Quantcast
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Willock 14:58 - May 8 with 4744 viewsbosh67

This kid is going to be a superstar.

Never knowingly right.
Poll: Rename South Africa Road stand the Stan Bowles stand

5
Willock on 10:12 - May 10 with 1456 viewsCroydonCaptJack

Willock on 09:56 - May 10 by hook_hoops

Matt is the eldest, he's at Gillingham. Then there's our Chris and then Joe is the youngest (Arsenal/Newcastle).


Imagine being the proud father of those three. At one point I believe there were two at Arsenal and one at Man Utd.
My young player of the year as well. Really looked like a talent to start with then continued to improve.
2
Willock on 10:40 - May 11 with 1253 viewssimmo

Willock on 09:01 - May 10 by gazza1

No not really Norf.......he was really inconsistent & weak, more than most, and did not deserve a regular start. I never doubted his skills but they were not there often enough.

Recently, he has become more dangerous on the ball, frightens defenders to death and looked very comfortable playing weekly, scoring and creating goals too. He moves around the pitch very well too getting in dangerous areas. Supporters must see he has improved massively.

I don't know why it wasn't there before but maybe training has helped him become a confident player. He deserves his place now but imho not before, just maybe, if MW continued to pick him every week when times were hard there might have been an adverse effect - who knows. Masterstroke from MW & his team and fair play to Willock.


I appreciate we occasionally see different things whilst watching the same games, and it's often difficult to be accurate when watching a stream over live football, but I don't go along with the 'he was weak' rhetoric. A few people said as much, including Clive, so I could be wide of the mark, but I didn't see any evidence of him being particularly weak or bullied. He's a young technical player with a slight build and baby face, but that doesn't mean you can't operate in a physical league and I don't remember him consistently being dominated or failing due to his size.

Ultimately I'm just pleased he's getting the minutes to showcase his talent, which was always there. Even in his cameos he contributed something positive - similar to Adomah. The change of system and support from the likes of Johansen have also played to his strengths and have allowed him and Chair to show more of their own game in better areas of the pitch - meaning he's now able to receive the pass to assist or score, rather than be the person making those penultimate passes himself.

He's got little touches of Eze with his ability to retain possession and beat players, but with more pace. If we can get Stef/equivalent behind him again and keep his confidence high, he's going to be a big problem in this league

ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead

4
Willock on 11:01 - May 11 with 1196 viewsTW_R

Willock on 09:23 - May 10 by gazza1

It isn't 'just me' TW, he wasn't picked by MW so there must have been reasons and I would suggest it was inconsistency. Hopefully, even you, can see the improvements!!!

Shame you could not see that before but I suppose you was blind to it!!!


I think you have proved my point there Gazza.

Maybe the reason he wasn't being picked is because there was no way to fit him into the starting eleven at the time. We were playing 2 defensive midfielders so he was only ever going to be picked to replace Chair, which was suggested months ago. Maybe MW just got it wrong. Maybe you need to be more open-minded. Not everything is as black and white as you like to believe. Willock has always been good enough, but you can't accept that for some reason, but he's definitely proved you wrong.

In terms of inconsistency, even you've commented on how inconsistent the team have been. Not really sure why you are calling out Willock specifically on that. Plenty of players have been inconsistent. Ironically we've been a lot more consistent with him in the team than not.

Not really sure what your last sentence means.
1
Willock on 12:05 - May 11 with 1134 viewsW7Ranger

Willock on 11:01 - May 11 by TW_R

I think you have proved my point there Gazza.

Maybe the reason he wasn't being picked is because there was no way to fit him into the starting eleven at the time. We were playing 2 defensive midfielders so he was only ever going to be picked to replace Chair, which was suggested months ago. Maybe MW just got it wrong. Maybe you need to be more open-minded. Not everything is as black and white as you like to believe. Willock has always been good enough, but you can't accept that for some reason, but he's definitely proved you wrong.

In terms of inconsistency, even you've commented on how inconsistent the team have been. Not really sure why you are calling out Willock specifically on that. Plenty of players have been inconsistent. Ironically we've been a lot more consistent with him in the team than not.

Not really sure what your last sentence means.


