McGahey 12:21 - Sep 17 with 6207 views | D_Alien | The club did some pretty good business over the summer, but imo the best bit of business was in persuading this lad to sign on for another couple of years When Hilly refers in his interview to players becoming leaders i'm pretty sure he'll have had McGahey in mind. He's becoming the lynchpin of our defence we hoped he would, and his marshalling of Eaves on Saturday was masterful. The only time Eaves escaped his clutches he slammed the ball against the crossbar, as if to emphasise how dangerous he was Hilly also makes the point about much of their play coming through Eaves. With him neutered, Gillingham's effectiveness was much diminished. That's them being made to look ordinary by our players and tactics, not that they were poor as such - there is a difference. When they introduced their tricky wide man in the second half their play became more varied and they started creating chances again McGahey can only go from strength to strength on the back of that display. He's got everything you need in a CB, including pace. Delaney looked a bit more composed alongside him, but that's unsurprising given the confidence McGahey radiates [Post edited 17 Sep 2018 12:26]
| |
| | |
McGahey on 13:26 - Sep 17 with 3341 views | JimmyRustler | Excellent player already and he's only 22. If he carries on improving he could well make it to the promised land one day like R Creg | | | |
McGahey on 13:48 - Sep 17 with 3279 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
McGahey on 13:26 - Sep 17 by JimmyRustler | Excellent player already and he's only 22. If he carries on improving he could well make it to the promised land one day like R Creg |
Just an odd goal or two would help. | | | |
McGahey on 13:51 - Sep 17 with 3268 views | JimmyRustler |
McGahey on 13:48 - Sep 17 by Yorkshire_Dale | Just an odd goal or two would help. |
I'm not sure how aggressively he's encouraged to attack corners because we often need him to chase back if the other team breaks away. It would be nice if he could chip in now and again though | | | |
McGahey on 13:54 - Sep 17 with 3257 views | fitzochris | Skipping over the attempt to yet again prove Gillingham weren't poor, I agree with all said about McGahey. He's a fantastic centre half who will only get better. | |
| |
McGahey on 14:02 - Sep 17 with 3222 views | TVOS1907 |
McGahey on 13:48 - Sep 17 by Yorkshire_Dale | Just an odd goal or two would help. |
Why? His main role is to keep them out and Delaney is much more of a threat at set pieces. | |
| Undoubted knowledge? Or just the application of common sense and using my brain? |
| |
McGahey on 14:12 - Sep 17 with 3189 views | DaleiLama | Funny the OP should bring this up as I said almost exactly the same as the first two paragraphs to Ron who I sit next to on Saturday. He dominated and frustrated Eaves in equal measures. Presumably his family was so named as they come level with the same named part of the roof on a two storey building, but despite Eaves' weight (probably) and height advantage, Harrison's low centre of gravity and strength meant he was rarely bested. His dominance on the ground reminds me of Calvin's in the air - impressive. There was a moment, in the first half I think it was, when Hilly shouted out "let that be a lesson to you". I confess I hadn't seen which misdemeanour it referred to, but it does seem to be that the gaffer is getting the best out of Harrison and developing him and the player recognises that and is enjoying the process enough to sign the deal mentioned in the OP. I'm also wondering if that back 4 is actually better than a back 5 with Jim in it if it leaves us lighter-weight in midfield or attack. It goes as read that there is supposed to be overlap with wing-backs, but a back four didn't hold us back from attacking on Saturday. Interesting to see how we line up on Saturday now as this must have given Keith more to ponder. [Post edited 17 Sep 2018 14:14]
| |
| |
McGahey on 15:33 - Sep 17 with 3046 views | 100notout |
McGahey on 14:02 - Sep 17 by TVOS1907 | Why? His main role is to keep them out and Delaney is much more of a threat at set pieces. |
Because like R Craig he's a centre half. Unlike R Craig he doesn't score many goals. If he did, alongside all his other excellent qualities, he would be one hell of a player and be a target for Premier league clubs (imho of course). | |
| |
McGahey on 16:45 - Sep 17 with 2916 views | tony_roch975 |
