stez Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 Hammond doesn't have to make a right winger as such, especially with Staearman in support. He could go wide when necessary to stretch the opposition but would mainly be a right sided striker and support player but would be able to latch onto any crossfield balls more easily from wide positions than from the centre where he cannot find space so easily and cannot see the defensive line so easily to time his runs. He would also make space for others and that is vital...as would Gradel in all probability. Neiher Low nor Hughes have any great effect on the right. PS: MDV is never coming back and you know it. lol ! low and hughes aren't effective on the right, because its difficult for a winger to do anything with a ball aimed at or over his head!
Sparky Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 we all give our team selections on this messageboard and set out tactical gameplans and formatons that we would try and in my opinion everyone so far on this thread has more positives that the selection / gameplan that kelly uses currently but you have to take in to account how sides will then play against you now , ill use thractions team as an example , 1 because thract s knowlegde of the game and tactics seems top notch and 2 because im sure he will give his reasons how to combat it. not having a go at the selection at all just really entralled in this tactical debate now if i was manager against your side thracth id be looking for weaknesses , i would be desperate to play a big man up top to pull on to your left back as neither sheehan nor tiatto are particually good under the high ball , i would be encouraging crosses from my teams right hand side from deep positions where i think hammond would struggle to cope with defensive duties from my right back and right winger. now my real worries would be hammond / porter / hume supply line to o grady because the pace of those 3 would be at times impossible to play, now my question to you thract is 20 minutes gone and the score is 0-0 but my big man forward is causing allsorts of problems on the end of the deep high balls , do you make minor changes to either deal with the striker threat or stop the supply ? or fight fire with fire as you belive that your side will over the 90 minutes create more chances and if nessasary outscore my side ??
stez Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 we all give our team selections on this messageboard and set out tactical gameplans and formatons that we would try and in my opinion everyone so far on this thread has more positives that the selection / gameplan that kelly uses currently but you have to take in to account how sides will then play against you now , ill use thractions team as an example , 1 because thract s knowlegde of the game and tactics seems top notch and 2 because im sure he will give his reasons how to combat it. not having a go at the selection at all just really entralled in this tactical debate now if i was manager against your side thracth id be looking for weaknesses , i would be desperate to play a big man up top to pull on to your left back as neither sheehan nor tiatto are particually good under the high ball , i would be encouraging crosses from my teams right hand side from deep positions where i think hammond would struggle to cope with defensive duties from my right back and right winger. now my real worries would be hammond / porter / hume supply line to o grady because the pace of those 3 would be at times impossible to play, now my question to you thract is 20 minutes gone and the score is 0-0 but my big man forward is causing allsorts of problems on the end of the deep high balls , do you make minor changes to either deal with the striker threat or stop the supply ? or fight fire with fire as you belive that your side will over the 90 minutes create more chances and if nessasary outscore my side ?? ah, but what the opposition plan to do doesn't matter on planet-thracian
lookwhaticando Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 More verbal support for the selection of Sheehan. World's gone mad. Thracian's turning you all into believers, one by one.
Joe. Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 Its highly unlikely that Kelly would even contemplate changing formation, but due to our plethora of centre backs, poor wingers and seemingly immobile centre midfield, surely playing a 3-5-2 would help to erode some of these problems. A back 3 of of Kisnorbo, McCarthy and McAuley seems pretty decent to me, with either Johansson or Kenton to cover. McAuley also played in a back 3 with Lincoln so would easily adapt to the new formation. The centre of midfield would also benefit from having an extra man in there. Looking at what we have,it would probably be Johnson holding, giving Wesolowski and Williams a bit more freedom. The wingbacks are probably the most crucial factor as they have 2 be fit and be prepared to attack and defend. I think Stearman and Tiatto could do this job as both have a good engine and are ok defensively, even though both suffer from putting quality balls into the box. So my team would be: ---------------------------Logan --------------McAuley--McCarthy--Kisnorbo Stearman---------------Johnson--------------Tiatto -------------------Williams--Wesolowski -----------------Hume------------Fryatt That's a very interesting idea and it could actually work. The problems though- We would be vulnerable down the wings with only 3 at the back Strengths- More attacking options= More Goals= Hopefully more wins= More points
Joe. Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I think the best idea would be 4-3-3 More attacking options and would get rid of our terrible midfield to a certain extent. ======== Logan ======== Stearman = McAuley= McCarthy= Tiatto Low ===== Hughes =========Porter Hammond=== Fryatt========= Hume I think this would work better.
