I think luke Young is F*cked

[Del]

I've seen a few Norwich fans suggesting naughton should be dropped for le laet or what ever his name is.... Who are these full backs that bomb forward for Swansea?

Well i assume the RB is Angal Rangal or whatever his name is.... last thing i saw him do was try a stupid pass against UTD and gift it to Giggs 5 yards from him who set up Hernandez to score.....

Maybe he should concentrate on the basics of defending a bit more. But apparently he's great getting forward.....

[The Godfather]

You state many things which would be true in an ideal world, but we are not in that position. We are QPR and we don't have the likes of Rooney up front, Vidic at the back and Silva pulling the strings.

For most teams their FB's are there to defend. If they have some good periods in games they may have the licence to get forward, but many managers prevent that in the hope of keeping a tight line. Mourinho restricted his Chelsea FB's massively and they won the league.

We were a top Championship side that has added some decent new faces, not replaced the entire team, so as a result we will have some "Championship" standard players. Orr, like many until proven, will be classed as a Championship player, but i have confidence in him and he will be fine. He doesn't shy away from the ball, is confident in posession, can defend and does get forward... what exactly is the problem?

As for Norwich, since when were they anything to worry about when it comes to Prem standard, they are less proven than us given our signings. Also as for Pilkinton, yes he's done very well, but he was playing League 1 last year. Maybe if people were always so negative as to write people off before they do anything then he would never have been signed by Lambert.

Oh finally, back to Orr, you mention him struggling in the Bolton game.... Not sure i remember any blame on him for Cahill's worldie, Gabbidon's OG, or the deflected goal.... Also for an hour of that game we were the better side. If ever a result didn't tell the story that was it.

1. Where have I stated anything 'that would be true in an ideal world'? I have produced an assessment of Bradley Orr and whether he is capable of playing at Premiership level, so this incredibly patronising comment regarding 'not having Vidic, Silva and Rooney' seems totally irrelevant to the discussion. You appear to have completely misread my post.

2. It is simply not true that, in the Premier League, 'most full-backs are there simply to defend'. It's well-known that it is necessary for modern full-backs to provide an attacking threat, especially at the level at which we are competing. Take QPR's recent performances as an example: Young and Traore have both played crucial roles in a number of goals we have scored. Against Wolves it was Traore's driving run which allowed DJ Campbell to slot home the third goal, whilst Young himself scored the second last Saturday. In fact, didn't Helguson's first goal come from a Traore cross? Regarding your example of Mourinho's title-winning side, whilst the manager did restrict his full-backs, they were still able to provide an attacking threat due to the pace of the likes of Ashley Cole and Wayne Bridge. I think you'll find Chelsea's full-backs still played a role in many of the goals that they scored.

In my view, Orr is not capable of providing an attacking threat at Premiership level, which surely undermines the view that 'we'll be fine with him at right-back'. Unfortunately (and I sincerely hope that I'm wrong), I think we will struggle in this area.

3. We do indeed have many 'Championship standard' players, but some possess qualities that make them effective in certain Premier League scenarios. For instance, Clint Hill's experience and ability to wind the opposition up was very effective against the young Daniel Sturridge. Derry's excellent tackling and distribution make him an asset in many Premiership matches. However, Orr doesn't really bring any of these qualities to the table. His lack of pace, erratic distribution, and, at times, poor positioning, means that Premiership-quality opposition will be able to exploit these weaknesses.

4. I'm afraid that Norwich are a decent team, as they have shown against Liverpool and Arsenal. They do not look particularly strong on paper, but they have an excellent manager in Lambert. I can guarantee that, if Young is not fit and Orr replaces him, he will identify the right-back area as one to exploit.

5. Bradley Orr did not play well against Bolton in my view. Despite not being directly responsible for the goals, most of which were rather lucky, I thought he looked suspect and did not get forward at all.

In summary - if Orr plays, I can see us having problems defending the flank. Of course, I genuinely hope that I am wrong and Orr produces a top-class performance. Just because I have a reservation about a player, it does not mean that 'I do not want them to do well', a mistake I see frequently on this forum.

[LoftusRoadLad]

Lets hope Orr will have a blinder....thats all we can hope for and that goes for the rest of em.

[DouDou_87]

IMO, you can't judge a player until after a decent run of games. Norwich's entire squad looked like a team of Championship players at the start of the season and look at how well they've started.

I'm confident Orr can do a job. He was good at Fulham and solid when called upon at Stoke. To dismiss his chances of playing at this level after the Bolton game is ridiculous, if that was the case we could say the entire team that against Bolton can't make the step up.

Anyway theres not much point debating it as with our current injuries we don't have much option that to put him in, so lets get behind the lad and give him a chance.

[The Godfather]

IMO, you can't judge a player until after a decent run of games. Norwich's entire squad looked like a team of Championship players at the start of the season and look at how well they've started.

