters, but I don't seem to remember much from the likes of Loft, Fraser, Robinson, Thompson etc last season.
Scoffers
Well-known member
I was generally pleased with all the new boys. Navarro was probably the most disappointing of the lot, but even he had his moments. The left back needs to close down quicker, but Dickinson and the other Wright looked real quality. I think we'll finish 10th this year.
Silent Bob
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Dec 6, 2004
- 22,172
Navarro was awful, well off the pace, may or may not turn out to be any good but shouldn't be getting fit in the first team. Why was he picked over Dicker??
Mark Wright was very lively, the kind of player we haven't had for quite a while, very pacy, very direct. Bit of skill, put some good balls in, and some bad ones but he will be very dangerous in better team performances if he plays like this.
Jake Wright I thought did very well considering he's not been here very long and has made a big step up from the conference. Pretty good on the ball.
Crofts/Thornhill both pretty anonymous, I thought Thornhill did more than Crofts in the first half though and would have preferred he stay on.
Dickinson showed a few flashes of promise, some nice touches, decent pace, a little innocuous but there's something there. I think we should forget his size, he's a lightweight.
Mark Wright was very lively, the kind of player we haven't had for quite a while, very pacy, very direct. Bit of skill, put some good balls in, and some bad ones but he will be very dangerous in better team performances if he plays like this.
Jake Wright I thought did very well considering he's not been here very long and has made a big step up from the conference. Pretty good on the ball.
Crofts/Thornhill both pretty anonymous, I thought Thornhill did more than Crofts in the first half though and would have preferred he stay on.
Dickinson showed a few flashes of promise, some nice touches, decent pace, a little innocuous but there's something there. I think we should forget his size, he's a lightweight.
Crofts and Thornhill a bit of a disappointment but we'll see. The rest showed a lot of promise and this looked a stronger team than last year. Irritating to lose - esp to an own goal - but for a team where more than half have not played a competitive game together I think it was promising. Switch to 4-4-2 made a lot of difference and if Walsall hadn't had the opportunity to sit back deep and defend the one goal lead I believe we would have won the game.
And the time wasting....the ref was shocking. Kept waving his hands about all game to show he wanted them to get a move on and did nothing about it at all.
And the time wasting....the ref was shocking. Kept waving his hands about all game to show he wanted them to get a move on and did nothing about it at all.
clippedgull
Hotdogs, extra onions
4 mins were added to the end
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,279
So are you seriously trying to suggest that players don't have good and bad games then and that after just one game means that they will perform the same for the rest of the season and therefore if they didn't perform today they should go? And you wonder why you get the reaction from everyone else when you make stupid posts like this.
Mendoza
NSC's Most Stalked
Dickinson - started pretty poorly, didnt win any headers, all his flick ons went to no-one (no-one supporting him though) He went down too easily for my liking. He came alive once he had that 35 yard shot in the second half, and was pretty good for 10 minutes, linking well with Forster before being subbed. He will come good.
My main dislike about Dickinson though is that he doesnt bust a gut to get in the box. As a striker he should be in the penalty spot/6 yard area when play is out wide and by the corner flag, lots of the time he was just strolling in and not making it into the penalty area. It may have been fine if we had 2 upfront, but not upfront on his own
M.Wright - great with the ball at his feet, good dribbler, but end product was not there with many crosses and corners hitting the first man. At least he looked to get crosses in and have shots
J.Wright - not brilliant, he kept playing long balls that drifted aimlessly as Cox was too small to challenge for his aerial passes. Good enough defending but the cross shouldnt have come in for the OG
Crofts - got stuck in nd lots of hard work, didnt stand out, but solid enough
Navarro - good in the little fight, again looked good on the ball apart from an outrageous backheel that put us under pressure. Obviously not fit but a good player
Thornhill - he looked good going forward but not so defensively. Dont think he was fully fit, but maybe the closest player we have had to replacing Hammond?
My main dislike about Dickinson though is that he doesnt bust a gut to get in the box. As a striker he should be in the penalty spot/6 yard area when play is out wide and by the corner flag, lots of the time he was just strolling in and not making it into the penalty area. It may have been fine if we had 2 upfront, but not upfront on his own
M.Wright - great with the ball at his feet, good dribbler, but end product was not there with many crosses and corners hitting the first man. At least he looked to get crosses in and have shots
J.Wright - not brilliant, he kept playing long balls that drifted aimlessly as Cox was too small to challenge for his aerial passes. Good enough defending but the cross shouldnt have come in for the OG
Crofts - got stuck in nd lots of hard work, didnt stand out, but solid enough
Navarro - good in the little fight, again looked good on the ball apart from an outrageous backheel that put us under pressure. Obviously not fit but a good player
Thornhill - he looked good going forward but not so defensively. Dont think he was fully fit, but maybe the closest player we have had to replacing Hammond?
NMH
Banned
Wright with the yellow boots was, in my opinion, a spectacular purchase.
In a game where the team struggled to be in any way cohesive, he was outstanding as, deservedly, man of the match.
For Dickinson, the style of our play wasn't very useful for a player like him to make much impression. He couldn't get ahead of the defense without being offside, things got crowded at set pieces, and he was getting clattered into all the time.
If Slade reviews the footage of the match he'd probably notice a few wrong choices of crosses, generally. At a couple of moments there were amazingly good opportunities to play a low ball into the 6yd box, but players chipped to the back post - ultimately easier to defend and completely ineffective.
