Fullbacks

Well it seems to me this is the weakest part of the team and most in need of strengthening. Lloyd James yesterday was OK but was shown up a few times and i'm not convinced he'd be alright over an entire season. At LB Surman again is OK but is wasted a bit there - he should be playing the role Holmes is currently doing - we'd create many more chances. Even if you think they're a good option what happens if they get injured or suspended? I think teams will start to figure out this is our weak spot if we don't do something about it.

Holmes is a great player where he is but surman seemed to be itching to push up.

Skacel would be good at LB but may leave. Must be someone better than james, isn't ollie lancashire quite good?

Lots of teams play 4-3-3 these days.

This is a real worry, because those wide players could easily expose makeshift full-backs

I agree with you apart from Surman. He really is the most overrated player. Wimps out of every 50-50 challenge and is too slow to play as a winger.

Lloyd James could develop into a really good player, but can we really take that risk at the moment? His defending is very naive right now.

I agree with you apart from Surman. He really is the most overrated player. Wimps out of every 50-50 challenge and is too slow to play as a winger.

 

Lloyd James could develop into a really good player, but can we really take that risk at the moment? His defending is very naive right now.

I don't think Surman is as great as people make out but comparing him to Holmes then I'd say he was better. As a winger I'd say wimping out of 50/50 challenges and being too slow are problems but those attributes make an even worse fullback.

To criticse Lloyd James after yesterday is a tad harsh IMO.

He was up against a very quick player in Quincy and in truth I doubt he'll face much better this season.

I actually think he had a good game, reading the game well and pushing on brilliantly to support McGoldrick.

It's easy to forget he's not actually a natural RB, but he's fast making that spot in the side his own.

From what I've seen so far, I believe James has the potential to become a very useful player for us.

To criticse Lloyd James after yesterday is a tad harsh IMO.

 

He was up against a very quick player in Quincy and in truth I doubt he'll face much better this season.

 

I actually think he had a good game, reading the game well and pushing on brilliantly to support McGoldrick.

 

It's easy to forget he's not actually a natural RB, but he's fast making that spot in the side his own.

 

From what I've seen so far, I believe James has the potential to become a very useful player for us.

I thought he was oustanding. He played a ball through in the first half that Le Tiss would have been proud to call his own. It resulted in a clear chance that was fluffed, but time and again he found McG in space or created an angle for an excellent cross.

There seem to be so many fecking doom-mongers who don't bother to watch games that they've forgotten to mention the superb save from Maik (that frankly he knew nothing about) and the clear miss from John (that he should be ashamed of) that would have seen us leading 3-0 on 47 minutes with the game wrapped up. Pity.

Like i said, i think he will be a very good player for us. His defending is a bit naive at times though. He jumped into challenges a few times when he should have been standing off a little more. But he's young and learning a new position so i'm fully prepared to give him a run in the side to see how much he improves. He is certainly an improvement on the useless Jermaine and the even worse Ostlund.

Surman for me is very frustrating. Not strong enough in the tackle and not quick enough to go past a man.

Well it seems to me this is the weakest part of the team and most in need of strengthening. Lloyd James yesterday was OK but was shown up a few times and i'm not convinced he'd be alright over an entire season. At LB Surman again is OK but is wasted a bit there - he should be playing the role Holmes is currently doing - we'd create many more chances. Even if you think they're a good option what happens if they get injured or suspended? I think teams will start to figure out this is our weak spot if we don't do something about it.

Totally agree about Surman is wasted at full back. He would be far better than Holmes in that position IMO. Just a shame we don't have an adequate replacement LB.

I am not sure what is expected from posters.

We are a Championship team who will only command the sort of full backs like Vignal and Ostlund who would rather kick the ball high and in most cases to the opposition.

They got caught out of position as much if not more than Surman and James.

Surman and James will not do a job at fullback for us this season.

fair point -thought he is better than Jesus

Surman and James will not do a job at fullback for us this season.

No, since they are wing-backs I would have to agree...

and frankly, what is the alternative??

No, since they are wing-backs I would have to agree...

 

and frankly, what is the alternative??

Skacel and Thomas. Both have played there (Skacel started his career at LB) and both have proven themselves to be solid there.

