Set pieces tonight

Very curious with deliveries like that why he doesn’t a) put more balls in the box instead of trying to beat his man half a dozen times and b) at least share set piece duty with Stanislas so things can be mixed up more often and be less predictable and mundane.
 
DJ said:
Very curious with deliveries like that why he doesn’t a) put more balls in the box instead of trying to beat his man half a dozen times and b) at least share set piece duty with Stanislas so things can be mixed up more often and be less predictable and mundane.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I was thinking with Billing's goal, would that have been a goal in the first half of the season? It does feel like someone has told Danjuma to release the ball quicker.
 
Sky sports showed Dan's stats and was #1 on crosses with 5 (as well as his goal and assist) How many times have we been able to say that this season? Remember this was also a Swansea side renowned for their wing play. If we're going to make the playoffs he needs to do more of this.
 
Also mentioned him working hard on crossing with his left so teams don’t know what he is going to do rather than cutting back on to his right all the time
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ
glennafcb said:
Couldn’t agree more. It’s the first time ever we’ve seen Danjuma’s capabilities from set pieces and having seen his quality from those tonight it’s frustrating that Stan appears to have had free rein on them until now
Click to expand...

But why is that? It’s been the same under two managers. It’s not like Stanislas has even played anywhere near every second of every match. He’s been injured at times.

He also doesn’t make the decisions that he has exclusive rights over all set pieces, so it’s not a blame Stanislas thing. Has Danjuma not been interested in doing corners? Would he prefer to be in and around the box to score?

With that ability, just to mix it up, it’s confusing.
 
I think we saw with Stans reactions to Surridge and Kelly earlier in the season that he sees himself as the main man in the team. The boss as such and only he has the right to take free kicks and corners etc. This nullifies the true potential of other players as I believe we saw last night once he's gone off. Danjuma is more than capable of putting in good free icks and corners. Bottom line...Stans a greedy fucker. We don't need greedy fuckers at the moment.
 
Red_till_im_ded said:
I think we saw with Stans reactions to Surridge and Kelly earlier in the season that he sees himself as the main man in the team. The boss as such and only he has the right to take free kicks and corners etc. This nullifies the true potential of other players as I believe we saw last night once he's gone off. Danjuma is more than capable of putting in good free icks and corners. Bottom line...Stans a greedy fucker. We don't need greedy fuckers at the moment.
Click to expand...

Ironic considering Danjuma’s post match comments apparently?
 
I have a foot in both camps. Stan does seem to want to hog all the set pieces and almost every time 3 stand over the ball and Stan makes it clear hes taking it. But at the same time, the managers must say its his choice or he wouldnt get away with it for too long.

I dont know the stats, I know some on here poor over them but Im pretty sure the majority of his crosses and corners dont beat the first man. Meanwhile, Dans first corner was perfect and we scored from it. Doesnt mean he will continue to put great set plays in as he can blow hot and cold but like DJ said, surely mix it up a bit?
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
I have a foot in both camps. Stan does seem to want to hog all the set pieces and almost every time 3 stand over the ball and Stan makes it clear hes taking it. But at the same time, the managers must say its his choice or he wouldnt get away with it for too long.

I dont know the stats, I know some on here poor over them but Im pretty sure the majority of his crosses and corners dont beat the first man. Meanwhile, Dans first corner was perfect and we scored from it. Doesnt mean he will continue to put great set plays in as he can blow hot and cold but like DJ said, surely mix it up a bit?
Click to expand...

It would benefit Stanislas to not be taking everything. It's difficult to do something different each time when you're taking 8 corners a game. It's a bit of no-brainer, but we haven't seen that kind of delivery from Danjuma for the majority of the season and Stanislas isn't always on the pitch preventing that from happening...
 
Red_till_im_ded said:
I think we saw with Stans reactions to Surridge and Kelly earlier in the season that he sees himself as the main man in the team. The boss as such and only he has the right to take free kicks and corners etc. This nullifies the true potential of other players as I believe we saw last night once he's gone off. Danjuma is more than capable of putting in good free icks and corners. Bottom line...Stans a greedy fucker. We don't need greedy fuckers at the moment.
Click to expand...

This is putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 10. You don't know what manager's instructions have been and to say Stan is a greedy fucker as opposed to Danjuma is hilarious.

That said I'd bring in a new instruction on free kicks and corners... Whoever is taking set pieces has one chance to put a decent one in. If you hit the first man someone else gets the next one. Decent ball, whether we score or not, and you can continue.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
That said I'd bring in a new instruction on free kicks and corners... Whoever is taking set pieces has one chance to put a decent one in. If you hit the first man someone else gets the next one. Decent ball, whether we score or not, and you can continue.
Click to expand...
Nice idea ! Unfortunately I can see the definition of "decent ball" proving to be very subjective and lacking consensus. I think that could cause quite a bit of tension between the "decent ball" und "shite ball" camps to be honest, so probably in practice not such a great idea.
But in a meritocracy your idea would indeed have merit ;)
 
thegazzyb said:
Nice idea ! Unfortunately I can see the definition of "decent ball" proving to be very subjective and lacking consensus. I think that could cause quite a bit of tension between the "decent ball" und "shite ball" camps to be honest, so probably in practice not such a great idea.
But in a meritocracy your idea would indeed have merit ;)
Click to expand...

"decent ball" surely wouldn't include hitting the first man three times in a row. Tbh I'd sub him off for that never mind take free kicks off him.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
"decent ball" surely wouldn't include hitting the first man three times in a row. Tbh I'd sub him off for that never mind take free kicks off him.
Click to expand...
You could say that but then the taker could always claim extenuating circumstances like "the wind stopped it in the air" or "my standing leg slipped as I was about to connect with it", or "but the first man came out of nowhere, he wasn't there when I was lining it up" etc. etc.
Sure, as a fan, we see these things very much black or white but as a player you could probably come up with a thousand reasons why your corner was intercepted. I think it unlikely that the taker would ever be willing to admit "yes, ok, that was a crap corner, you're up for the next one !". It just wouldn't happen unfortunately.
Like you, I think putting in crap corners when there are others in the team who might fancy a go and actually do a bit better, should have consequences. I think it would be difficult to put a workable solution in place though, too many egos on the pitch.
 
thegazzyb said:
You could say that but then the taker could always claim extenuating circumstances like "the wind stopped it in the air" or "my standing leg slipped as I was about to connect with it", or "but the first man came out of nowhere, he wasn't there when I was lining it up" etc. etc.
Sure, as a fan, we see these things very much black or white but as a player you could probably come up with a thousand reasons why your corner was intercepted. I think it unlikely that the taker would ever be willing to admit "yes, ok, that was a crap corner, you're up for the next one !". It just wouldn't happen unfortunately.
Like you, I think putting in crap corners when there are others in the team who might fancy a go and actually do a bit better, should have consequences. I think it would be difficult to put a workable solution in place though, too many egos on the pitch.
Click to expand...

Not beating the first man has limited extenuating circumstances. Dans ball for the goal was in "the mixer" and every ball there would cause them problems.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
Not beating the first man has limited extenuating circumstances. Dans ball for the goal was in "the mixer" and every ball there would cause them problems.
Click to expand...
Like I said, limited or not, they are available and could be used as an excuse for an interception, so the point is valid. A player is unlikely to just openly accept that he played a poor corner, there will always be some excuse for why it was intercepted and that in itself opens up room for debate and arguments on the pitch, which is unlikely to be helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;