JBG back in the squad after coming through Saturday's game but a doubt over Lennon

See link
https://www.uptheclarets.com/jbg-to-rep ... or-everton

Excellent-JBG back can only be good news

Gives us more presence going forwards and does more than his share of tracking back. Great news particularly with the volume of games coming up, and chips in with goals

Good news

JBG is dreadful and injury prone. Terrible news. Then again its good news as Hendrick is rubbish. Lennon is Rubbish. Brady is rubbish.

probs do 60 mins limp off and be out for around 8 weeks

cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:35 pm

JBG is dreadful and injury prone. Terrible news. Then again its good news as Hendrick is rubbish. Lennon is Rubbish. Brady is rubbish.

Injury prone, yes, without a doubt and it’s bloody frustrating. But ‘dreadful’? Nah, I’m not having that. He’s a pleasure to watch. We need him fully fit though.

jdrobbo wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:10 pm

Injury prone, yes, without a doubt and it’s bloody frustrating. But ‘dreadful’? Nah, I’m not having that. He’s a pleasure to watch. We need him fully fit though.

Couldnt agree more. One of my favourite players. Was just being sarcastic. According to many posters JBG, Brady, Hendrick, Lennon, Pieters et all are dreadful despite our lofty position. Wasnt long ago Wood got the same stick.

TBF CF, Lennon IS rubbish! JBG isn't and has just been very unlucky injury wise, but like everyone else I fear it may be something which is now plaguing him and which he never fully shakes off.
P.S. Why wouldn't SD start Drinkwater with Hendrick AWOL and bring JBG on to the bench? We'd be narrower, but in an away game that also means less open.

cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:17 pm

Couldnt agree more. One of my favourite players. Was just being sarcastic. According to many posters JBG, Brady, Hendrick, Lennon, Pieters et all are dreadful despite our lofty position. Wasnt long ago Wood got the same stick.

JBG and Brady aren't rubbish.

No brainer - Jay to start wide right - can do the defensive duties
Do not want to see Brady there

The more options available for Sean the better,whether JBG will start or play the full 90 we'll see,but it's good to have him back again.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:36 pm

JBG and Brady aren't rubbish.

I agree

jojomk1 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:55 pm

No brainer - Jay to start wide right - can do the defensive duties
Do not want to see Brady there

I'm sure glad you're not the manager.

Lennon did not train today and would be a definite starter after playing very well in his cameo creating the goal at Bournemouth
And as done well when he's come off the bench of late
Ageing now and not a starter for this league really but can still do a job when required as filing
He would have relished the chance playing against his old club for an hour

People still thinking playing DD is an option?

Lennon is a great option if you want someone to fly down the wing then either:

Drill a cross into the stand.
Cross the ball to the first defender.
Cross the ball to the opposite corner flag.
Play a simple four yard pass to someone who has an end product.

The return of JBG is fantastic news.

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:13 am

People still thinking playing DD is an option?

I'd expect him to come in for Hendrick

cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:35 pm

JBG is dreadful and injury prone. Terrible news. Then again its good news as Hendrick is rubbish. Lennon is Rubbish. Brady is rubbish.

Is NcNeil any good?

Thought Lennon worked hard as always, but our goal came about because of his inability to reach the byline (or goal line asJimmy Hill informed the nation on MOTD many years ago) and he gave the ball to Westwood, to 'whip in' that great short cross. Earlier this week one our UTC posters suggested Lowton as a possible 'wide right' replacement and shall we say, didn't get much support for his suggestion. Well, Lowton is used to that wing and he can 'whip' a cross in (re- Jay at Villa) and he can, obviously, defend better than any of the others and on Thursday, I think we will be doing plenty of that.

So as we were with JBG for Jeff. Probably the strongest team in an attacking sense...that said he doesn’t normally throw them straight in so may start Brady if Lennon is out.

As for DD that’s probably the most expensive water we have ever drunk....

We're playing with 11 then? Cool!

Darthlaw wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:26 am

Lennon is a great option if you want someone to fly down the wing then either:

Drill a cross into the stand.
Cross the ball to the first defender.
Cross the ball to the opposite corner flag.
Play a simple four yard pass to someone who has an end product.

The return of JBG is fantastic news.