Not only did we not really play the formation to give Willock a starting role (as we were starting regulars like Chair and BOS in the first half of the season), but Warbs looked to have been gently breaking him in to the first team action, getting him up to speed with the rigours of Championship football.

You can't really fault MW's selections through the season when you look at how much so many players have progressed and improved substantially since September. Not to mention how few injuires we have sustained as a result of not overplaying players.

Mark and the backroom staff deserve a huge amount of credit for the way they have managed both the building up of experience of many youngsters/newbies, along side the relatively injury free aspet of the whole squad.

To see to the consistant high level of performances that Willock is playing at now, show's that he's been handled/managed brilliantly!
[Post edited 11 May 12:37]
5
Willock on 12:11 - May 11 with 1115 viewsAntti_Heinola

Willock on 10:40 - May 11 by simmo

I appreciate we occasionally see different things whilst watching the same games, and it's often difficult to be accurate when watching a stream over live football, but I don't go along with the 'he was weak' rhetoric. A few people said as much, including Clive, so I could be wide of the mark, but I didn't see any evidence of him being particularly weak or bullied. He's a young technical player with a slight build and baby face, but that doesn't mean you can't operate in a physical league and I don't remember him consistently being dominated or failing due to his size.

Ultimately I'm just pleased he's getting the minutes to showcase his talent, which was always there. Even in his cameos he contributed something positive - similar to Adomah. The change of system and support from the likes of Johansen have also played to his strengths and have allowed him and Chair to show more of their own game in better areas of the pitch - meaning he's now able to receive the pass to assist or score, rather than be the person making those penultimate passes himself.

He's got little touches of Eze with his ability to retain possession and beat players, but with more pace. If we can get Stef/equivalent behind him again and keep his confidence high, he's going to be a big problem in this league


the 'too weak' stuff was always absolute BS based on him being knocked off the ball once on his debut.

Gazza: the words you're looking for are 'I was wrong'. It's not hard, mate ;)

Bare bones.

1

Willock on 12:32 - May 11 with 1063 viewsdaveB

Both Wilock and Chair have the ability to drift out wide and get good quality balls into the box which really helps as an attacking threat so we don't need to rely on full backs alone for width, we've looked a much better side since those two have started games together
1
Willock on 12:57 - May 11 with 1002 viewsdmm

Willock on 12:32 - May 11 by daveB

Both Wilock and Chair have the ability to drift out wide and get good quality balls into the box which really helps as an attacking threat so we don't need to rely on full backs alone for width, we've looked a much better side since those two have started games together


I think Willock and Chair do their best work when playing together behind a lone striker. When it's two up top, one or the other has to drop deeper into CM which often negates their lovely interplay together higher up the pitch that can unlock a defence.

Also, we look much more solid when Field is playing in CM which he does when it's just one striker.
0
Willock on 13:59 - May 11 with 920 viewsgazza1

Willock on 12:11 - May 11 by Antti_Heinola

the 'too weak' stuff was always absolute BS based on him being knocked off the ball once on his debut.

Gazza: the words you're looking for are 'I was wrong'. It's not hard, mate ;)


No I don't think I am wrong.....he was not in the side because MW could not have thought he was good enough. I never doubted his ability but imho he was very inconsistent, more than others, so he was not selected.

He, along with a few of the players have improved, he is much more consistent and confident so he gets a regular game.

MW has done good yet again.
0
Login to get fewer ads

Willock on 14:02 - May 11 with 915 viewsgazza1

Willock on 11:01 - May 11 by TW_R

I think you have proved my point there Gazza.

Maybe the reason he wasn't being picked is because there was no way to fit him into the starting eleven at the time. We were playing 2 defensive midfielders so he was only ever going to be picked to replace Chair, which was suggested months ago. Maybe MW just got it wrong. Maybe you need to be more open-minded. Not everything is as black and white as you like to believe. Willock has always been good enough, but you can't accept that for some reason, but he's definitely proved you wrong.

In terms of inconsistency, even you've commented on how inconsistent the team have been. Not really sure why you are calling out Willock specifically on that. Plenty of players have been inconsistent. Ironically we've been a lot more consistent with him in the team than not.

