Banton (some concerns)

Winter Green wrote:

I sort of disagree with that one Hairy. To cover a known tricky wide player with two players is bulk standard football practice, even in some park football, and is effected very quickly for a very few seconds. It in no way means the opposition has "lost a player". Dodgy Aviva maths, that one. Best stick to yer English.

For all we know, word got round L2 last year about Banton's occasioned ability to go past a player. It doesn't take long.
Southend are obviously well drilled defensively under Brown so one might hope not all managers will be quite so on the ball. Successful wide play can be a fickle thing. Kevin Hodges was wonderful for 2 or 3 seasons ghosting past players, yet once he was twigged, he sort of lost his edge and had to change his game. He was never so effective again. Time will tell and fitness is, I agree, a factor.

Its called 'Doubling up' and is standard practise. The way Hairy has it is that 2 people man to man mark the player all match  

Exactly Hugh. I sometimes wonder if Hairy actually played the game. Maybe he is thinking of the way they do it on Play Station.  
It's a zonal thing and can actually have a positive effect on the defending team. It is all too easy for some players to hide away when not on the ball. So to be coached to concentrate on specific defending tasks when necessary can keep players right on top of their game throughout the 90 minutes. Nothing worse for most players than dropping off the pace of a game. Concentration is where it's at.

Chingers wrote:

A lion does not concern itself with the opinion of sheep

I would like to respond to that comment.   

Not my comment, straight from the horses (lions) mouth (Twitter).

Angry wrote:

should have come on in the second half but i guess there would have been a riot if Banton didnt start today you know how those fv idiots are like.

By 'riot', do you mean some 15 year olds would have tugged their 6 inches of the flag vigorously in rage?

Bench Banton ffs!

Make him earn his place in this side.

Jason is looking for anyone breeding Sharpeis   [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Tgwu wrote:

Jason is looking for anyone breeding Sharpeis   [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I got a packet of them from smiths last month.  

Apparently Banton is above criticism this weekend because he provided two assists.

'Two assists'?!

One was a run through a crowded penalty box, a tame, trickling selfish shot,  that luckily deflected and bobbled its way to Reid. The other was a bloody 1-2 five yards from the corner spot, for a cross the wind blew in.

To give Banton credit for those 'assists' is ridiculous - the first didn't even have the basic intention to pass. It devalues real skilled assists, like Nathan Thomas rescuing a point with his wingplay last weekend.

ejh wrote:

Apparently Banton is above criticism this weekend because he provided two assists.

'Two assists'?!

One was a run through a crowded penalty box, a tame, trickling selfish shot,  that luckily deflected and bobbled its way to Reid. The other was a bloody 1-2 five yards from the corner spot, for a cross the wind blew in.

To give Banton credit for those 'assists' is ridiculous - the first didn't even have the basic intention to pass. It devalues real skilled assists, like Nathan Thomas rescuing a point with his wingplay last weekend.

I agree.

Banton had comfortably his best game since returning to the club this weekend but to credit for those 'assists' is too generous and only goes to show what a flawed metric 'assists' are for measuring the contribution of a player to a game. Someone could do fantastic work in the build up to a goal and not get credited for the assist just because he didn't get the last touch. But getting the last touch and showing no obvious talent for the goal as Banton did goes down as an 'assist' which just shows how meaningless assist stats are.

Assists only really mean something in the fantasy league games.

If Banton hadn't done that selfish dribble and shot though, would Reid have scored? The Allesandra one, he was passing so someone could cross the ball - that's not selfish. It was lucky that one went in but he passed the ball.

hairy j wrote:

Assists only really mean something in the fantasy league games.

If Banton hadn't done that selfish dribble and shot though, would Reid have scored? The Allesandra one, he was passing so someone could cross the ball - that's not selfish. It was lucky that one went in but he passed the ball.

It's hardly Mesut Ozil stuff hairyj. Banton isn't unlocking defences with his genius with those two pieces of play - they were options Ben Purrington could have delivered.

To say Banton had a good game and can't be dropped now because he provided 'two assists' is silly.

It is not like Luke Young coming into the side, and having a great influence as a play maker, or Gurrieri, when he came into the side and dictated our attacking play. With or without Banton's assists, he is not having that kind of impact.

True but the fan's expectations are a little silly. I do expect him to get better and be a big part of our team. An 18 month contract in Brent World is actually a long term deal so Sheridan expects and, conversley, so does the Chairman.
Compared to Luke Daley (remember him) and Gurreiri, he's a much better player. I like Young when he's playing to hjs strengths but I'd expect Banton to be picked ahead of him. Having both is good.
The fans though - or some of them - almost expect him to be the Messi of League 2.

Daley now playing for Braintree Town.

I like Luke Young. He works hard. He's got a football brain. He takes a pretty mean free-kick. I've not seen him often enough to work out why Sheridan doesn't rate him more highly. He just seems to come on when needed & doesn't usually start games.

Young's very young. It's not sensible to overplay an under 21 player if you have other options. He can very quickly fade out of a game and he's not that consistant yet - alongside Hourihane, the team do struggle sometimes too.

Nothing to do with age. Mariner wasn't treated as such a baby.
The English Scottish disease still exists. On the ball skills are not valued highly enough in British football by coaches and managers alike.
What irritates me is the ball players are judged on a few things they do or don't do off the ball, yet the big athletes are not judged under the same criteria. There is a sort of bigoted shortsightedness that goes right through the English game. No need for it these days given the pitches professionals play on now, but they still can't help themselves. Maybe it's a dressing room macho thing. Players are often picked because they fit in socially.

Winter Green wrote:

Nothing to do with age. Mariner wasn't treated as such a baby.
The English Scottish disease still exists. On the ball skills are not valued highly enough in British football by coaches and managers alike.
What irritates me is the ball players are judged on a few things they do or don't do off the ball, yet the big athletes are not judged under the same criteria. There is a sort of bigoted shortsightedness that goes right through the English game. No need for it these days given the pitches professionals play on now, but they still can't help themselves. Maybe it's a dressing room macho thing. Players are often picked because they fit in socially.

Spot on.