I'm confident Orr can do a job. He was good at Fulham and solid when called upon at Stoke. To dismiss his chances of playing at this level after the Bolton game is ridiculous, if that was the case we could say the entire team that against Bolton can't make the step up.

Anyway theres not much point debating it as with our current injuries we don't have much option that to put him in, so lets get behind the lad and give him a chance.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that...I thought that all our players were absolutely abysmal against Fulham. Everton was probably his best game, as he was fairly solid defensively. In terms of going forward, however, he offered nothing - and if Baines' free-kick and Cahill's header had hit the back of the net, we would have been chasing the game with two full-backs who can't really threaten the opposition on the attack.

I don't dispute the need to 'get behind the lad'. As I've said, I wish him the best - but I do have my concerns about him at Prem level.

[Del]

1. Where have I stated anything 'that would be true in an ideal world'? I have produced an assessment of Bradley Orr and whether he is capable of playing at Premiership level, so this incredibly patronising comment regarding 'not having Vidic, Silva and Rooney' seems totally irrelevant to the discussion. You appear to have completely misread my post.

2. It is simply not true that, in the Premier League, 'most full-backs are there simply to defend'. It's well-known that it is necessary for modern full-backs to provide an attacking threat, especially at the level at which we are competing. Take QPR's recent performances as an example: Young and Traore have both played crucial roles in a number of goals we have scored. Against Wolves it was Traore's driving run which allowed DJ Campbell to slot home the third goal, whilst Young himself scored the second last Saturday. In fact, didn't Helguson's first goal come from a Traore cross? Regarding your example of Mourinho's title-winning side, whilst the manager did restrict his full-backs, they were still able to provide an attacking threat due to the pace of the likes of Ashley Cole and Wayne Bridge. I think you'll find Chelsea's full-backs still played a role in many of the goals that they scored.

In my view, Orr is not capable of providing an attacking threat at Premiership level, which surely undermines the view that 'we'll be fine with him at right-back'. Unfortunately (and I sincerely hope that I'm wrong), I think we will struggle in this area.

3. We do indeed have many 'Championship standard' players, but some possess qualities that make them effective in certain Premier League scenarios. For instance, Clint Hill's experience and ability to wind the opposition up was very effective against the young Daniel Sturridge. Derry's excellent tackling and distribution make him an asset in many Premiership matches. However, Orr doesn't really bring any of these qualities to the table. His lack of pace, erratic distribution, and, at times, poor positioning, means that Premiership-quality opposition will be able to exploit these weaknesses.

4. I'm afraid that Norwich are a decent team, as they have shown against Liverpool and Arsenal. They do not look particularly strong on paper, but they have an excellent manager in Lambert. I can guarantee that, if Young is not fit and Orr replaces him, he will identify the right-back area as one to exploit.

5. Bradley Orr did not play well against Bolton in my view. Despite not being directly responsible for the goals, most of which were rather lucky, I thought he looked suspect and did not get forward at all.

In summary - if Orr plays, I can see us having problems defending the flank. Of course, I genuinely hope that I am wrong and Orr produces a top-class performance. Just because I have a reservation about a player, it does not mean that 'I do not want them to do well', a mistake I see frequently on this forum.

I think we are slightly at crossed wires here. I can see you point clearly, but you are misinterpreting what i'm saying. I didn't say FB's are there simply to defend, i said they are there to defend and may have the licences to get forward if the manager wants, but the point is first and foremost defending needs to be their focus.

You say in the Prem FB's must offer an attacking threat as well as defend as if it's a pre requisite. Well over the last few years there have been countless teams play boring negative football with a 451 formation becasue of the fear of losing and risk of getting relegated which could financially cripple them due to overspending. Many of those managers didn't have their FB's attacking much because they didn't want to leave gaps that could be exploited. That is a fact.


My ideal world reference was becasue many games we may not even get the chance to attack at all if under the cosh against very good sides, so the attacking side of a FB is less important, however in an ideal world all our players would be excellent.

Anyway, Orr will do a job at RB becasue he knows the position and is capable, besides this weekend we are playing effectively a Championship game so why should he struggle. he may well be trargetted, but we have strengths inn other areas to expoit them. If Arsenal had their shooting boots on it would've been 5-0 at half time and i want to see SWP do what Walcott did to their LB... no doubt someone NW is targetting.

[LBLOCK]

It wasn't that long ago that many of us, myself included, were of the opinion that Hiedar Helgusson was not "Championship standard"

How right we were --- at the moment he's proving to be Premier League standard!

I'm still hoping it's a load of old ball-valves that anyone in our squad is "out with a bad injury" as I still think we have a decent 15 but thereafter we really are struggling.
If Bradders does play tomorrow I reckon he'll be fine - I have confidence in him and especially against Na'rich. Looking at him alone as a player this season I think he's acquitted himself well whenever called upon. For instance:-
Bolton - as noted not really at fault for anything there.
Everton - had a good game if I recall rightly
Wigan - was he playing? Can't recall
Foolham - didn't disgrace himself.
Last 20mins against Stoke - didn't put a foot wrong.