Sparky Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I think the best idea would be 4-3-3 More attacking options and would get rid of our terrible midfield to a certain extent. ======== Logan ======== Stearman = McAuley= McCarthy= Tiatto Low ===== Hughes =========Porter Hammond=== Fryatt========= Hume I think this would work better. lots of attacking options but hughes would get murdered against a team playin 4-4-2 with 2 decent central midfielders
Fez of Mahrez Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I think the best idea would be 4-3-3 More attacking options and would get rid of our terrible midfield to a certain extent. ======== Logan ======== Stearman = McAuley= McCarthy= Tiatto Low ===== Hughes =========Porter Hammond=== Fryatt========= Hume I think this would work better. No offence mate but that is horrible! What exactly has Stephen Hughes ever done to convince you he could BE our central midfield single-handedly?
Thracian Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 we all give our team selections on this messageboard and set out tactical gameplans and formatons that we would try and in my opinion everyone so far on this thread has more positives that the selection / gameplan that kelly uses currently but you have to take in to account how sides will then play against you now , ill use thractions team as an example , 1 because thract s knowlegde of the game and tactics seems top notch and 2 because im sure he will give his reasons how to combat it. not having a go at the selection at all just really entralled in this tactical debate now if i was manager against your side thracth id be looking for weaknesses , i would be desperate to play a big man up top to pull on to your left back as neither sheehan nor tiatto are particually good under the high ball , i would be encouraging crosses from my teams right hand side from deep positions where i think hammond would struggle to cope with defensive duties from my right back and right winger. now my real worries would be hammond / porter / hume supply line to o grady because the pace of those 3 would be at times impossible to play, now my question to you thract is 20 minutes gone and the score is 0-0 but my big man forward is causing allsorts of problems on the end of the deep high balls , do you make minor changes to either deal with the striker threat or stop the supply ? or fight fire with fire as you belive that your side will over the 90 minutes create more chances and if nessasary outscore my side ?? I like to think your only thought on Friday night before facing my team would be saving yourself from an embarrassing scoreline. But to answer your scenario the big man wouldn't be causing problems after two minutes never mind 20. a) Players would have been warned beforehand that if a crossing strategy ensued first task would be douse the fire at source. And I doubt your winger would get within range to cross the ball accurately anyway. b) However, assuming your men were good and one or two crosses got through, most big men are slow so the team would push as high as possible and while one defender would legitimately attend the big man the real job would be to pick up the secondary pieces (the only effective way of dealing with genuinely dominant big men as has been shown). The big problem of having one big, usually slowish, striker is that your remaining 9 outfield players would never take my 10 on at passing. No-one in myteam would give the ball away for free so if you hadn't got players to match our speed, stamina and efficiency you really would struggle. Please don't get my attacking ideas wrong as some do. There wouldn't be some kamikaze "we get six you get five" approach. The difference between Kelly and I defensively is that I wouldn't have players who give the ball away because I 've always believed in choosing footballers as defenders. Not wimps but brave people who can cover and tackle but then pass and support. I believe defenders have as much responsibility to support the attack as forwards have to help defensively. But, my full-backs would be especially quick (they are key men and it my biggest concern with Sheehan) and because one would always be designated to cover behind the centre-backs depending which side play developed, we would always be able to defend high and therefore stiffle not just your wingers but many other attacks at source. I also believe teams need a mixture of as many vital component parts if possible and the more of those qualities any player has, the better... Scary people who will die for you to win the ball. (eg's Kisnorbo/McCarthy/Tiatto) People who can dribble. (Gradel/Hume/McKay). People who are quick. (Gradel/Hammond/Hume) People who are cunning. (Porter) People who are winners. ???? People who see the passes. Porter/Williams/King (maybe) People who can run for ever. Hammond/Porter/Weso/O'Grady/Hume/Stearman. People who can shoot. Chambers/Dodds/Gradel/Hume/Fryatt (maybe) People who can head the ball. (Kisnorbo/McCarthy) People who naturally inspire. (Kisnorbo) People who can hold the ball (O'Grady) People who lead (Kisnorbo maybe) But everyone should be able to pass, support and talk to their colleagues. And no-one should be happy to contemplate anything but winning.