Skacel and Thomas. Both have played there (Skacel started his career at LB) and both have proven themselves to be solid there.

Skacel I'll give you. James showed more skill and pace then Thomas I'd have thought?? Didn't 90% of our attacking threat actually come from James??

Skacel and Thomas. Both have played there (Skacel started his career at LB) and both have proven themselves to be solid there.

Oh good god. Wayne Thomas. Wayne ****ing Thomas??? Are you kidding me? Seriously?

He is another of Burley's disastrous and scandalous waste of money signings. I never want to see him in the red and white again. Would much rather we kept with James and let him develop.

Well it seems to me this is the weakest part of the team and most in need of strengthening. Lloyd James yesterday was OK but was shown up a few times and i'm not convinced he'd be alright over an entire season. At LB Surman again is OK but is wasted a bit there - he should be playing the role Holmes is currently doing - we'd create many more chances. Even if you think they're a good option what happens if they get injured or suspended? I think teams will start to figure out this is our weak spot if we don't do something about it.

Two points - First,yes, James struggled yesterday, but to be honest their left winger is going to cause a lot of fullbacks problems this year.

Second - I am not sure that I agree with you about Surman. I think that his runs forward caused Birmingham a lot of problems yesterday. He is still learning defensively but he is no worse in that regard than Bale was.

Skacel was no better than Surman as left back!

rudi / surman are NOT left backs. I really dont get why people on here are so quick to slate surman, after all he is still only 20!!! Maybe its because he has been around for a few years. I would like to see surman in the gillet role

rudi / surman are NOT left backs. I really dont get why people on here are so quick to slate surman, after all he is still only 20!!! Maybe its because he has been around for a few years. I would like to see surman in the gillet role

You want Surman to play the ball winning role in the side. The same Surman that has never made a tackle in a red and white shirt.

Gillet was outstanding on saturday. Keep him there with Morgan who also played very well.

I was quite careful not to slag off James or Surman so I'm not accusing them of being rubbish. The point was I don't think they'll last a season as fullbacks and we've got no back up. Through the spine of the team there is cover but not at full back. Surman is adequate there but wasted and Lloyd James did OK but teams will figure out he's not a natural in that position. I've seen a lot of genuine talent come through and I had no problem with Bale, Dodd, Bridge, Kenna or Baird but the point was they had to win their place - it wasn't handed to them because they were the only option.

If you want to play kids in forward areas then fine - worst is we don't score. Play them in defensive positions and we'll lose games. That won't help them get better or develop.

I was quite careful not to slag off James or Surman so I'm not accusing them of being rubbish. The point was I don't think they'll last a season as fullbacks and we've got no back up. Through the spine of the team there is cover but not at full back. Surman is adequate there but wasted and Lloyd James did OK but teams will figure out he's not a natural in that position. I've seen a lot of genuine talent come through and I had no problem with Bale, Dodd, Bridge, Kenna or Baird but the point was they had to win their place - it wasn't handed to them because they were the only option.

 

If you want to play kids in forward areas then fine - worst is we don't score. Play them in defensive positions and we'll lose games. That won't help them get better or develop.

Not really!

James defending on Saturday was very poor. His distribution and passing was good i thought, but very very poor and naive defending.

Would of thought he has enough about him to work on, Thomas at right back is asking for trouble due to his lack of pace.

Lee Todd was an awful left back.

I'm more than happy with Lloyd James playing right back this season

I'm really surprised that James is coming in for more criticism than Surman. IMO Surman will never be a long term option at full back - too slow, poor positionally and not physical enough. IMO James could well turn into a very classy full back, and until the last ten minutes on Saturday actually had a pretty good game - most of our best moves in the first half came from James and McGoldrick's interplay down the right.

No, since they are wing-backs I would have to agree...

 

and frankly, what is the alternative??

If we havent got the players to competently play to a certain system we have to change the system, FFS.

Rocket Science it aint....

If we havent got the players to competently play to a certain system we have to change the system, FFS.

 

Rocket Science it aint....

And your first choice full backs are???

We don't need to change a system that is working - we simply need to improve at it.

Or tell me, would you like to inflict long ball football on those of us who watch?

James played well. Anyone who says otherwise didn't watch the entire first half where he created most of our attacking threat.