So is that what he did on Saturday then it must have been that dodgy deflection off Jay that deflected the cross from hitting any of your proposed destinations
Not saying he his a world beater but he does a job when asked and definitely not just collecting a wage unlike some we have had at the club

cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:17 pm

Couldnt agree more. One of my favourite players. Was just being sarcastic. According to many posters JBG, Brady, Hendrick, Lennon, Pieters et all are dreadful despite our lofty position. Wasnt long ago Wood got the same stick.

And Taylor !!

cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:17 pm

Couldnt agree more. One of my favourite players. Was just being sarcastic. According to many posters JBG, Brady, Hendrick, Lennon, Pieters et all are dreadful despite our lofty position. Wasnt long ago Wood got the same stick.

Wood is pooh, could'n't hit a barn door at two paces, .................that's sarcasm.................good job he is hitting the back of the net though

If Lennon is fit I'd like to see him start. Hes earned it, and he provides a more direct attacking option to commit defenders sometimes- precisely as he did for the goal at Bournemouth.

I'd like to see us try giving McNeil a free role behind any of Wood, Barnes and Rodriguez as a lone striker - giving him freedom to roam and drift to either flank, eithout the same need to track back, but also giving us an extra body in midfield and helping us keep the ball on the counter attack- and then have either Brady or Jay playing off the left.

If Lennon isn't fit then Brady can slot in on the right, with Jay off the left.

Its great to have JBG back and he will give us an extra dimension but its a big ask to drop him straight in against Everton. A cameo as a sub against Everton might just set him up nicely for a start against United if he feels no ill effects.

Longside4evr wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:50 am

So is that what he did on Saturday then it must have been that dodgy deflection off Jay that deflected the cross from hitting any of your proposed destinations.

You better check the replays again, Longside. Westwood provided the cross after collecting the ball from a simple 4 yard pass from Lennon.

I’ll take your apology as a given.

It makes little sense McNeil playing in a free role behind a lone striker at the moment when his crossing has been brilliant and our main attacking threat by some distance.

taio wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:05 pm

It makes little sense McNeil playing in a free role behind a lone striker at the moment when his crossing has been brilliant and our main attacking threat by some distance.

A couple of points there. Firstly - absolutely no reason why someone playing behind a striker cant get into crossing positions. Maddison, De Bruyn etc - all wonderful crossers of the ball who play from that "10" position. If anything it gives him more opportunity by enabling him to attack both sides, and stay further up the pitch when we're under pressure (as routinely happens on the road).

Secondly, in any event, McNeil (and everyone else) will get more opportunities if we can counter attack and retain the ball better on the road. McNeil isn't just our best crosser of the ball; hes our best technical footballer full stop, which is why hes our best crosser, but it also makes him the player most adept at keeping the ball in tight areas and finding a smart pass. We dont use that quality anywhere near enough in helping us build attacks when hes stuck out wide.

Thirdly, as hes become more a marked man, hes started roaming centrally anyway - not always to our advantage when it leaves us short if width.

Fourthly- hes a huge asset, but hes at times a bit of a weak link defensively out wide. For example, both Spurs' first two goals exploited the space in front of Lowton. They aren't the only goals recently to have occurred in similar circumstances.

So all in all I think it's a means of making the most of his strengths- crossing and other - and masking the inevitable weaker things in his game. It might also be a means of getting him through two games in 48 hours. To ask that of him in 2 games that will require a lot of tracking back is a hell of an ask of a kid if his age who is still developing his stamina.

Darthlaw wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:05 pm

1
You better check the replays again, Longside. Westwood provided the cross after collecting the ball from a simple 4 yard pass from Lennon.

I’ll take your apology as a given.

A simple pass yes, but a simple pass to a man in space created because with a bit of pace and direct running he'd fixed the full back and taken him out of the game as a result.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:30 pm

A couple of points there. Firstly - absolutely no reason why someone playing behind a striker cant get into crossing positions. Maddison, De Bruyn etc - all wonderful crossers of the ball who play from that "10" position. If anything it gives him more opportunity by enabling him to attack both sides, and stay further up the pitch when we're under pressure (as routinely happens on the road).

Secondly, in any event, McNeil (and everyone else) will get more opportunities if we can counter attack and retain the ball better on the road. McNeil isn't just our best crosser of the ball; hes our best technical footballer full stop, which is why hes our best crosser, but it also makes him the player most adept at keeping the ball in tight areas and finding a smart pass. We dont use that quality anywhere near enough in helping us build attacks when hes stuck out wide.

