Jack Payne in League 1

[Norwichshrimper]

Jack Payne was the only one who didn't underperform in that match. If anyone can post the Highlights , I think you'll see that Payne was involved in every attack playing as a forward alongside BC rather than the Mythical 451 that most on the zone claimed that day. We played poor that day but that was not due to being unbalanced.

From memory, lookout for Deegans pass of the match to BC. Luckily Corr failed to cushioned a simple header to Payne or we may have all missed our day out at Wembley.

With respect, I think you are missing the point, no-one is saying Payne underperformed on that day. He may or may not have been the best player on the day....I can't remember I've consigned most of the day to history - I remember Corr playing an absolutely sublime pass through to Leonard and Payne's goal, some poor defending and some poor weather - not much else.

Let's assume you're right and Payne was the best player in our team that day...that still doesn't justify his place in the team...it's a team game and I'd rather see a solid XI give decent performances and win 1-0 than see Payne (or anyone else) have a storming game and score twice in a 5-3 defeat. You claim that the poor performance was not due to being unbalanced, but how do you know that? What I do remember is that we had been playing 2 up front (Corr and Cassidy - and earlier Corr and Pigott) in the run up to the Morecambe game, to great success. Then Cassidy fell ill in the week preceding the Morecambe game, Pigott was well off form, and PB went for the Payne option instead...we lost and the rest is history. (and for the record, I'm not suggesting we would or would not have lost had Payne not started).

The discussion is about the impact on the team when Payne is accommodated. As I've said previously if you play Payne you have to sacrifice a more traditional striker, winger or midfielder. No-one is saying (or I don't think they are) that he is a bad player or he doesn't have something to offer - the concern is that Jack has to not only justify his own position in the team, but also justify the loss of a more structured positional player and the tactical tweaking that goes with it. I'm not saying he can't do that, I'm not saying he hasn't in the past done that, but it is difficult at this stage in his career to accommodate him in every game.

IMO at this point in time Jack Payne is not good enough (or consistently good enough) for us to build the team around him, therefore by default he is going to be a bit part player or sub when we're chasing the game...there are basically 4 outcomes..
1) He improves, becomes a regular and we pick the other 9 outfield players to complement him
2) He remains a bit part player/sub as long as we are happy to pay him to do that job
3) He moves on to a lower level where he will merit a regular starting place
4) He morphs into a more structured midfielder or striker and gets more first team action that way (either with us, or somewhere else)

I like Jack Payne....enjoy watching him play, but it's the overall team performance that counts

 

[Pubey]

Jack Payne should have a look at the best player on the Morecambe pitch that day - Jack Redshaw, to see how to become a small but very very good attacker/striker.

 

[Norwichshrimper]

Jack Payne should have a look at the best player on the Morecambe pitch that day - Jack Redshaw, to see how to become a small but very very good attacker/striker.

I was actually going to say that...Redshaw is similar build to Payne, but is a genuine striker. Payne is undoubtedly a talented and skilful footballer , but at times his style does have a touch of the "kid in the playground" about him. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Jam_Man]

That was the perfect opportunity for Jack but it never happened. I have said before he is a possible forward.

But like the Crawley match he would struggle to make it happen, he would need a decent supply. We know he can finish and he makes space and some really good unrewarded runs. Look at Westons goal on Tuesday and watch Jacks run into the box. Remember the 10 minutes highlights from Morecambe last May watch his positioning when Lenny is shooting or crossing etc.

Just because he wasnt amazing in one game doesnt mean we just bin him and play him elsewhere. He was playing in a 433 so was pretty much a forward anyway.

Payne has always got into the box, he plays in the hole and even in 4411 with Corr he was always playing advanced, despite some claiming he was having to track back he rarely did.

The problem is if you are saying he needs to be supplied to have an impact then of course he does, he needs the ball to feet. But if you mean he needs the ball in the box you are ignoring the strengths he has, getting the ball in deeper positions. If you just want him to play as a striker it means him not getting a chance to get the ball and do what he is good at.

He isnt a striker, he doesnt have a lot of pace, he is too small to win headers so we need to give him the ball to his feet in deeper positions so he can run and use the ball. In those instances he needs to improve his end product and not run into dead ends too often.

He fits into a 451/4231 system or even 4411, but just dont see him in a 442.

 

[Pubey]

I was actually going to say that...Redshaw is similar build to Payne, but is a genuine striker. Payne is undoubtedly a talented and skilful footballer , but at times his style does have a touch of the "kid in the playground" about him. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.

I agree about him looking like that.

Payne bounced off one of the Burton players last season and it was just so grim. It was like a toddler against a linebacker. Arms and legs everywhere and ended up about 15 metres away from where he started.

He doesn't necessarily need to put on tons of muscle, because his speed and low centre of gravity are useful weapons - however he does need to toughen up a bit, and then maybe he could cut it as a secondary striker/#10, because he can finish, run at defenders, pick a pass and find gaps.

 

[rigsby]

Maybe, he played well. Also it was clearly a 4411. Payne played deeper than Corr. The issue was that Morecambe worked Payne out and nullified him after his really bright start, and Payne was knackered after 60 mins.

However the point is that by bringing him into the team, you have to play a certain way to get the best from him, and you forgo what someone else may have contributed.

