| Wallace or Manning? 12:52 - Jan 13 with 2736 views | Dando |
Felt really gutted when I saw the lineup against Brentford, that Wallace was dropped. As much as I think Manning has been superb, his good performances have arguably been more about his offensive work rather than his defensive.
Wallace came in and has looked solid, scored a wonder goal - come off 2 great results, yet we drop him for Manning who has been part of a defence that has leaked goals for fun this year? I really cant understand it, and was obvious Brentford would exploit these positions.
I could understand playing manning if our attack was weak, but our attack is one of the best in the league and we score goals anyway. Why is it so important to add Manning to that? We already have Eze, Samuel, Chair etc for those roles.
Given the fact Leistner was also missing, it made no sense to me to drop Wallace - a natural defender and leader.
Wallace for me needs to be a starter going forward | | | |  |
| Wallace or Manning? on 12:54 - Jan 13 with 2723 views | smegma |
Give it one bad game by Wallace and the subject matter will change. | | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 12:58 - Jan 13 with 2698 views | Dando |
You are probably right, but for me - for now anyway, Wallace should be in the side as the left back. Manning, potentially in the Amos role | | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 13:17 - Jan 13 with 2638 views | WadR |
"I could understand playing manning if our attack was weak, but our attack is one of the best in the league and we score goals anyway. Why is it so important to add Manning to that? We already have Eze, Samuel, Chair etc for those roles. "
Manning, especially in the first dozen games of the season, was a big contributor to why our attack is one of the best in the league. His form has been patchy recently, but his dovetailing with Eze, crossing ability and high energy has been an asset generally.
Having good attacking fullbacks is often a difference maker at this level - look at Aarons and Lewis @ Norwich last year, Fredericks and Target @ Fulham the year before. Obviously Manning isn't at their level but he's still learning a new position and has the potential to get there.
Having said that, I'm sick of his diving, which as pointed out by Clive in the match report - finally cost us in that it caused the first freekick from which Brentford scored. | | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 13:19 - Jan 13 with 2626 views | Tonto |
when I saw that the full backs were Manning and Kane, I did think "this s a bit of a gamble"... this will either be brilliant or terrible. | |
| |
| Wallace or Manning? on 13:28 - Jan 13 with 2589 views | slmrstid |
I remember Clive posting on this site many times that never is a player's reputation enhanced at QPR as when they're not playing.
Wallace played Left Back at Barnsley, we shipped 5 and lots of people were going nuts as to why he was in and Manning wasn't left at left back (though I think Ryan was left wing that day?)
Wallace plays two games, has decent games, we win both, doesn't play and we lose again and all of a sudden he is the difference for our rickety defence..
(This isn't a dig at you Dando, just an observation in general!) | | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 13:39 - Jan 13 with 2545 views | OakR |
I think it depends how you play.
With 5 at the back, Manning in, as offensively he is great and that plays to his strengths.
In a 4 at the back he is more exposed defensively and gets forward less, and the defensive side of his game is not the best. It's a new position for him, and he may well improve, but we are weak defensively on the side when he plays in a 4 at the back formation and the opposition now know it.
Like many players, we just need to see if he can improve - we have plenty of players in this category who could be better and have the chance to improve, and the good news is many players seem to be improving.
At the end of the day, we have a limited squad who are exceeding expectations and at times playing some great football - Eze apart I doubt top of the table teams would want most of them now, next year maybe that will change. | |
| |
| Wallace or Manning? on 13:40 - Jan 13 with 2537 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Leeds overload the wings under Bielsa so i would go with a safety-first policy and pick Wallace for that one. | |
| |
| Wallace or Manning? on 14:21 - Jan 13 with 2444 views | Dando |
I get it that Manning contributed a lot to the goals, but what I mean is that I think we have enough going forward whether Manning plays or not. Would rather sort the defence out a bit, as think we will still score plenty without him [Post edited 14 Jan 2020 14:59]
| | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 14:24 - Jan 13 with 2436 views | Dando |
I get what you are saying,but to be fair this isnt a knee jerk reaction - its something I have felt for a long time should have been done. We are scoring a lot of goals, and dont believe that that will stop if Manning doesnt play.
Im not saying that Wallace is the answer to all our prayers but you would think that being a natural left back and a captain for Rangers he would help our defence. yes, we let in 5 at Barnsley but im not going to judge Wallace on that game when he has barely played a game all season until then | | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 14:34 - Jan 13 with 2410 views | daveB |
Wallace was not solid defensively at Barnsley so i can see why manning came back in. | | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 14:38 - Jan 13 with 2403 views | YorkRanger |
I think the OP raises a fair challenge and personally (without the benefit of hindsight) I would have started Wallace. That said, as Dave intimates, Wallace was poor at Barnsley and there were some who suggested he should never play for Rangers again.... | | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 14:44 - Jan 13 with 2378 views | BrianMcCarthy |
True, Dave, but he was out of position at centre-back that day. I think he's more experienced and in better form at left-back than Manning. I'd pick him. | |
| |
| Wallace or Manning? on 14:44 - Jan 13 with 2375 views | gazza1 |
i, too, was disappointed that Wallace didn't start.......not as much but i would have liked Hugill to start too.
Wallace will start against Leeds, for sure and so will Hugill which is good by me. | | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 15:06 - Jan 13 with 2326 views | daveB |
He played left back that day with Manning in midfield | | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 15:10 - Jan 13 with 2308 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Sorry, you're right. He did.
I give up!  | |
| |
| Wallace or Manning? on 10:03 - Jan 14 with 2120 views | francisbowles |
Something that was tried once and quickly abandoned.
I thought before Saturday's game that we needed Kelly, Wallace and Hugill in the team (instead of Wells as they have some big players for set pieces), although I can see that the aim was to keep it on the ground up front.
Manning, for me, currently also has a tendency to be too negative when receiving the ball out of defence on the half way line. He virtually always plays the safe ball back inside. He needs to turn and play a bit more. I think a lot of it is his starting position, it is very closed towards his own goal. Wallace seems much better at receiving the ball there. Also Lee's heading ability must be better than Ryan's. | | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 11:01 - Jan 14 with 2043 views | stevec |
We've been dreadful at left back and keeper all season.
Wonder what the Scottish lads have to do to get a place. | | | |
| Wallace or Manning? on 11:06 - Jan 14 with 2028 views | daveB |
dreadful at left back all season? what are you on about. Manning was superb until around mid November. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