McGahey on 14:12 - Sep 17 by DaleiLama | Funny the OP should bring this up as I said almost exactly the same as the first two paragraphs to Ron who I sit next to on Saturday. He dominated and frustrated Eaves in equal measures. Presumably his family was so named as they come level with the same named part of the roof on a two storey building, but despite Eaves' weight (probably) and height advantage, Harrison's low centre of gravity and strength meant he was rarely bested. His dominance on the ground reminds me of Calvin's in the air - impressive. There was a moment, in the first half I think it was, when Hilly shouted out "let that be a lesson to you". I confess I hadn't seen which misdemeanour it referred to, but it does seem to be that the gaffer is getting the best out of Harrison and developing him and the player recognises that and is enjoying the process enough to sign the deal mentioned in the OP. I'm also wondering if that back 4 is actually better than a back 5 with Jim in it if it leaves us lighter-weight in midfield or attack. It goes as read that there is supposed to be overlap with wing-backs, but a back four didn't hold us back from attacking on Saturday. Interesting to see how we line up on Saturday now as this must have given Keith more to ponder. [Post edited 17 Sep 2018 14:14]
|
Back 5 may still be better away & it'll depend on opposition's style of play - don't think we should assume formation's done & dusted. The question is more about how much the wing backs or wide front players (cf Andrew/Wilbraham) can press the opposing full backs. Joe Raff looks more comfortable to me when playing FB as on Sat rather than WB - Hart (based on limited evidence) looks comfortable in either role. For me the key at our level is whether there's a plan B, C etc cos any formation only gets half a dozen games before it's sussed by oppositions. | |
| | Login to get fewer ads
McGahey on 16:54 - Sep 17 with 2897 views | isitme |
McGahey on 13:54 - Sep 17 by fitzochris | Skipping over the attempt to yet again prove Gillingham weren't poor, I agree with all said about McGahey. He's a fantastic centre half who will only get better. |
At our level he is the rare full physical package - tall, strong and quick. His decision making is much better, as has his distribution. The thing that is impressing me the most is the growth in his leadership skills. In the Checkatrade Trophy game he was constantly talking Matherson through the game, in a positive, support way. He could be our next big sale. | | | |
McGahey on 17:15 - Sep 17 with 2861 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
McGahey on 15:33 - Sep 17 by 100notout | Because like R Craig he's a centre half. Unlike R Craig he doesn't score many goals. If he did, alongside all his other excellent qualities, he would be one hell of a player and be a target for Premier league clubs (imho of course). |
Well said 100no.........what team does n't want a player to chip in with an odd goal or 3! | | | |
McGahey on 17:16 - Sep 17 with 2858 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
McGahey on 14:02 - Sep 17 by TVOS1907 | Why? His main role is to keep them out and Delaney is much more of a threat at set pieces. |
What happens if Delaney's over in Germany?? | | | |
McGahey on 17:25 - Sep 17 with 2830 views | Shun | Agree with OP. McGahey seems to have progressed an extra level this summer to the point where he’s comfortably the best defender in the back 4 or 5 now, an accolade I would’ve always given to Rafferty. He’s strong, possesses the right amount of aggression and is deceptively quick. I find it hard to believe he wouldn’t have had other offers in the summer so I’m pleased with the commitment to the club he’s shown. An absolute colossus and he’s only getting better! | | | |
McGahey on 18:36 - Sep 17 with 2695 views | TVOS1907 |
McGahey on 17:16 - Sep 17 by Yorkshire_Dale | What happens if Delaney's over in Germany?? |
LIke the other Saturday, you mean, when we scored three? | |
| Undoubted knowledge? Or just the application of common sense and using my brain? |
| |
McGahey on 19:07 - Sep 17 with 2633 views | TVOS1907 |
McGahey on 15:33 - Sep 17 by 100notout | Because like R Craig he's a centre half. Unlike R Craig he doesn't score many goals. If he did, alongside all his other excellent qualities, he would be one hell of a player and be a target for Premier league clubs (imho of course). |
Fair point, but I think his time in the first team has already shown he’s unlikely to contribute much in that regard. | |
| Undoubted knowledge? Or just the application of common sense and using my brain? |
| |
McGahey on 21:06 - Sep 17 with 2444 views | D_Alien |
McGahey on 13:54 - Sep 17 by fitzochris | Skipping over the attempt to yet again prove Gillingham weren't poor, I agree with all said about McGahey. He's a fantastic centre half who will only get better. |
Whilst suggesting why we made Gillingham look ordinary, i've yet to see any evidence to suggest why Gillingham were poor other than the tired old cliche itself which gets trotted out whenever Dale achieve a comfortable victory Full credit should go to the players and tactics where due - and i won't have it any other way | |
| |
McGahey on 21:13 - Sep 17 with 2430 views | fitzochris |
McGahey on 21:06 - Sep 17 by D_Alien | Whilst suggesting why we made Gillingham look ordinary, i've yet to see any evidence to suggest why Gillingham were poor other than the tired old cliche itself which gets trotted out whenever Dale achieve a comfortable victory Full credit should go to the players and tactics where due - and i won't have it any other way |
Don’t then. But they were poor. | |
| |
McGahey on 21:18 - Sep 17 with 2417 views | TVOS1907 |
