Whats a point worth?

[Head Honcho]

Can you put a price on points won or lost?

What are we lacking? A proven Goalscorer.

What have we just sold? A proven Goalscorer.

I reckon if We hadn't of sold Connolly we'd have a least another 5-6 points in the bank.(Potentially 20-30 over the season)

Who said Connolly was good business?

If we don't start scoring soon it will have been the

worst bit of business since we decided to buy Akinbiyi!

I know there's no point bringing it up,it's over he's gone,but CL would have my 100% support if he'd of persuaded Connolly to stay,as it is,it's probably only 75%.

Come on Craig sort it out.

[Steven]

Who said Connolly was good business?

It was good business. The replacements however....

[Ric Flair]

It was good business. The replacements however....

If you'd seen Hume last night I don't think you'd be quite as disappointed in the replacements. The problem is that the players he's playing with will hinder him.

[Thracian]

Can you put a price on points won or lost?

What are we lacking? A proven Goalscorer.

What have we just sold? A proven Goalscorer.

I reckon if We hadn't of sold Connolly we'd have a least another 5-6 points in the bank.(Potentially 20-30 over the season)

Who said Connolly was good business?

If we don't start scoring soon it will have been the

worst bit of business since we decided to buy Akinbiyi!

I know there's no point bringing it up,it's over he's gone,but CL would have my 100% support if he'd of persuaded Connolly to stay,as it is,it's probably only 75%.

Come on Craig sort it out.

I only said it was good business if we immediately purchased a replacement. We didn't. We purchased a belting midfield/striker support player. Hume played well last night but the one real chance he got he fluffed cos he's NOT a natural striker. He fluffed another couple for the reserves too when he should have scored.

He will certainly contribute his share of goals from the hole behind the strikers and will add a great deal to the team in general from there if he's allowed to play where he's best suited.

But, lacking an alternative striker then you have to play Hammond giving us MDV, Hammond, Hume in attack which is unquestionably our most potent force up front. Levein doesn't play that. His next best ploy would be to play two of those three and use Hammill on the left (with Sheehan at full back for his added attacking potency). He doesn't do either. Why?

Because he wants to accomodate Tiatto and play two defensive midfielders. Bloody stupid in my view and exactly the reason we failed to win and failed to score against Brighton.

[Ric Flair]

I only said it was good business if we immediately purchased a replacement. We didn't. We purchased a belting midfield/striker support player. Hume played well last night but the one real chance he got he fluffed cos he's NOT a natural striker. He fluffed another couple for the reserves too when he should have scored.

He will certainly contribute his share of goals from the hole behind the strikers and will add a great deal to the team in general from there if he's allowed to play where he's best suited.

But, lacking an alternative striker then you have to play Hammond giving us MDV, Hammond, Hume in attack which is unquestionably our most potent force up front. Levein doesn't play that. His next best ploy would be to play two of those three and use Hammill on the left (with Sheehan at full back for his added attacking potency). He doesn't do either. Why?

Because he wants to accomodate Tiatto and play two defensive midfielders. Bloody stupid in my view and exactly the reason we failed to win and failed to score against Brighton.

I personally think de Vries should be taken out of the equation, he's far too inconsistent to pin any hopes on him. Which leaves us Elvis and Hume. I personally think that Hume can and should play as a striker, he might have fluffed a chance yesterday with a poor first touch but I think that can be put down to sods law rather than the fact he's not a natural striker. I think when you've got two players like Elvis and Hume you have the perfect opportunity to cause teams alot of danger. Elvis has pace that a 100 metre sprinter could only dream of and Hume has quick feet that gets him in behind defences. What you need with both of these players is a central midfielder who bursts forward in to the box aswell if any of them take the ball out wide and that's why Hughes has got to play through the middle.

Hume seems the most natural to partner Elvis as his through balls could be perfect for Elvis to run on to and cause the defenders all sorts of problems and with Hughes bursting forward it would stretch defences and cause them to panick. de Vries slows down attacks and without two options up there with him the move breaks down and as our wingers seem incapable of providing us any width the ball goes back instead of forward. I just think Hume would benefit alot more up with Elvis as teams will also sit deep knowing what's on offer and we've heard what Hume is like from 30 yards out.

It just makes sense that these two should play up top together, de Vries needs to be disposed of.

[Head Honcho]

I only said it was good business if we immediately purchased a replacement. We didn't. We purchased a belting midfield/striker support player. Hume played well last night but the one real chance he got he fluffed cos he's NOT a natural striker. He fluffed another couple for the reserves too when he should have scored.

