Zungu

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

7 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

We were dropping points when he was on. There was no sign of it improving if it remained with no changes. He was one we took off and things improved fairly soon afterwards. 

He didnt cost us two points. He was very contributory to us being shite and being 2/3rds of the way to dropping 2 points. He wasn't the only one but his and other replacements sorted it out until individual fuck ups in game management again.

Other than Jack setting up kent for another missed sitter, we needed a massive slice of luck to go ahead, if we are being honest we were still shite going forward even with jack and davis controlling the game as you say, our front 4 (well two of them definitely) were so ineffective imo 90mins of jack and davis we'd have struggled to win or get a point

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715]

6 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

So if we had more control, how did hamilton have the better chances, more clear chances, and our keeper gets MOTM, was it because we were so poor defensively? 

Because the need for us to press more, become more expansive, get a goal was becoming ever more urgent. Our 'defensive mids' had to become more attacking and both Davis and Jack contributed to not only get more of a control but also more offensive play. We controlled it more but were still exposed as a result. 

Do you think we were more in control before or after Zungu went off? Do you think we were better attacking before or after he went off?

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715]

3 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Other than Jack setting up kent for another missed sitter, we needed a massive slice of luck to go ahead, if we are being honest we were still shite going forward even with jack and davis controlling the game as you say, our front 4 (well two of them definitely) were so ineffective imo 90mins of jack and davis we'd have struggled to win or get a point

And yet our goal attempts increased 2nd half by 50% and we scored. 

Really fail to get your logic. We did better in the 30mins with Davis and Jack on than the 1st 60, how we'd have drawn or lost if they'd played 90 mins baffles me.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

14 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Because the need for us to press more, become more expansive, get a goal was becoming ever more urgent. Our 'defensive mids' had to become more attacking and both Davis and Jack contributed to not only get more of a control but also more offensive play. We controlled it more but were still exposed as a result. 

Do you think we were more in control before or after Zungu went off? Do you think we were better attacking before or after he went off?

And do you not see the major issue with what you stated (and i agree with it) 

We had two attacking fullbacks yesterday, 3 attacking mids or three number 10's if you will and a striker, yet our urgent need for a goal meant our defensive mids had to become more attacking

We were playing the bottom of the table and 6 attack minded players werent enough to get us a goal, yet a lot of the focus seems to be on the defensive side of the game (not just zungu) 

[King Jela 20,361]

27 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

To make it even better, the other game we dropped points in, jack started 🙈🙈😅😅

I never said they've never dropped points in any games they've started without the other though 🤔 i'm saying there's more than enough stats to back up that we would have won with either one starting and we would have been guarenteed the 3 points if they both played together. Stats back it up. 

 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

Just now, King Jela said:

I never said they've never dropped points in any games they've started without the other though 🤔 i'm saying there's more than enough stats to back up that we would have won with either one starting and we would have been guarenteed the 3 points if they both played together. Stats back it up. 

 

I was having a laugh, if i really wanted to try be funny id say something like "if either jack or davis start and we draw, they two combined means we lose" 😅😅

[bluenoz 30,819]

47 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Because the need for us to press more, become more expansive, get a goal was becoming ever more urgent. Our 'defensive mids' had to become more attacking and both Davis and Jack contributed to not only get more of a control but also more offensive play. We controlled it more but were still exposed as a result. 

Do you think we were more in control before or after Zungu went off? Do you think we were better attacking before or after he went off?

Davis came on for Kamara and helped set up the winning goal. Nothing to do with Zunga.

[falkirkNS 6,298]

2 hours ago, doc holliday said:

not enough drive and energy going forward,more of a mopping up/defensive holding player

This is Aribos job, again, Hes not shown enough to be a starting 11 player, a luxury player who has no drive, grit or fight to get amongst it. Arfield will change us when hes back. Really missing Scottys link up play, especially playing thorough packed defences. No drive from Kamara, Zungu either, dont want to sound bad but its not in those 3 players mentioned nature to drag us through to 3 points

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715]

 

6 hours ago, bluenoz said:

Davis came on for Kamara and helped set up the winning goal. Nothing to do with Zunga.

oh come on to fuck. 