Surman played reasonably but was let down when he passed to a colleague who lost the ball and he was then left miles out of position, at which point I guess it was the job of someone else to cover if that's the system, albeit they didn't always do it effectively.

I listened to people in the stands screaming at players to track back and do this and that, totally oblivious to any instructions they may have been given by the manager.

It wasn't James and Surman who were at fault for us not winning, that's for sure.

So why suddenly are we debating their relative strengths??

Saturday was a good team performance. We lost. It happens.

But the nay-sayers want to be proved right, that this team cannot compete, it's the wrong players, the wrong formation, etc, etc. Well I have SEEN the evidence and funnily enough most of those others who have are the people on here who are confident we are playing better football that will ultimately result in better results.

But what was your expectation? That having seen our side decimated by financial mis-management, we would win the league???

I'm really surprised that James is coming in for more criticism than Surman. IMO Surman will never be a long term option at full back - too slow, poor positionally and not physical enough. IMO James could well turn into a very classy full back, and until the last ten minutes on Saturday actually had a pretty good game - most of our best moves in the first half came from James and McGoldrick's interplay down the right.

That is how I saw it too. There were a number of occasions on Saturday when Surman just did not have the pace to get back. I think he is classy player but not in that position. Young James is getting better with every game.

You want Surman to play the ball winning role in the side. The same Surman that has never made a tackle in a red and white shirt.

 

Gillet was outstanding on saturday. Keep him there with Morgan who also played very well.

hahaha do you even watch us? Have you ever watched us? Surman is not a leftback, i do really believe he would do a job (better) in CM

unfortunately neither surman nor james have the pace needed to be decent full backs. everyone barks on about surman being slow but james is no speed machine either.

They were both exposed on Saturday against prem class pace and skill. Not many teams we will play against will have such good wingers and forwards as Brum.

James is still learnning how to play right back. He played as CM for years and excelled there. Personally I think he is a much better CM player than Gillett but IMO it is a real credit to James that he has accepted playing out of position to fit in with the manager's (erm I mean Lowe's) new plans. James did look a little nervous at times on Sat and gave the ball away more often than he normally would, but experience will soon settle those nerves and he will improve a greatly as the season goes on.

For those of you that are saying Thomas should play at RB - I hope you are joking!

hahaha do you even watch us? Have you ever watched us? Surman is not a leftback, i do really believe he would do a job (better) in CM

You're right he's not a left back. And he isn't quick enough to be a winger. And he isn't prepared to put his foot in so that rules out central midfield. Quite frankly, the lad doesn't have a position.

You're right he's not a left back. And he isn't quick enough to be a winger. And he isn't prepared to put his foot in so that rules out central midfield. Quite frankly, the lad doesn't have a position.

i disagree, he would put his foot in and create / score some too. Gillet is just as light weight.

As for the winger position, i think he would do a very good job with this formation. Marsden wasnt quick and look how effective he was

i disagree, he would put his foot in and create / score some too. Gillet is just as light weight.

 

As for the winger position, i think he would do a very good job with this formation. Marsden wasnt quick and look how effective he was

Marsden was effective because he had Bridgey constantly on the overlap. The two were a great partnership. We do not have a Bridgey or Bale anymore. What makes you think after 3 years of never putting in a tackle it would change all of a sudden?

With the formation we are playing, the wingers have to be able to take players on and get themselves in goal scoring positions. Again, that is not Surman's game.

As for Gillet, in the first half he was absolutely everywhere, winning the ball and covering every blade of grass. He tired in the last 20 mins, but to be honest he put in more graft in 70 minutes than Surman has in 3 years

First, Surman is a class player end of. Pace is not a guarantee of being a good footballer, we have had a number of examples of players from Terry Curran to Nathan Dyer who have pace but couldnt do anything with a football at their feet.

Second, the system we are playing calls for midfielders at full back who can use the ball, pass accurately and incisively to their team mates. Forget old style full backs, possession is the key word in this team, not percentage balls curled up the line for forwards to chase.

I think it would be a good idea to play some fullbacks in the fullback positions for a change but we hav'nt got any and can't apparently get some in on loans.

It was pretty obvious on saturday that we are weak in those areas and it will prove costly this season.