Confirmed Transfer Mills to Bolton

[Waxed]

Possession should be a basic principle shouldn't it? You give the ball away from defence and it comes straight back at you. We had the players to do it last season but for some reason elected to do the opposite on many occasions. Not just Mills was guilty of that but he was the main culprit for me.

A more direct approach might work for a team like Stoke but then we didn't and don't have the likes of Crouch, Jerome and Fuller to rely upon up front. Instead we have Beckford and Nugent who, for all their attributes, are not going to cause too many problems in the air.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Interesting. If I was going to buy a player based on your scouting report, I would go for:

1) Mr Shaky
2) Mr Hit & Miss

I think my last pick would be the aware and confident lumbering buffoon.

 

[camberwell fox]

Absolute madness.

Did you actually ever go to any matches?! I can't imagine that you have, and if you have been then you clearly don't understand football.

See below.

Yes, a couple of games per season. I also had the misfortune to see us on the box a few times. If he wasn't woeful for us i really never want to be in a poosition to see anyone be woeful for us. If the answer is Matt Mills, in no part of the question should the word solid defender appear.

And yes i think i do understand football a bit.

 

[Macky]

If the answer is Matt Mills, in no part of the question should the word solid defender appear.

Which Championship player is the antithesis of a solid defender?

 

[FryattFox]

If the answer is Matt Mills, in no part of the question should the word solid defender appear.

Which Championship player is the antithesis of a solid defender?

Wrong. You didn't use soliddefender as one word.

 

[M17TT C]

You do not need to be in possesion to score at all. How are own goals scored?

Also, you do not need to have 100% possesion to win a game. In fact, you could win a game with 0% possesion.

 

[FryattFox]

Yes, a couple of games per season. I also had the misfortune to see us on the box a few times. If he wasn't woeful for us i really never want to be in a poosition to see anyone be woeful for us. If the answer is Matt Mills, in no part of the question should the word solid defender appear.

And yes i think i do understand football a bit.

Well I appreciate all football is about opinions, but I think your off the mark on this one quite substantially. I don't think Mills played well for us, or up to his full potential, but I expect anyone who thinks that he is a woeful player to be proved wrong.

i really never want to be in a poosition

Understandable.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Well, to be fair, you were the one that brought the historical reference into it in the first place. Putting that aside, did you watch England in the Euros? We were exceptional at giving the ball away and this was a collection of players from the best teams in the Premier League.

A lot of cobblers is spoken about possession in the modern game. Having most of it doesn't mean you do anything constructive with it as many teams prove all the time. Under Sven, we dominated possession in lots of games that we failed to win. When MON was here, we almost always had 40% or less possession in games and seemed to do rather well. It's also not a modern phenomena that possession is more valuable nowadays. Liverpool in the 70s-80s were built on possession football but they also had the best players. My point is, that on its own, possession is irrelevant and that has been the case in any era. Another obvious example is Chelsea in the Champions League last season. They hardly kept the ball for two passes in the later matches, yet triumphed through good, old fashioned, guts, determination and luck. These factors are far more significant in determining a result than possession of the ball.

Matt Mills isn't an anachronism. He's a modern central defender who likes to try the occasional long ball in a match as do many other central defenders in this league and better ones. The fact that his success percentage with them in a few games for us was poor proves nothing about his ability as a footballer. The fact that he received a couple of red cards proves nothing. Just as his excellent last ditch blocks in a number of games don't prove anything either. At his best, Mills is better than Morgan or St. Ledger in my view. However, we never saw him at his best probably due to reasons I've previously expressed in this thread. Given the things he said in his interview the other day, it would appear that NP decided to make an example of him to establish his credentials as boss and make it clear to the rest of the players that he wanted a subservient staff.

Personally, I think this trait in NP is a poor one and something that will ultimately stop him from making the grade at Premier League level. Time will tell though.

Yes, I watched England in the Euros and if their players really were among the best in the PL they should've got further.

I don't think there is a lot of rubbish talked about possession at all, it's common sense to me, of course you can win games with little possession, but your chances of winning a game rise with the more possesion you have. Foreign players have come into the PL and taught English players a lesson, but yet we still continue to ignore them as you are doing and continue to produce players based on their physical attributes rather than their technical ones.