Does Jack now just airbrushed as having no impact an our improvement from the dross we were offering? Yes we scored after Davis came on for Kamara, but we'd stepped it up after Jack came on for Zungu.

Its not all Zungus fault. Zungu didn't cost us 2 points. But Zungu offered minimal, when he was playing we were dross and nowhere near dictating midfield, and had be stayed on there's nothing to suggest we wouldn't have went onto drop points. Entirely likely. 

We're all going round in circles and yet not one person I've seen would start him at the weekend. I'll let others defend his performance on Sunday safe in the knowledge we all know he's not good enough, want him dropped, can't rely on him to start and know the regular guys are the ones we turn to as more trustworthy.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715]

5 hours ago, falkirkNS said:

This is Aribos job, again, Hes not shown enough to be a starting 11 player, a luxury player who has no drive, grit or fight to get amongst it. Arfield will change us when hes back. Really missing Scottys link up play, especially playing thorough packed defences. No drive from Kamara, Zungu either, dont want to sound bad but its not in those 3 players mentioned nature to drag us through to 3 points

He's arguably escaped more criticism than warranted. A lazy performance with little quality (one off target shot was unlucky). He was sloppy particularly in areas that put us in danger. Imo he's likely to be one in the firing line when Gerrard tells a few home truths.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715]

7 hours ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

And do you not see the major issue with what you stated (and i agree with it) 

We had two attacking fullbacks yesterday, 3 attacking mids or three number 10's if you will and a striker, yet our urgent need for a goal meant our defensive mids had to become more attacking

We were playing the bottom of the table and 6 attack minded players werent enough to get us a goal, yet a lot of the focus seems to be on the defensive side of the game (not just zungu) 

I fucking do see the issue with the distinct lack of attacking effectiveness and creativity. I really do. Itten gets pass marks from me, thought he did well enough with little service. Other than Goldson I thought every other outfield player couldn't complain if subbed first. 

I just happen to think our control of play is central to that, I really dont think we dominated enough til Jack came on, then we got the rewards when Davis did too. We needed the platform we normally have from def mid and that was missing, for me Zungu was central to that.

As above. We're all going round in circles and yet not one person I've seen would start him at the weekend. I'll let others defend his performance on Sunday safe in the knowledge we all know he's not good enough, want him dropped, can't rely on him to start and know the regular guys are the ones we turn to as more trustworthy

[sassaaaa 11,406]

Good thing is hes a loan and will be gone soon.......

[Tiger Shaw 30,453]

12 hours ago, Brubear said:

How many times did he get caught in possession yesterday. I cant remember any. Wasnt adventurous enough with the ball but didnt actually give it away often. 

He’s tidy on the ball keeps it simple, probably too simple. People want their midfielders to be dynamic, strong and creative he seems to lack all this. I don’t think he’s a terrible player I just think he’s not the type of player our fans want to see. 

Maybe like a lot of players that come here he needs time to settle but as a loan player basically on trial he’s not got the time.

[Brubear 2,920]

6 hours ago, Tiger Shaw said:

He’s tidy on the ball keeps it simple, probably too simple. People want their midfielders to be dynamic, strong and creative he seems to lack all this. I don’t think he’s a terrible player I just think he’s not the type of player our fans want to see. 

Maybe like a lot of players that come here he needs time to settle but as a loan player basically on trial he’s not got the time.

Totally agree. I seem to remember Kamara keeping everything very simple when he broke into the first team initially. Sure many on here said he wasn't good enough and you could see why he cost only 50k from Dundee. Not saying Zungu is going to develop and make the grade but it is too early for some of the negativity he is receiving.