Steven Posted 18 October 2005 Posted 18 October 2005 the minimum age is 16, so when he is, he's good enough so should be in the team Currently there is no 16 years minimum age. He is old enough to play, if good enough.
Louise Posted 18 October 2005 Posted 18 October 2005 Honestly I thought the subs made sense tonight. Tiatto on for Johansson whose main problem was that he just could not bring himself to support the attack, at least Tiatto can run forwards... Hamill didn't do anything all game so why not take him off, the choice of Joey was a strange one I admit but I thought he was the first player who actually started passing it and switching wings when he came on so I'd say that was a successful sub. The problem one is of course Hammond for Hume, but does anyone really think Hammond was playing well? We needed a change and we needed Hume on the pitch. Some people have said we should have taken off de Vries but at least he was holding up the ball and causing them problems. Personally I'd have taken off Sylla and played with either three up front or Hammond down the wing. But I do think Levein's choice made sense considering Elvis was having an average game and Hume's vision could have made a big difference.
Gamesmaster Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 A lasting weakness of Levein is that he's too cautious. He allows others to dictate events instead of dictating terms himself .... just look at the strolling (non-Press) start to the second half when we allowed Burnley to play us off the park. There was just no tempo. He was mugged - again. ive been wondering for a while now if hes been too cautious and now im convinced. after we beat stoke 4-2, he did the same thing. we got a good draw at derby (nearly won), we beat a good watford team on their own patch, and what do we do, invite burnley round ours for a kick around, only, burnley took the cautious opportunity with cavalire attitude and we sack back and dreamt of the watford gap. i thought the scotts liked a bit of blood and thunder? craig, you need to take a leaf out of your fellow scotsman fergie, learn to use the hairdryer and play to WIN!
lenny06 Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 I think the big change that we need is for Chambers to play!! Yeah you might all say "Just cuz its your mate" No that is not the reason! I think he should play because he will change the attack completely and give defenders a bit of trouble with his PACE!!! Also i bet you the first full game he plays he will score!! So bring on the next star that the LCFC have produced!! Come on CHAMBERS!!! :clap2: Playing a 16 year old in this team could damage the lad. When we are playing better and other players are confident around him then we can think about introducing him to the 1st team.
Gené and Tonic Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 The bottom line is, Elvis, as a striker, has scored 1 goal in 15 games. If that had been De Vries there would have been uproar by now. The phone ins would be going crazy about what a bad signing he had been and what a donkey he is. Elvis needs to start scoring soon. He had a golden opportunity last night and spurned it. Whats with all the offsides (not many last night to be fair, but he didn't really get involved too much) as well? He needs to start producing soon!
IDEA OR IKEA Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 The bottom line is, Elvis, as a striker, has scored 1 goal in 15 games. If that had been De Vries there would have been uproar by now. The phone ins would be going crazy about what a bad signing he had been and what a donkey he is. Elvis needs to start scoring soon. He had a golden opportunity last night and spurned it. Whats with all the offsides (not many last night to be fair, but he didn't really get involved too much) as well? He needs to start producing soon! Absoultly right - strikers (irrespective of workrate and contribution) should always be judged on goals - its what they are paid to do (score). At the min its just not a good enough return!
Bluefoxtim Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 Hamill was pathetic. Your a winger my friend. He stayed back never looked interested never ran up with the play. All he did was one run where he went pass someone but then he turned around and passed it backwards
BenFilbert Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 One thing I don't understand with CL is his subsitution! Why the hell did he take hammond of instead of MDV! Yeah i know you might all say "His our top scorer!" That may be the only reason! But i don't understand why CL, Leaves a player who can't win a header and always tries to win a foul and thats all he does for 90min! And look at Hammond he's got Pace, Strength and also Skill!! So why didn't he stay on. On my point where i said MDV couldn't win a header, look at Humeeee! Look at his height and he even wins header!! So anyone got any comments? Few things. I wouldn't say "His our top scorer!". I would say "He's our top scorer". De Vries doesn't just not win a header and always tries to win a foul. He scores too. Elvis has got pace, skill and strengh. He can't score though. Can't head a ball either. He missed a chance he should have scored. Hume is good at heading, he's also a selfish sod.