Thirdly, as hes become more a marked man, hes started roaming centrally anyway - not always to our advantage when it leaves us short if width.

Fourthly- hes a huge asset, but hes at times a bit of a weak link defensively out wide. For example, both Spurs' first two goals exploited the space in front of Lowton. They aren't the only goals recently to have occurred in similar circumstances.

So all in all I think it's a means of making the most of his strengths- crossing and other - and masking the inevitable weaker things in his game. It might also be a means of getting him through two games in 48 hours. To ask that of him in 2 games that will require a lot of tracking back is a hell of an ask of a kid if his age who is still developing his stamina.

Comparing Maddison and De Bruyne along with Leicester and City's style of play seems odd. Let's see if Dyche plays him in that role over the next three games.

I see people have started on the ale nice and early.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:33 pm

A simple pass yes, but a simple pass to a man in space created because with a bit of pace and direct running he'd fixed the full back and taken him out of the game as a result.

A bit of pace and direct running?



He has 6 touches of the ball in around a 5 yard slower than walking pace dribble, including the touch to bring the ball back under control from his first touch (which was poor).

We can take the revisionist angle if you like and I can agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.

There’s a reason he’s third choice for the right wing behind Hendrick (who’s a CM) by trade.

taio wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:02 pm

Comparing Maddison and De Bruyne along with Leicester and City's style of play seems odd. Let's see if Dyche plays him in that role over the next three games.

Just to be clear, I didn't make that comparison. I just observed that players playing in the 10 role can get plenty of crosses in and gave a couple of examples. I could have chosen Buendia, Ward Prowse or Moutinho, all of whom play predominantly in central roles and who also appear in the top 10 for crosses delivered in the Premier League this season. In fact McNeil and Fraser are the only players regularly playing wide in midfield in the top 10.

I cant see any reason why McNeil cant get into positions to deliver plenty of crosses from a central role. Of course our winner on Saturday came from a cross from one 9f our central midfielders.

Dyche may not try it, but the notion of putting your most technically adept player in the position where they ought be most involved in the game is hardly wild.

Darthlaw wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:19 pm

A bit of pace and direct running?



He has 6 touches of the ball in around a 5 yard slower than walking pace dribble, including the touch to bring the ball back under control from his first touch (which was poor).

We can take the revisionist angle if you like and I can agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.

There’s a reason he’s third choice for the right wing behind Hendrick (who’s a CM) by trade.

Think you're being incredibly harsh. It's a couple f decent touches to get it under control and get him facing the defender, a decisive touch to get the defender facing down the line, and feint to make sure he and covering player are both committed and a sensible pass to make sure we capitalise on the space created.

I think you're looking for reasons to mark him down to be honest.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:32 pm

Just to be clear, I didn't make that comparison. I just observed that players playing in the 10 role can get plenty of crosses in and gave a couple of examples. I could have chosen Buendia, Ward Prowse or Moutinho, all of whom play predominantly in central roles and who also appear in the top 10 for crosses delivered in the Premier League this season. In fact McNeil and Fraser are the only players regularly playing wide in midfield in the top 10.

I cant see any reason why McNeil cant get into positions to deliver plenty of crosses from a central role. Of course our winner on Saturday came from a cross from one 9f our central midfielders.

Dyche may not try it, but the notion of putting your most technically adept player in the position where they ought be most involved in the game is hardly wild.

I didn't say it was wild. I said something like not at this time. He's in excellent form down the left and our key attacking threat. Particularly with his crossing and making runs with the ball from deeper positions than I suspect he would do as number 10.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:38 pm

Think you're being incredibly harsh. It's a couple f decent touches to get it under control and get him facing the defender, a decisive touch to get the defender facing down the line, and feint to make sure he and covering player are both committed and a sensible pass to make sure we capitalise on the space created.

I think you're looking for reasons to mark him down to be honest.

Decent touches to get it under control? I’m was his poor first touch, you fool!

The evidence is right there and you’re making it out to be some sort of wing wizard trickery that he moves the ball 2 yards forwards and half drops a shoulder.

Ultimately my point remains that Aaron Lennon has no end product. He never has, which is why he plays for us.