To the 11 who wear the shirt tomorrow --- COME ON U R's!

[stainrodisalegend]

I think we are slightly at crossed wires here. I can see you point clearly, but you are misinterpreting what i'm saying. I didn't say FB's are there simply to defend, i said they are there to defend and may have the licences to get forward if the manager wants, but the point is first and foremost defending needs to be their focus.

You say in the Prem FB's must offer an attacking threat as well as defend as if it's a pre requisite. Well over the last few years there have been countless teams play boring negative football with a 451 formation becasue of the fear of losing and risk of getting relegated which could financially cripple them due to overspending. Many of those managers didn't have their FB's attacking much because they didn't want to leave gaps that could be exploited. That is a fact.


My ideal world reference was becasue many games we may not even get the chance to attack at all if under the cosh against very good sides, so the attacking side of a FB is less important, however in an ideal world all our players would be excellent.

Anyway, Orr will do a job at RB becasue he knows the position and is capable, besides this weekend we are playing effectively a Championship game so why should he struggle. he may well be trargetted, but we have strengths inn other areas to expoit them. If Arsenal had their shooting boots on it would've been 5-0 at half time and i want to see SWP do what Walcott did to their LB... no doubt someone NW is targetting.

Again you still don't quite seem to quite get Godfather's point. In the Prem an ability for a full back to attack is of equal importance to his ability to defend. Midfields often largely cancel each other out and it is the full backs who make the difference. This is prob the single biggest transformation in the game in the last decade. Its why a decade ago Orr would have been a perfectly respectable player but in five/ ten yrs time players of his type will even struggle in the Championship.

[rangerforevereastcote]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that...I thought that all our players were absolutely abysmal against Fulham. Everton was probably his best game, as he was fairly solid defensively. In terms of going forward, however, he offered nothing - and if Baines' free-kick and Cahill's header had hit the back of the net, we would have been chasing the game with two full-backs who can't really threaten the opposition on the attack.

I don't dispute the need to 'get behind the lad'. As I've said, I wish him the best - but I do have my concerns about him at Prem level.

dont want to get into this as the posts fat too long

just to add orr was best player at fulham , the only one who seemed to give a fk,. he was exposed cos he had no cover in front of him for the whole game

[Bigdave]

We will miss Luke Young whilst he is injured no doubt. He has been superb since he came and a real shrewd buy from Warnock. But for those who are horrified that Bradley Orr may have to play for a handful of games are way off. He might not be a potent threat going forward but is a decent enough defender. I hope the fans get behind him tomorrow and not wait for his first mistake before giving him both barrels

[DouDou_87]

just to add orr was best player at fulham , the only one who seemed to give a fk,. he was exposed cos he had no cover in front of him for the whole game

Exactly what I thought!

In the Prem an ability for a full back to attack is of equal importance to his ability to defend

Have to agree with you to a certain extent, the game has moved on so much that fb's are more important than ever. However, I think for a team in our position i.e newly promoted, injury hit and looking realistically for a point away from home at most grounds, Orr is decent enough.

Admittedly he's no Dani Alves, but he can do us a job.

[swanleyhoop]

Essential that Mackie is played at RM in front of Orr, as he will track back tenaciously to support Orr, which could be the difference between Norwich exploiting that area or being thwarted.
Traore in front of Hill worked equally well last week.
SWP can then have a little bit of a free rein to go on either side or even up front for a bit of poaching.

[Del]

Again you still don't quite seem to quite get Godfather's point. In the Prem an ability for a full back to attack is of equal importance to his ability to defend. Midfields often largely cancel each other out and it is the full backs who make the difference. This is prob the single biggest transformation in the game in the last decade. Its why a decade ago Orr would have been a perfectly respectable player but in five/ ten yrs time players of his type will even struggle in the Championship.

How patronising. I'm quite capable of "getting his point" thanks, the fact is I disagree with it.

If you really think every manager in this league really thinks their FB's need to be "equally good" at attacking as defending then you are seriously naïve. The top teams can afford the luxury of players that can do both to a high standard, but the majority are more concerned with staying up and many in a scrap and they will want defenders to be able to defend first and foremost and if they have some that are good in attack also that's a bonus.

[kron-1664]

2 long posts, anything more than 3 lines and my mind moves onnnnnnn....

[QPRDave]

Essential that Mackie is played at RM in front of Orr, as he will track back tenaciously to support Orr, which could be the difference between Norwich exploiting that area or being thwarted.
Traore in front of Hill worked equally well last week.
SWP can then have a little bit of a free rein to go on either side or even up front for a bit of poaching.

Good post swanley.