Libertine Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 Few things. I wouldn't say "His our top scorer!". I would say "He's our top scorer". De Vries doesn't just not win a header and always tries to win a foul. He scores too. Elvis has got pace, skill and strengh. He can't score though. Can't head a ball either. He missed a chance he should have scored. Hume is good at heading, he's also a selfish sod. He's french, it's not his fault he spelt a few things wrong.
BenFilbert Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 He's french, it's not his fault he spelt a few things wrong. Sorry. I apologise. I wouldn't normally say it anyway. I was just a bit annoyed. Sorry about that.
Libertine Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 Sorry. I apologise. I wouldn't normally say it anyway. I was just a bit annoyed. Sorry about that. No worries bud.
frenchy_lcfc Posted 19 October 2005 Author Posted 19 October 2005 Few things. I wouldn't say "His our top scorer!". I would say "He's our top scorer". De Vries doesn't just not win a header and always tries to win a foul. He scores too. Elvis has got pace, skill and strengh. He can't score though. Can't head a ball either. He missed a chance he should have scored. Hume is good at heading, he's also a selfish sod.
frenchy_lcfc Posted 19 October 2005 Author Posted 19 October 2005 Sorry about the first thing. Its ok Mate!! I think i need to be more careful when i write now though!!!
Anish Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 Hammond definitely should have scored yesterday. He was one v one with the keeper yet showed no confidence or composure. I can't see where his next goal is coming from
Thracian Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 Playing a 16 year old in this team could damage the lad. When we are playing better and other players are confident around him then we can think about introducing him to the 1st team. It really isn't so bad. When you're 15/16 and an opponent kicks you, all your team-mates pile in and kick em back. When you're older you have to kick em back yourself.
Guest Gist Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 One thing I don't understand with CL is his subsitution! Why the hell did he take hammond of instead of MDV! Yeah i know you might all say "His our top scorer!" That may be the only reason! But i don't understand why CL, Leaves a player who can't win a header and always tries to win a foul and thats all he does for 90min! And look at Hammond he's got Pace, Strength and also Skill!! So why didn't he stay on. On my point where i said MDV couldn't win a header, look at Humeeee! Look at his height and he even wins header!! So anyone got any comments? Agree 100% frenchy
Bert Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 the reason he took Hammond off is because he is up MDV'S arse something rotten
frenchy_lcfc Posted 19 October 2005 Author Posted 19 October 2005 the reason he took Hammond off is because he is up MDV'S arse something rotten Absolutely! I think he must take he's head out of there before Sunday against Cov!
Guest Gist Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 the reason he took Hammond off is because he is up MDV'S arse something rotten well said Hammond definitely should have scored yesterday. He was one v one with the keeper yet showed no confidence or composure. I can't see where his next goal is coming from im concerned too
samlcfc1 Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 mark de vries did nothing right in the game where as hammond had a good shot saved he was closing down defenders and really trying hard chris o'grady is our tallest player lets bring him back
breadandcheese Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 Hammond is actually a bit of a rubbish footballer. Yes, he works hard, gives 100% effort, but in all honesty, he holds on to the ball too long, chooses the wrong pass and doesn't get into the right positions. I said on a previous post, De Vries is on an average performance basis of a good performance every other game. Burnley's performance was poor, so he's due a good game on Sunday. We should definitely start Hume. The boy makes some intelligent runs, hangs on the shoulders of the last defender and is generally a cleverer player than Hammond. De Vries and Hume to start on Sunday
Gené and Tonic Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 Agreed b+c, however, I do think that Hammond has the potential. If his goals to game ratio is about the same by the end of the year, it will be a massive waste of money. Does anyone think he was bought in a bit of a panic by Levein after Connolly left? Just to cheer the fans up and get them on his side. That was around the time that everyone was calling for him to be in the team because of his pace.
Louise Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 mark de vries did nothing right in the game where as hammond had a good shot saved he was closing down defenders and really trying hard chris o'grady is our tallest player lets bring him back de Vries and O'Grady are the same height.
Libertine Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 And we wouldn't just bring him back because of his height.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.