On the match as a whole, the team were exactly that - ineffective.
Much training required, and not necessarily physical training or those little pass-about practices either.
They need to focus on general player nouse, as we are predictable, easy to defend against, and ultimately ineffectual. Thus we get mugged in our ever-shaky nervous defending, and snuffed out in every attack.
Our best chance, tellingly, was a hopeful punt forward when their defender got turned and slipped over in the box. He was then lucky to manage to spin on the ground and knock it out for a corner.
In a game where the team struggled to be in any way cohesive, he was outstanding as, deservedly, man of the match.
For Dickinson, the style of our play wasn't very useful for a player like him to make much impression. He couldn't get ahead of the defense without being offside, things got crowded at set pieces, and he was getting clattered into all the time.
If Slade reviews the footage of the match he'd probably notice a few wrong choices of crosses, generally. At a couple of moments there were amazingly good opportunities to play a low ball into the 6yd box, but players chipped to the back post - ultimately easier to defend and completely ineffective.
On the match as a whole, the team were exactly that - ineffective.
Much training required, and not necessarily physical training or those little pass-about practices either.
They need to focus on general player nouse, as we are predictable, easy to defend against, and ultimately ineffectual. Thus we get mugged in our ever-shaky nervous defending, and snuffed out in every attack.
Our best chance, tellingly, was a hopeful punt forward when their defender got turned and slipped over in the box. He was then lucky to manage to spin on the ground and knock it out for a corner.
Finchley Seagull
New member
Does anyone on here who is slagging off the midfield yesterday and saying why pick them over Dicker actually remember what people were saying about Dicker after his first couple of games last season. He took a few games to come good as will all the new players probably.
Overall yesterday, first half was poor and Walsall deserved to be ahead. Second half we deserved at least an equaliser and if we had got that may well have gone on to win the game. Yes, Crofts and Thornhill had average/poor games but for anyone to say get rid based on one game is an absolute joke (although with some people no real surprise).
Overall yesterday, first half was poor and Walsall deserved to be ahead. Second half we deserved at least an equaliser and if we had got that may well have gone on to win the game. Yes, Crofts and Thornhill had average/poor games but for anyone to say get rid based on one game is an absolute joke (although with some people no real surprise).
Finchley Seagull
New member
I am sure he shrugged his shoulders and made a gesture towards the South Stand at one point as if to say "what can I do about it"? Walsall were time wasting from the first minute and he needed to book one of their players early on. Not that I think it was his fault we lost but it makes it difficult to get any sort of momentum when every set piece takes half an hour.
People around me in D block were saying that at times he appears to be ball watching - not anticipating things generally. Which is related toy uor point perhaps. I suspect this is about getting used to your team mates and not playing that bloody 4-5-1 formation. He'll come good.
My point exactly. Thank you.
lets be honest here. if we were as bad as walsall and had been gifted the lead we would of done the same. that said when a player kicks the ball away(ok he didnt exactly welly it out the ground) under the refs nose and gets away without so much as a talking to, it makes you wonder. im sure once the team settles we will be putting sides like walsall to bed comfortably.
Finchley Seagull
New member
I wasn't particularly blaming Walsall although time wasting from the first minute is a bit over the top. It is the referee who should take firm action and he continually failed to do that. I don't even mind that except we are just as likely to get a referee who cracks down on time wasting next week and books half our team. Although I am rambling a bit, what I am saying is that referees are inconsistent (but there is nothing new there).
Still should have done better yesterday. Walsall looked half decent in the first half and the irony is if they hadn't been so worried about time wasting, they might have been 2 or 3 up at half time. Second half we were very unlucky not to score.
Rookie
Greetings
- Feb 8, 2005
- 12,324
Think Dicksinson struggled up top on his own first half but once Forster came on looked at completely different player, once he gets to know how people around him play think he will score a lot.
Not impressed with the central midfield at all, granted first competitive game so will give them the benefit of the doubt but I hope Thornhill was unfit yesterday because he didn't seem to get going. Crofts was pretty anonymous and Navarro was a strange one good at times shocking (the back heel in the centre circle!) at others. Thought he might have been taken off about the hour mark.
J Wright got a lot better as the game went on and once we went back to 4-4-2.
Overall some good stuff and some pretty crap stuff but very early days and all will improve as the weeks go on. Liked the bringing the ball out of defence rather than just hoofing it but got to improve the temp we were far too slow and no one from midfield wanted it.
Not impressed with the central midfield at all, granted first competitive game so will give them the benefit of the doubt but I hope Thornhill was unfit yesterday because he didn't seem to get going. Crofts was pretty anonymous and Navarro was a strange one good at times shocking (the back heel in the centre circle!) at others. Thought he might have been taken off about the hour mark.
J Wright got a lot better as the game went on and once we went back to 4-4-2.
Overall some good stuff and some pretty crap stuff but very early days and all will improve as the weeks go on. Liked the bringing the ball out of defence rather than just hoofing it but got to improve the temp we were far too slow and no one from midfield wanted it.
Twinkle Toes
Growing old disgracefully
So why post this load of old pony now - as opposed to doing the sensible thing? i.e. Give the incomers a chance to settle; & pass comment on their ability in a couple of months when you can possibly make a decent assessment of their contribution. It's not exactly f***ing Rocket Science, is it?