Not really sure what your last sentence means.


No I do not agree, he was not good enough so he was not selected......its as simple as that. He has improved massive so he plays.

As for the last sentence that you did not understand.....blind -so you could not see the faults.
0
Willock on 14:44 - May 11 with 860 viewsAntti_Heinola

Willock on 13:59 - May 11 by gazza1

No I don't think I am wrong.....he was not in the side because MW could not have thought he was good enough. I never doubted his ability but imho he was very inconsistent, more than others, so he was not selected.

He, along with a few of the players have improved, he is much more consistent and confident so he gets a regular game.

MW has done good yet again.


Lots of back-pedalling here! Freewheeling down a lovely gentle hill! Weeeeeee!

MW knew he was good enough, but knew what he was doing.

you just didn't think he was good enough.

Huge difference.

Bare bones.

2
Willock on 15:27 - May 11 with 787 viewsgazza1

Willock on 14:44 - May 11 by Antti_Heinola

Lots of back-pedalling here! Freewheeling down a lovely gentle hill! Weeeeeee!

MW knew he was good enough, but knew what he was doing.

you just didn't think he was good enough.

Huge difference.


I have said what I have said Antti, he did not play regular and the reason was , imo, he was too inconsistent, more inconsistent than most of the others. MW did not pick him either so perhaps he felt it right not to play him but you may think he is wrong too - drop him a line!!! You obviously thought he should of been playing every week, that's up to you but I hold my opinion far higher than I do yours for obvious reasons.

I say no more on the subject........looking forward to questioning some of your posts, haven't before but I will now - should be fun.

PS - I never said he was no good enough in terms of talent.....have fun a check the posts.
[Post edited 11 May 15:30]
0
Willock on 16:43 - May 11 with 717 viewsderbyhoop

Willock on 09:23 - May 10 by gazza1

It isn't 'just me' TW, he wasn't picked by MW so there must have been reasons and I would suggest it was inconsistency. Hopefully, even you, can see the improvements!!!

Shame you could not see that before but I suppose you was blind to it!!!


I'm with Gazza on this.
Willock wasnt getting full games because he was inconsistent and a little weak. Both those elements have improved throughout the season.
If we are looking for/need 8 figure transfers (I.e. £10m +) he strikes me as the most likely to be the next.

Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain) Find me on twitter @derbyhoop

0

Willock on 20:10 - May 11 with 596 viewsswisscottage

IMO I think the main reason he wasn't picked at the start of the season was two things.

1) With BOS being picked week in week out, he was competing for a spot with Chair.
2) He didn't have a defensive game, in that he didn't take up the right positions and didn't track back much.

The first one sorted itself out in January.
The second one he's improved significantly to the point where I can't fault him at all any more.

I dont' subscribe the the 'weak' aspect outside of the fact he offered nothgin defensively at the start of the season, when compared to the defensive shifts Ilias puts in when we don't have the ball.
1

Willock on 20:19 - May 11 with 575 viewsRog

Doesn't matter why he wasn't playing more before, I'm just glad he is now and as the most exciting player we have I hope we build something around him.
2
Willock on 22:09 - May 11 with 445 viewsTW_R

Willock on 14:02 - May 11 by gazza1

No I do not agree, he was not good enough so he was not selected......its as simple as that. He has improved massive so he plays.

As for the last sentence that you did not understand.....blind -so you could not see the faults.


That’s not what the facts bear out though is it? Within a few days of you saying he wasn’t good enough to start, he was starting against Birmingham instead of Chair. Looks like MW didn’t agree with you after all. We then played various formations including Chair instead of Willock, Willock instead of Chair again, Austin upfront on his own, with Chair and Willock playing behind and when Austin was suspended, Willock pushed further forward alongside Dykes. Formation obviously plays a massive part in selection - any punter knows that.

I think you’ve got a very short memory regarding inconsistent players. The first half of the season the likes of Kakay, Kane, Wallace, Dykes, BOS were all inconsistent and sometimes downright poor. Seems weird that you are suggesting Willock was any worse than any of them.

All players have faults Gazza, particularly ones that play for QPR.
1

Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2021