McGahey on 21:06 - Sep 17 by D_Alien | Whilst suggesting why we made Gillingham look ordinary, i've yet to see any evidence to suggest why Gillingham were poor other than the tired old cliche itself which gets trotted out whenever Dale achieve a comfortable victory Full credit should go to the players and tactics where due - and i won't have it any other way |
Dale were excellent, that's already been established, but they were excellent because (a) they just were excellent and because (b) they were able to take advantage of poor opposition due to their excellence. Or summat like that. 'Excellent' is today's 'doubt'. All my own opinion, of course. | |
| Undoubted knowledge? Or just the application of common sense and using my brain? |
| |
McGahey on 21:24 - Sep 17 with 2403 views | fitzochris |
McGahey on 21:18 - Sep 17 by TVOS1907 | Dale were excellent, that's already been established, but they were excellent because (a) they just were excellent and because (b) they were able to take advantage of poor opposition due to their excellence. Or summat like that. 'Excellent' is today's 'doubt'. All my own opinion, of course. |
No, you’re absolutely right - and it has been established that Dale were excellent, but this thread has the feeling of someone needing to have the last word. | |
| |
McGahey on 21:29 - Sep 17 with 2392 views | Clivert |
McGahey on 21:24 - Sep 17 by fitzochris | No, you’re absolutely right - and it has been established that Dale were excellent, but this thread has the feeling of someone needing to have the last word. |
R Harrison. | | | |
McGahey on 21:30 - Sep 17 with 2392 views | 442Dale |
McGahey on 21:13 - Sep 17 by fitzochris | Don’t then. But they were poor. |
Some thought that Gillingham were possibly the worst L1 team seen in many a year. I disagree that they were anywhere near BuryatGigg-bad, but they were pretty rubbish. It was one of those games you know we will win, the sort that Parkin used to specialise in during first spell and numerous times under Hill. It was also a lot like beating Gillingham 3-0 in 93-94. Anyway, back to McGahey. The greatest accolade that can be paid is that his current form makes it irrelevant whether we play 4 or 5 at the back. Defensively in open play we look much better and that, in the main, is down to him. (Set pieces we could have 37 at the back and still concede.) | |
| |
McGahey on 21:35 - Sep 17 with 2378 views | kiwidale |
McGahey on 21:24 - Sep 17 by fitzochris | No, you’re absolutely right - and it has been established that Dale were excellent, but this thread has the feeling of someone needing to have the last word. |
Its only his opinion which he sticks by and I see his point were Gillingham genuinely poor or did our excellence make them look poor? It kind of devalues or win if we just beat a poor team. | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
McGahey on 21:38 - Sep 17 with 2370 views | TVOS1907 |
McGahey on 21:35 - Sep 17 by kiwidale | Its only his opinion which he sticks by and I see his point were Gillingham genuinely poor or did our excellence make them look poor? It kind of devalues or win if we just beat a poor team. |
I think it's a bit of both, but we have played poor teams previously and not taken advantage, especially against the likes of Oxford, Walsall and MK Dons last season. I get the feeling this season is starting to turn into one that might be different to last season after the initial misgivings. | |
| Undoubted knowledge? Or just the application of common sense and using my brain? |
| |
McGahey on 21:38 - Sep 17 with 2372 views | 442Dale |
McGahey on 21:35 - Sep 17 by kiwidale | Its only his opinion which he sticks by and I see his point were Gillingham genuinely poor or did our excellence make them look poor? It kind of devalues or win if we just beat a poor team. |
I get that too. It shouldn’t devalue it because it was more about the way we played to our strengths that stood out for me, whatever the opposition or score. Similar to the end of the Middlesbrough game. | |
| |
McGahey on 21:47 - Sep 17 with 2348 views | fitzochris |
McGahey on 21:35 - Sep 17 by kiwidale | Its only his opinion which he sticks by and I see his point were Gillingham genuinely poor or did our excellence make them look poor? It kind of devalues or win if we just beat a poor team. |
It devalues nothing. I said on another thread that we’ve dropped points against teams putting on a poor show before. We didn’t here and that’s testament to the team Hill picked, the instructions he gave the team and the players for carrying them out. What did you think, Kiwi? Were Gillingham poor? [Post edited 17 Sep 2018 21:49]
| |
| |
McGahey on 21:51 - Sep 17 with 2335 views | D_Alien |
McGahey on 21:24 - Sep 17 by fitzochris | No, you’re absolutely right - and it has been established that Dale were excellent, but this thread has the feeling of someone needing to have the last word. |
"Having the last word" is yet another pretty tired cliché But no worries, i'll just join in the next chorus of "they were poor" when referring to opposition defeated by more than the odd goal Dead easy, this chorus lark | |
| |
| |