And I'd like to know what attributes Mills has that you consider him a modern central defender? Because I really don't see them. I'd say he's pretty much the definition of an old school English defender: a player with extremely limited technical ability and a defender whose ability is based around his ability to make blocks and tackles and win the ball in the air, rather than to read the game well and keep possession. Players like that were a lot more effective in English football 15 years ago when English strikers were dominated by big target men and goal poachers, but these players are the small minority in England now and those who are based on those styles (Heskey, Owen, Defoe, Crouch etc) have all become more and more ineffective as their careers have gone on. Thoe types of forwards nowadays who are easy to mark and great in the air, so a defender who is tall in stron will be effective against them have declined greatly in recent years and the style of defenders should move on with them.

 

[indierich06]

Yes, I watched England in the Euros and if their players really were among the best in the PL they should've got further.

I don't think there is a lot of rubbish talked about possession at all, it's common sense to me, of course you can win games with little possession, but your chances of winning a game rise with the more possesion you have. Foreign players have come into the PL and taught English players a lesson, but yet we still continue to ignore them as you are doing and continue to produce players based on their physical attributes rather than their technical ones.

And I'd like to know what attributes Mills has that you consider him a modern central defender? Because I really don't see them. I'd say he's pretty much the definition of an old school English defender: a player with extremely limited technical ability and a defender whose ability is based around his ability to make blocks and tackles and win the ball in the air, rather than to read the game well and keep possession. Players like that were a lot more effective in English football 15 years ago when English strikers were dominated by big target men and goal poachers, but these players are the small minority in England now and those who are based on those styles (Heskey, Owen, Defoe, Crouch etc) have all become more and more ineffective as their careers have gone on. Thoe types of forwards nowadays who are easy to mark and great in the air, so a defender who is tall in stron will be effective against them have declined greatly in recent years and the style of defenders should move on with them.

Spot on.

 

[Brown Nose]

Yes, I watched England in the Euros and if their players really were among the best in the PL they should've got further.

I don't think there is a lot of rubbish talked about possession at all, it's common sense to me, of course you can win games with little possession, but your chances of winning a game rise with the more possesion you have. Foreign players have come into the PL and taught English players a lesson, but yet we still continue to ignore them as you are doing and continue to produce players based on their physical attributes rather than their technical ones.

And I'd like to know what attributes Mills has that you consider him a modern central defender? Because I really don't see them. I'd say he's pretty much the definition of an old school English defender: a player with extremely limited technical ability and a defender whose ability is based around his ability to make blocks and tackles and win the ball in the air, rather than to read the game well and keep possession. Players like that were a lot more effective in English football 15 years ago when English strikers were dominated by big target men and goal poachers, but these players are the small minority in England now and those who are based on those styles (Heskey, Owen, Defoe, Crouch etc) have all become more and more ineffective as their careers have gone on. Thoe types of forwards nowadays who are easy to mark and great in the air, so a defender who is tall in stron will be effective against them have declined greatly in recent years and the style of defenders should move on with them.

In itself, overall possession in football doesn't matter at all. It doesn't influence results one iota. Shots on target matter, possession in and around the penalty area matters, corners matter. But possession proves nothing more than an ability to retain the ball. Whoop-di-do.

There was a piece in the Guardian last season looking at a game between Swansea and Newcastle. Swansea were one of the best possession teams in the league and Newcastle were one of the poorest and I think the stats on possession in the game between them was extreme, something like 80% for Swansea. The article discussed how it was that Swansea had so much of the ball but lost 2-0. Well the answer is obvious, having the ball anywhere except in and around the opposition penalty area is pointless in terms of scoring a goal. In fact, you're actually more likely to score if the opposition to have the ball in their defensive final third than the 'attacking' team have it in the other two thirds. Pep Guardiola said so about the matches with Chelsea. If the game was about possession, Barcelona would always win, but it isn't. Chelsea deserved to win because they took their chances.

The complete misnomer about possession stems from the fact that the best teams tend to be the best at keeping the ball as well as the really important things such as scoring goals and defending well.

Ergo, Matt Mills is Pele.

 

[Blue Maniac]

The complete misnomer about possession

Is this the Steve Claridge definition of 'misnomer' that doesn't mean 'misnomer' at all?

 

[Miles Away]

What if Wellens had a shit in my backseat?

 

[Macky]

A misnomer about misnomer?

 

[camberwell fox]

Which Championship player is the antithesis of a solid defender?