Joe. Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 No offence mate but that is horrible! What exactly has Stephen Hughes ever done to convince you he could BE our central midfield single-handedly? OK these are our options- 1. Williams- Can never be arsed, is crap 2. Weso- Decent player but bloody hell- why is he so overated? 3. Johnson- Total waste of time I think Hughes is the only one out of those who could maybe win a few balls, shoot, score a couple etc.
lildave3 Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 Scary people who will die for you to win the ball. (eg's Kisnorbo/McCarthy/Tiatto) People who can dribble. (Gradel/Hume/McKay). People who are quick. (Gradel/Hammond/Hume) People who are cunning. (Porter) People who are winners. ???? People who see the passes. Porter/Williams/King (maybe) People who can run for ever. Hammond/Porter/Weso/O'Grady/Hume/Stearman. People who can shoot. Chambers/Dodds/Gradel/Hume/Fryatt (maybe) People who can head the ball. (Kisnorbo/McCarthy) People who naturally inspire. (Kisnorbo) People who can hold the ball (O'Grady) People who lead (Kisnorbo maybe) I notice Kisnorbo ticks alot of boxes, do you believe he should be captain ahead of Paddy M?
Fez of Mahrez Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 OK these are our options- 1. Williams- Can never be arsed, is crap 2. Weso- Decent player but bloody hell- why is he so overated? 3. Johnson- Total waste of time I think Hughes is the only one out of those who could maybe win a few balls, shoot, score a couple etc. I just think it's crazy how people think we should play less central midfielders because it's a problem position. Play three, lessen the load, get an extra body in there.
lildave3 Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 OK these are our options- 1. Williams- Can never be arsed, is crap 2. Weso- Decent player but bloody hell- why is he so overated? 3. Johnson- Total waste of time I think Hughes is the only one out of those who could maybe win a few balls, shoot, score a couple etc. Hughes win balls?! Score a couple?! Are we watching our Stephen Hughes or the old Arsenal one? Williams, on his day, is one of the best midfielders in this divsion, but his day rarely comes. Weso is out number one centre mid imo, he can do what you said hughes can do, but can run for longer and will give everything for the cause.
Joe. Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I just think it's crazy how people think we should play less central midfielders because it's a problem position. Play three, lessen the load, get an extra body in there. and lose a body where?
Fez of Mahrez Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 and lose a body where? Wings, where we persist with Johansson's pathetic attempts to support Porter and no effective right winger.
Thracian Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I notice Kisnorbo ticks alot of boxes, do you believe he should be captain ahead of Paddy M? Too difficult to be certain without knowing them personally.
Joe. Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 Wings, where we persist with Johansson's pathetic attempts to support Porter and no effective right winger. We need someone to sort themselves out i.e. Rob Kelly and bring up Max Gradel...
Sparky Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I like to think your only thought on Friday night before facing my team would be saving yourself from an embarrassing scoreline. But to answer your scenario the big man wouldn't be causing problems after two minutes never mind 20. a) Players would have been warned beforehand that if a crossing strategy ensued first task would be douse the fire at source. And I doubt your winger would get within range to cross the ball accurately anyway. b) However, assuming your men were good and one or two crosses got through, most big men are slow so the team would push as high as possible and while one defender would legitimately attend the big man the real job would be to pick up the secondary pieces (the only effective way of dealing with genuinely dominant big men as has been shown). The big problem of having one big, usually slowish, striker is that your remaining 9 outfield players would never take my 10 on at passing. No-one in myteam would give the ball away for free so if you hadn't got players to match our speed, stamina and efficiency you really would struggle. Please don't get my attacking ideas wrong as some do. There wouldn't be some kamikaze "we get six you get five" approach. The difference between Kelly and I defensively is that I wouldn't have players who give the ball away because I 've always believed in choosing footballers as defenders. Not wimps but brave people who can cover and tackle but then pass and support. I believe defenders have as much responsibility to support the attack as forwards have to help defensively. But, my full-backs would be especially quick (they are key men and it my biggest concern with Sheehan) and because one would always be designated to cover behind the centre-backs depending which side play developed, we would always be able to defend high and therefore stiffle not just your wingers but many other attacks at source. I also believe teams need a mixture of as many vital component parts if possible and the more of those qualities