[RowlattsFox]

Ched, on Aug 19 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

Did you go to the game?

Fryatt didn't impress because he didn't have the ability to get his shots away and pick up decent posistions.

And how many shots on goal did Steve Howard have? I can't remember him having any to be honest. Fryatt and Howard were both decent second half and both very poor first half, but Fryatt did look the most likely to score in my opinion.

[Joe.]

RowlattsFox, on Aug 19 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

And how many shots on goal did Steve Howard have? I can't remember him having any to be honest. Fryatt and Howard were both decent second half and both very poor first half, but Fryatt did look the most likely to score in my opinion.

Howard was clearly told to play a deeper role by Pearson, therefore effectively acting as a supplier to Fryatt and also Dyer on Saturday. He won virtually everything in the air, held it up superbly and was a thorn in Stockport's side all afternoon.

I didn't think Fryatt had a bad game either but how anybody can say he was better than Howard I don't know. The chances he had he didn't score and still continues to piss about with the ball and take too many touches.

[RowlattsFox]

Joe., on Aug 19 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

Howard was clearly told to play a deeper role by Pearson, therefore effectively acting as a supplier to Fryatt and also Dyer on Saturday. He won virtually everything in the air, held it up superbly and was a thorn in Stockport's side all afternoon.

I didn't think Fryatt had a bad game either but how anybody can say he was better than Howard I don't know. The chances he had he didn't score and still continues to piss about with the ball and take too many touches.

Hasn't Howard always played the deeper role, since he has been here? The only difference on Saturday was that he was winning his headers, which was excellent, I'm not disputing that he had a good game. You also have to give credit to Fryatt and Dyer for reading where they are going.

I think people are making a big deal out of nothing regarding Fryatt being better than Howard on Saturday, Fryatt got 6.94 and Howard got 6.86, hardly a massive difference is it. Yes Howard should have been higher than Fryatt but I don't think he was that much better than him.

[Thracian]

RowlattsFox, on Aug 19 2008, 05:06 PM, said:

Hasn't Howard always played the deeper role, since he has been here? The only difference on Saturday was that he was winning his headers, which was excellent, I'm not disputing that he had a good game. You also have to give credit to Fryatt and Dyer for reading where they are going.

I think people are making a big deal out of nothing regarding Fryatt being better than Howard on Saturday, Fryatt got 6.94 and Howard got 6.86, hardly a massive difference is it. Yes Howard should have been higher than Fryatt but I don't think he was that much better than him.

I'm not sure about Howard being higher. Howard did well, won lots of ball and worked hard but most of his work was away from the danger zone whereas Fryatt got into the box dangerously on several occasions, including when he brought the save of the match from Stockport's goalkeeper.

Okay you'd expect him to score from five yards but he was in there to have the shot, hit it well and true but credit to their bloke for an exceptional save. I cannot remember Howard having notable goal attempts and this is what's missing with him at the moment.