Jeez, I haven’t seen such revisionism since Darikwa was painted as a hero for clearing the ball off the line, forgetting he gave the ball away half way up the pitch.

With all due respect, the minute you've sunk to calling someone a fool for having a difference of opinion with you, you've lost.

I didn't say it was outrageous skill but it's a decent manoeuvre well executed, and I'm perfectly comfortable with my opinion that his first touch is a decent enough touch which gets the ball out of his feet, into space and ready to allow him to threaten and commit to defenders. Like I said, you're a bit quick to criticise.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:44 pm

With all due respect, the minute you've sunk to calling someone a fool for having a difference of opinion with you, you've lost.

I didn't say it was outrageous skill but it's a decent manoeuvre well executed, and I'm perfectly comfortable with my opinion that his first touch is a decent enough touch which gets the ball out of his feet, into space and ready to allow him to threaten and commit to defenders. Like I said, you're a bit quick to criticise.

I can’t argue with you when you clearly see things that aren’t there. Your opinion that his first touch gets it out of his feet is the only correct element. After his first touch, once it drops down from head height, his second touch is on his knee! Watch the video for the love of god, man!!!

Edit for clarity, here is the touch “which gets the ball out of his feet”


And don’t be so precious about being called a fool, particularly when you’re going to push foolish points.

Darthlaw wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:58 pm

I can’t argue with you when you clearly see things that aren’t there. Your opinion that his first touch gets it out of his feet is the only correct element. After his first touch, once it drops down from head height, his second touch is on his knee! Watch the video for the love of god, man!!!

Edit for clarity, here is the touch “which gets the ball out of his feet”


And don’t be so precious about being called a fool, particularly when you’re going to push foolish points.

Yep, as I thought it's a perfectly decent first touch. I'm not being precious by the way, I'm just pointing out that when you resort to insults you've lost your way. Calling me a fool for having a positive opinion on a contribution that ends with two defenders being committed and the space created to enable the winning goal to be scored- well, that speaks for itself.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:52 pm

Yep, as I thought it's a perfectly decent first touch.

I believe it was:

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:52 pm

His first touch was a decent enough touch which gets the ball out of feet, into space.

Which it clearly wasn’t.

So, you’re either trolling or have started your Xmas drinking way earlier than me. I can’t argue with you, regardless, particularly when you change your argument. Have a good Christmas.

Darthlaw wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:06 pm

I believe it was:



Which it clearly wasn’t.

So, you’re either trolling or have started your Xmas drinking way earlier than me. I can’t argue with you, regardless, particularly when you change your argument. Have a good Christmas.

Let's reduce this debate to the basics. Is the first touch a bad one (,ie one that stops him doing what he wants to do next), or a decent one (ie one that helps him.do what he wants to do next). The answer is obviously the latter, and it really begins and ends there, no matter how curmudgeonly you want to be about it.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:32 pm

Let's reduce this debate to the basics. Is the first touch a bad one (,ie one that stops him doing what he wants to do next), or a decent one (ie one that helps him.do what he wants to do next). The answer is obviously the latter, and it really begins and ends there, no matter how curmudgeonly you want to be about it.

Fair enough, back to basics. You admit that the statement:

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:32 pm

his first touch is a decent enough touch which gets the ball out of his feet, into space and ready to allow him to threaten and commit to defenders

Is a complete fabrication of the actual events, as it fails to recognise said first touch resulting in the ball going to head height, the resulting knee touch (required to bring it back under control) followed by the next touch to take him away from the defenders, rather than ‘ready to commit or threaten them. I.e. three touches, where you intimated one.

Once you do that, I’ll happily debate whether his touches allowed him to achieve his goal of offloading to someone with an end product. Something which during this whole thread, I have not questioned.

Darthlaw wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:32 pm

Fair enough, back to basics. You admit that the statement:



Is a complete fabrication of the actual events, as it fails to recognise said first touch resulting in the ball going to head height, the resulting knee touch (required to bring it back under control) followed by the next touch to take him away from the defenders, rather than ‘ready to commit or threaten them. I.e. three touches, where you intimated one.

Once you do that, I’ll happily debate whether his touches allowed him to achieve his goal of offloading to someone with an end product. Something which during this whole thread, I have not questioned.

Why is the touch off the thigh a problem?

We're splitting hairs here.