Adrian Mariappa?

 

[camberwell fox]

A misnomer about misnomer?

Too many murders there for my liking macky.

 

[Lako42]

Adrian Mariappa?

One his **** up back passes was great last season. Standards must be slipping

 

[Profondo Rosso]

In itself, overall possession in football doesn't matter at all. It doesn't influence results one iota. Shots on target matter, possession in and around the penalty area matters, corners matter. But possession proves nothing more than an ability to retain the ball. Whoop-di-do.

There was a piece in the Guardian last season looking at a game between Swansea and Newcastle. Swansea were one of the best possession teams in the league and Newcastle were one of the poorest and I think the stats on possession in the game between them was extreme, something like 80% for Swansea. The article discussed how it was that Swansea had so much of the ball but lost 2-0. Well the answer is obvious, having the ball anywhere except in and around the opposition penalty area is pointless in terms of scoring a goal. In fact, you're actually more likely to score if the opposition to have the ball in their defensive final third than the 'attacking' team have it in the other two thirds. Pep Guardiola said so about the matches with Chelsea. If the game was about possession, Barcelona would always win, but it isn't. Chelsea deserved to win because they took their chances.

The complete misnomer about possession stems from the fact that the best teams tend to be the best at keeping the ball as well as the really important things such as scoring goals and defending well.

Ergo, Matt Mills is Pele.

I know there are exceptions, that's already been establshed, you don't need to keep citing them, but a team with more possession will gnerally win more games and you also keep concentrating on that when that is only part of my point. The fact is the type of sforwards defenders are facing are completely different from what they were 15 years ago. Strength, height and tackling ability was fine against target men who stay up front and are easy to msrk that dominated English football 25 years ago, but nowadays against forwards who are more like attacking midfielders and less like centre forwards it's never going to be as effective.

And comparing Matt Mills to Pele ceertainly goes against you're iea that Mills is a modern defender.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

God, that post had more misspellings in than a child's lemonade stand.

 

[Brown Nose]

I know there are exceptions, that's already been establshed, you don't need to keep citing them, but a team with more possession will gnerally win more games and you also keep concentrating on that when that is only part of my point. The fact is the type of sforwards defenders are facing are completely different from what they were 15 years ago. Strength, height and tackling ability was fine against target men who stay up front and are easy to msrk that dominated English football 25 years ago, but nowadays against forwards who are more like attacking midfielders and less like centre forwards it's never going to be as effective.

And comparing Matt Mills to Pele ceertainly goes against you're iea that Mills is a modern defender.

I have been attempting to pick to pieces your possession argument as nonsense so we can move on. You appear to accept everything I'm saying and yet refuse to acknowledge that this disproves your point. I know there are a lot of instances where teams have more possession and win. My contention is that this has nothing to do with the fact that they had more possession in itself. One of the things I found refreshing about Roy Hodgson this summer was his dismissal of possession stats as totally irrelevant.

I understand your point about Mills against new age attackers but just how many of those is he likely to be facing in the Championship? I've never seen any teams in our league display the level of sophistication in terms of positioning and movement that would relegate someone like Mills to a bygone age. In fact, I've seen precious little of it at Premier League level. My personal view of this form of attack (the Barca/Spain thing) is that it is a fad that will be found out soon enough. It's very clever at the moment but it is quite easy to counteract if a coach has an ounce of gumption - see for example how Mourinho counteracted Barca last year. Within a couple more years, just as most Premier League teams have dispensed with most of their strikers, orthodox strikers will be needed again.

And in what way are Morgan, St.Ledger, or any defender NP is likely to recruit, going to be any more capable of playing this sort of 'attacker'? You're singling Mills out again as being especially outdated and he plainly isn't. Blocking, tackling etc are modern qualities against this sort of threat and he was better at that than any other defender we had last season (with the possible exception of Bamba). Just because he's tall and plays a long ball doesn't make him a lumbering oaf.

What is to be gained by making out that Mills is worse than he is? Why can't people just accept that NP singled him out to make an example of him? It's a perfectly understandable managerial tactic in the circumstances. Although in my view, it is the tactic of a limited person/manager.

 

[camberwell fox]

I'm afraid I lose all respect for a players ability when they fail to accept or even see that they have made some very poor decisions in getting sent off needlessly.
On top of all that he is just not very good - being polite.