He will certainly contribute his share of goals from the hole behind the strikers and will add a great deal to the team in general from there if he's allowed to play where he's best suited.

But, lacking an alternative striker then you have to play Hammond giving us MDV, Hammond, Hume in attack which is unquestionably our most potent force up front. Levein doesn't play that. His next best ploy would be to play two of those three and use Hammill on the left (with Sheehan at full back for his added attacking potency). He doesn't do either. Why?

Because he wants to accomodate Tiatto and play two defensive midfielders. Bloody stupid in my view and exactly the reason we failed to win and failed to score against Brighton.

Exactly!!

I think the profit we made on him will be lost in lower attendances,league position money etc etc

I seriously think we could have been in the play-offs with Connolly another money spinner.

It wasn't good business to sell him.

We need to get someone in on loan fast.

[Ric Flair]

Exactly!!

I think the profit we made on him will be lost in lower attendances,league position money etc etc

I seriously think we could have been in the play-offs with Connolly another money spinner.

It wasn't good business to sell him.

We need to get someone in on loan fast.

I agree that Connolly is class but we wouldn;t have reached the play-offs just because of him. He played 5 games for us and scored 4 goals, but we only won one game, drew 2 and lost 2. That's 5 points out of a possible 15, which if you work out over a season isn't play-off form.

One man rarely makes a team, but without them a team can look lost. Utimately Connolly is a piss in the ocean to our chances of promotion.

[Thracian]

I personally think de Vries should be taken out of the equation, he's far too inconsistent to pin any hopes on him. Which leaves us Elvis and Hume. I personally think that Hume can and should play as a striker, he might have fluffed a chance yesterday with a poor first touch but I think that can be put down to sods law rather than the fact he's not a natural striker. I think when you've got two players like Elvis and Hume you have the perfect opportunity to cause teams alot of danger. Elvis has pace that a 100 metre sprinter could only dream of and Hume has quick feet that gets him in behind defences. What you need with both of these players is a central midfielder who bursts forward in to the box aswell if any of them take the ball out wide and that's why Hughes has got to play through the middle.

Hume seems the most natural to partner Elvis as his through balls could be perfect for Elvis to run on to and cause the defenders all sorts of problems and with Hughes bursting forward it would stretch defences and cause them to panick. de Vries slows down attacks and without two options up there with him the move breaks down and as our wingers seem incapable of providing us any width the ball goes back instead of forward. I just think Hume would benefit alot more up with Elvis as teams will also sit deep knowing what's on offer and we've heard what Hume is like from 30 yards out.

It just makes sense that these two should play up top together, de Vries needs to be disposed of.

I'm certainly with you on Hughes. But even disposing of MDV we need someone with an aerial threat up front because, otherwise, where are set piece goals coming from?

I've seen no evidence City can play canny ball-to-feet free-kicks and corners (and we really need some set-piece goals).

I agree it would be interesting to see Hammond/Hume together (cos it's never been tried) but in my heart I believe that are not outstanding natural strikers and therefore three up front (with Hume tucking in) seems more likely to be fruitful to me.

I'd be delighted to be proved wrong though cos what we're doing right now is certainly not working nor is it likely to.

[Head Honcho]

I agree that Connolly is class but we wouldn;t have reached the play-offs just because of him. He played 5 games for us and scored 4 goals, but we only won one game, drew 2 and lost 2. That's 5 points out of a possible 15, which if you work out over a season isn't play-off form.

One man rarely makes a team, but without them a team can look lost. Utimately Connolly is a piss in the ocean to our chances of promotion.

Maybe,maybe not but you must admit we'd be a better team with him playing.

I reckon we could have beat both Cardiff and Brighton with him in the team.

Admittedly this is all hypothetical,but we are a poorer team without him.

[Ric Flair]

I'm certainly with you on Hughes. But even disposing of MDV we need someone with an aerial threat up front because, otherwise, where are set piece goals coming from?

I've seen no evidence City can play canny ball-to-feet free-kicks and corners (and we really need some set-piece goals).

I agree it would be interesting to see Hammond/Hume together (cos it's never been tried) but in my heart I believe that are not outstanding natural strikers and therefore three up front (with Hume tucking in) seems more likely to be fruitful to me.

I'd be delighted to be proved wrong though cos what we're doing right now is certainly not working nor is it likely to.

de Vries is actually very poor in the air anyway and Hume on the other hand actually gets up well. To answer your question who would score from set pieces you've got to be looking at our tall defenders McCarthy, Stearman, Nils, Dublin, etc.

[step]

Where was connelly going to get all these goals from? A lucky bag

[Rugby Fox]

At least we have got de Vries