I called Brown a moron at the time regarding Morecambe, the formation didn't work. We had won 7 games in a row playing 442 with Cassidy or Pigott alongside Corr. Brown then decided to change things and it backfired massively.

For a start Cassidy was ill so we had to make a change. Piggott had not started for 6 games. Payne had come on as sub in the last 3 games so was the obvious replacement.

Because we had to win game rather than just draw, we chased the game instead of sitting back and looking for a 1-0.
Their first goal came about because two of our midfielders closed down their right back in his own half after just 7 minutes. Not good away game management.

Their second goal....Bolger kicks it out against the hoardings instead of row Z, gets caught out by a quick throw and then Barrett and Bentley have a Gentleman's excuse me at the near post and allow them to slip in and score.


Despite conceding 2 silly goals we still created more chances than Morecambe, remember Hurst's miss at 2-1. So I would say we lost not because of formations or team selection but because somewhere along the line if you have to win 8 in a row you will slip up or luck, which we had along the way, will run out.


Ps, PB says if you apologize nicely he will happily pose for a photo with you and the play-off trophy.

 

[Pubey]

For a start Cassidy was ill so we had to make a change. Piggott had not started for 6 games. Payne had come on as sub in the last 3 games so was the obvious replacement.

Because we had to win game rather than just draw, we chased the game instead of sitting back and looking for a 1-0.
Their first goal came about because two of our midfielders closed down their right back in his own half after just 7 minutes. Not good away game management.

Their second goal....Bolger kicks it out against the hoardings instead of row Z, gets caught out by a quick throw and then Barrett and Bentley have a Gentleman's excuse me at the near post and allow them to slip in and score.


Despite conceding 2 silly goals we still created more chances than Morecambe, remember Hurst's miss at 2-1. So I would say we lost not because of formations or team selection but because somewhere along the line if you have to win 8 in a row you will slip up or luck, which we had along the way, will run out.


Ps, PB says if you apologize nicely he will happily pose for a photo with you and the play-off trophy.

Their first goal came from Payne giving away possession.

 

[rigsby]

Just because he wasnt amazing in one game doesnt mean we just bin him and play him elsewhere. He was playing in a 433 so was pretty much a forward anyway.

Payne has always got into the box, he plays in the hole and even in 4411 with Corr he was always playing advanced, despite some claiming he was having to track back he rarely did.

The problem is if you are saying he needs to be supplied to have an impact then of course he does, he needs the ball to feet. But if you mean he needs the ball in the box you are ignoring the strengths he has, getting the ball in deeper positions. If you just want him to play as a striker it means him not getting a chance to get the ball and do what he is good at.

He isnt a striker, he doesnt have a lot of pace, he is too small to win headers so we need to give him the ball to his feet in deeper positions so he can run and use the ball. In those instances he needs to improve his end product and not run into dead ends too often.

He fits into a 451/4231 system or even 4411, but just dont see him in a 442.

So was Kevin Phillips.... the last English player to finish as top scorer in the premiership with 30 goals.

For the record for all the people who have accused me of 'Missing the point' Jack Payne would not be in my starting 11 and would probably struggle to make one of the five sub slots at the moment. He has totally lacked an end product so far this term.

My suggestion of a forward role (last season) is because of his lack of impact when he has had a rare chance in our midfield.....As I said in my post match report after Crawley.

 

[rigsby]

Their first goal came from Payne giving away possession.

Like I say we chased too early, he was too keen to keep the ball in play. But what happened when their right back got the ball ?

 

[Jam_Man]

Kevin Phillips was a natural striker though, Payne isnt. Payne is good on theball in deep positions and if you play him advanced on the shoulders of defenders it completely takes away the strengths he brings to the game.

Even playing deep he is still a "forward" and not a central midfielder, he has rarely played in a central midfield position.

 

[RobM]

Their first goal came from Payne giving away possession.

Isn't that where most goals come from?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Isn't that where most goals come from?

That's harsh on Payne - he doesn't even play that often.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

37 I think, I may have missed one

Not even sure we have played 37 balls to feet so far this season

 

[slapheadsteve]

Not even sure we have played 37 balls to feet so far this season

Only the games Noel Hunt has played this season !!!!

 

[RobM]

That's harsh on Payne - he doesn't even play that often.

I meant - most goals come from lost possession in general. I wasn't singling out any specific player.

 

[jaffa1]

Not even sure we have played 37 balls to feet so far this season

More like 3.7

 

[Beefy]

Payne's biggest issue with getting into the team this year, even more than the obvious issue with formations, is Anthony Wordsworth, who is a similar style of player but bigger and much more experienced. If we're a goal down tomorrow I know which of the two of them I'd back to make a greater impact.

 

[jaffa1]

Payne's biggest issue with getting into the team this year, even more than the obvious issue with formations, is Anthony Wordsworth, who is a similar style of player but bigger and much more experienced. If we're a goal down tomorrow I know which of the two of them I'd back to make a greater impact.

Yep, it's a tough one, the dynamic 'little Messi' or the languid hipster........

 

[geoffmundo]

Payne's biggest issue with getting into the team this year, even more than the obvious issue with formations, is Anthony Wordsworth, who is a similar style of player but bigger and much more experienced. If we're a goal down tomorrow I know which of the two of them I'd back to make a greater impact.

Absolutely JP every time

 

[jaffa1]

Err, cough, go the languid hipster !! :blush: