filbertway Posted 5 July 2006 Posted 5 July 2006 De Vries is not a better finisher than Hume! How many chances does he jsut side foot wide or at the goalkepper, or jsut lose under his own feet?
Thracian Posted 5 July 2006 Posted 5 July 2006 The whole point about developing a supposedly young side is speed and mobility. MDV, whose first touch is often abyssmal, is the antithesis of both whereas Fryatt, Hume, O'Grady, Hammond, Dodds (and I would have said Chambers) suit admirably. That said I no longer believe Kelly is particularly interested in having a young side - we will obviously see in due course - so if he has a role for the big man in his More Mature X1 then so be it (MDV has statistics that can make a case against several of those I've mentioned).
Guest Gist Posted 5 July 2006 Posted 5 July 2006 I think he on his day he could be good use for the team but I think O'grady is a better all round player than De Vries.
FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife Posted 5 July 2006 Posted 5 July 2006 That said I no longer believe Kelly is particularly interested in having a young side We have only got 3 outfield players over 30! That hardly constitutes and old squad!
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 July 2006 Posted 5 July 2006 We have only got 3 outfield players over 30! That hardly constitutes and old squad! 3 players over 20 constitutes a old squad in his eyes.
breadandcheese Posted 5 July 2006 Posted 5 July 2006 I like to think of De Vries as our very own Crouch. Hope to see the robo-De Vries next season.
Phube Posted 5 July 2006 Posted 5 July 2006 I like to think of De Vries as our very own Crouch. Hope to see the robo-De Vries next season. Oh pleeease make this happen, it would be hilarious!!!
FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife Posted 5 July 2006 Posted 5 July 2006 What about Elvis and MDV doing simultaneous robot dances?
Fez of Mahrez Posted 5 July 2006 Posted 5 July 2006 What about Elvis and MDV doing simultaneous robot dances? Elvis would surely have to be rotating his pelvis while robotically shaking his magical groove thang.
Dr The Singh Posted 5 July 2006 Posted 5 July 2006 Elvis would surely have to be rotating his pelvis while robotically shaking his magical groove thang. Uhum...I don't think we will see that happen very often, his goal scoring record isn't exactly great is it!!! I don't expect too much robotic dancing from MDV either.....but I hope they both prove me wrong, I really do!!!!
Daggers Posted 5 July 2006 Posted 5 July 2006 I think Mark De Vries can do really well this time under Rob Kelly, does anyone else agree? Welcome to FT. My guess is that you'll get more No's than Yes's in answer to your question. I've always had a soft spot for the lumbering great galah - I like a big, ungainly targetman - it's very "Football League". I hope he comes good for us this year. We're not blessed with many strikers, so we may well need him. Oh you are so sweet Nw! I reckon you're right. I see potential, as I should [being an optimistic so and so], in the new season. I place my faith in what Kelly did to turn our season around - the test will be if he can continue some kind of momentum from the outset. If we do not leave the blocks running then I fear it is going to be a long hard slog for all of us...MDV including. Here's to a champion opening game! I'm off to reload my G&T now
Swedging Posted 6 July 2006 Posted 6 July 2006 Better than Hume at finishing? Very debatable, although Hume is guilty of missing some very easy chances but de Vries even more so. The thing about de Vries is that he'll always get 2 or 3 decent chances per game where as other strikers might struggle to get that many and therefore have to be more clinical when they do get a chance. When the ball is where de Vries wants it, then he does well. He gets a lot of chances that he wastes which a more agile player (of otherwise similar skill) would sink - headers and turn and shoot chances especially - but they're in the wrong place for de Vries. Hume is way more agile, opens the game up superbly (particularly for his teammates) but is a much more wasteful finisher with the ball at his feet.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.