This all started with a refusal to give any credit at all to Lennon for playing a part in creating the goal. We've been reduced to debating whether the first touch was perfect or just decent, because it suits a particularly weird agenda. It isn't even relevant to the original point, it's just something that has been jumped on as the discussion has gone on.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:18 pm

Why is the touch off the thigh a problem?

We're splitting hairs here.

This all started with a refusal to give any credit at all to Lennon for playing a part in creating the goal. We've been reduced to debating whether the first touch was perfect or just decent, because it suits a particularly weird agenda. It isn't even relevant to the original point, it's just something that has been jumped on as the discussion has gone on.

I don’t know why it’s a problem for you to admit you misrepresented his first touch. It does seem a very weird agenda to me that you’re misrepresenting Lennon’s actual touches vs what happened in your head. Even more so that you’re continuing to dig the hole, in the face of such clear evidence to the contrary. Sometimes it’s better just to admit you got it wrong, eh?

What’s relevant to the original point is that I said, Lennon is good for making the pass to someone else (Westwood in this case) who has the end product - which is what happened. No more, no less. No dismissal of credit for the goal, just pointing out that’s what Lennon gives. Probably explains his return of 3 assists in two years with us.

Longside incorrectly claimed Lennon provided the assist, you incorrectly claimed that his first touch achieved all the things it actually took him three touches to do. Then you get all upset when I point out (and clearly show) you were wrong.

Now, I realise you’re not going to admit you got it wrong, so there’s no point continuing the conversation with you. Have a good evening.

I said, and I quote from my opening post on this, "it's a couple of decent touches to get it under control."

Which it is - decent. Not amazing, but decent.

Just to correct you, our exchange started with me agreeing that Westwood had the assist after a pass from Lennon, but suggesting you should give credit to Lennon for making the space and delivering the pass. The entire argument since then is predicated on your disagreeing with this. And you've not explained why the touch off the thigh is a problem. Presumably for the simple reason that it isn't.

You started with:

“a simple pass to a man in space created because with a bit of pace and direct running”

Video shows he neither ran nor used any pace. Then moved to:

“It's a couple f decent touches to get it under control”

First touch resulted in it reaching head height. If that’s decent, you must have thought Tony Philliskirk was mustard. It needed more touches to bring it under control, due to a poor first touch. (Which is what I pointed out). You then went for broke with:

“his first touch is a decent enough touch which gets the ball out of his feet, into space and ready to allow him to threaten and commit to defenders”

So either you forgot the ‘couple’ of touches, or just tried to paint it as something that didn’t happen. I’ve already pointed out the ridiculousness of this, there’s no point revisiting.

Could you point out where I’ve said the touch off the thigh is a problem, btw, or is this something you’ve made up to deflect?

How did you spend Christmas Eve?
“Me, arguing about Aaron Lennon’s touches leading up to our goal the week before”

Merry Christmas Uptheclarets

Darthlaw wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:46 pm

You started with:

“a simple pass to a man in space created because with a bit of pace and direct running”

Video shows he neither ran nor used any pace. Then moved to:

“It's a couple f decent touches to get it under control”

First touch resulted in it reaching head height. If that’s decent, you must have thought Tony Philliskirk was mustard. It needed more touches to bring it under control, due to a poor first touch. (Which is what I pointed out). You then went for broke with:

“his first touch is a decent enough touch which gets the ball out of his feet, into space and ready to allow him to threaten and commit to defenders”

So either you forgot the ‘couple’ of touches, or just tried to paint it as something that didn’t happen. I’ve already pointed out the ridiculousness of this, there’s no point revisiting.

Could you point out where I’ve said the touch off the thigh is a problem, btw, or is this something you’ve made up to deflect?

Lordy. My point is was and remains that his initial touches set him up to create the space that creates the goal. No amount of debate over the minute detail of any single touch alters that. Tge first touch is decent, if theres anything wrong with it its seamlessly addressed by the second touch off the thigh and Lennon cracks on with fixing the defender as he originally intended to do without being at all impeded by the first toucj.

So are you willing to accept Lennon made a positive contribution to the goal, or not?

Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:02 pm

How did you spend Christmas Eve?
“Me, arguing about Aaron Lennon’s touches leading up to our goal the week before”

Merry Christmas Uptheclarets

Quite.