| Stronger at the back without Hall 16:31 - Mar 21 with 14101 views | WestbourneR |
Got pelters on here a few weeks back for saying I felt Grant Hall had major weaknesses in his game - so here goes for 2nds.
For me he is just too weak and definitely far far too weak in the air. He gets dominated by strikers and when crosses and corners come in he doesn't command the box.
To prove my point you only have to look at the change since Hill & Angella have come in.
|  |
| |  |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 23:07 - Mar 23 with 1557 views | LadbrokeR |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 20:31 - Mar 22 by johncharles |
Westbourne, why didn't you say we're better with Hill ?
Because "better without Hall " attracts more attention. 'Nuff said. |
That's an interesting point |  | | |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 11:47 - Mar 24 with 1466 views | WestbourneR |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 23:07 - Mar 23 by LadbrokeR |
That's an interesting point |
Because my point is that we're better without Hall, be it Hill or Angella or Ned. Any pairing that doesn't include Hall. That's why  | |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 11:55 - Mar 24 with 1462 views | simmo |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 11:47 - Mar 24 by WestbourneR |
Because my point is that we're better without Hall, be it Hill or Angella or Ned. Any pairing that doesn't include Hall. That's why |
But we're not.... The stats back that up too. The fact he's also the youngest of the 4 main CB's we have, by some way, should give him additional credit and value. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 12:12 - Mar 24 with 1457 views | isawqpratwcity |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 11:55 - Mar 24 by simmo |
But we're not.... The stats back that up too. The fact he's also the youngest of the 4 main CB's we have, by some way, should give him additional credit and value. |
Yep, it's Hill or Hall for me everytime. With neither, our defence falls apart. |  |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 15:14 - Mar 24 with 1410 views | NW5Hoop |
Hall's the first defender in years with whom I don't have a twinge of panic when the ball goes towards him, whatever the fashion — in the air, along the ground, or in behind him. All the others, for years, at least one of those areas has caused me some panic. | | | |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 08:32 - Apr 4 with 1303 views | Mvpeter |
Tbh I think we are strongest with Hall but heaven forbid a discussion! | |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 08:57 - Apr 4 with 1285 views | bacardiinbrissie |
Following the last performance the op appears to have some credit if you take it at face value. The problem is that why we look longer than week to week he becomes an integral part of our future development. Hill will be gone in a season or 2 at most and we need someone to develop in that time. Agreed he's made some f- ups and he'll learn from them now. I'd rather he made the mistakes this season. And improved ready for a serious long term challenge at going up. The other option is keep playing hill until we get up, then buy in some new star to replace him when we challenge.
How did that work for us last time.
I was happy with our performance except for the couple of fool ups from our defence. Let them keep progressing aNd hopefully Jimmy will have identified a few to compliment the likes of Hall and Smithies who clearly love and want to play for our club.
Just my opinion  | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