any player has, the better... Scary people who will die for you to win the ball. (eg's Kisnorbo/McCarthy/Tiatto) People who can dribble. (Gradel/Hume/McKay). People who are quick. (Gradel/Hammond/Hume) People who are cunning. (Porter) People who are winners. ???? People who see the passes. Porter/Williams/King (maybe) People who can run for ever. Hammond/Porter/Weso/O'Grady/Hume/Stearman. People who can shoot. Chambers/Dodds/Gradel/Hume/Fryatt (maybe) People who can head the ball. (Kisnorbo/McCarthy) People who naturally inspire. (Kisnorbo) People who can hold the ball (O'Grady) People who lead (Kisnorbo maybe) But everyone should be able to pass, support and talk to their colleagues. And no-one should be happy to contemplate anything but winning. i like the theory and thats all it can be as it will never be tried i still think a lot comes down to who wins the personal battles and who is the better player your team actually got beat 6-5 thanks to goals from pele , maradona 2 , puskas, best and di stefano and before you say it , sheehan didnt have best in his pocket
PortlandZorro Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I like to think your only thought on Friday night before facing my team would be saving yourself from an embarrassing scoreline. But to answer your scenario the big man wouldn't be causing problems after two minutes never mind 20. a) Players would have been warned beforehand that if a crossing strategy ensued first task would be douse the fire at source. And I doubt your winger would get within range to cross the ball accurately anyway. b) However, assuming your men were good and one or two crosses got through, most big men are slow so the team would push as high as possible and while one defender would legitimately attend the big man the real job would be to pick up the secondary pieces (the only effective way of dealing with genuinely dominant big men as has been shown). The big problem of having one big, usually slowish, striker is that your remaining 9 outfield players would never take my 10 on at passing. No-one in myteam would give the ball away for free so if you hadn't got players to match our speed, stamina and efficiency you really would struggle. Please don't get my attacking ideas wrong as some do. There wouldn't be some kamikaze "we get six you get five" approach. The difference between Kelly and I defensively is that I wouldn't have players who give the ball away because I 've always believed in choosing footballers as defenders. Not wimps but brave people who can cover and tackle but then pass and support. I believe defenders have as much responsibility to support the attack as forwards have to help defensively. But, my full-backs would be especially quick (they are key men and it my biggest concern with Sheehan) and because one would always be designated to cover behind the centre-backs depending which side play developed, we would always be able to defend high and therefore stiffle not just your wingers but many other attacks at source. I also believe teams need a mixture of as many vital component parts if possible and the more of those qualities any player has, the better... Scary people who will die for you to win the ball. (eg's Kisnorbo/McCarthy/Tiatto) People who can dribble. (Gradel/Hume/McKay). People who are quick. (Gradel/Hammond/Hume) People who are cunning. (Porter) People who are winners. ???? People who see the passes. Porter/Williams/King (maybe) People who can run for ever. Hammond/Porter/Weso/O'Grady/Hume/Stearman. People who can shoot. Chambers/Dodds/Gradel/Hume/Fryatt (maybe) People who can head the ball. (Kisnorbo/McCarthy) People who naturally inspire. (Kisnorbo) People who can hold the ball (O'Grady) People who lead (Kisnorbo maybe) But everyone should be able to pass, support and talk to their colleagues. And no-one should be happy to contemplate anything but winning. What a hideously idealistic view that is. If you go pushing a high line to combat a big man then the ball over the top of the 2 cumbersome central defenders will have you crucified time and again. Because no matter your instruction they will migrate towards him time after time and flick on will have them turned and chasing shadows. If you think Hammond will be able to cut anything out then again I wonder what level of opposition you think you are facing? You claim he is not a right winger but more of a right sided forward, if that is the case then the full back will have acres of space to what ever he wants with the ball. You can't have it both ways. If your XI are such passing masters, may I ask why they are plying their trade at a lower end Championship team either as fringe players or youth teamers? Sadly our players neither have the ability, speed of thought, wit or pace to cope with this style you are preaching. Of course they would give the ball away or are we playing Earl Shilton under 11's? The difference between you and Kelly is he might pick defenders that can defend, their primary job. John Terry defends first, Cannavaro defends first, Terry Butcher and Steve Walsh defended first. As pro's they obviously have some sort of passing ability but to expect you back line to be Ronald Koeman's is frankly suicidal. Scary people who will die for you to win the ball. (eg's Kisnorbo/McCarthy/Tiatto) All well and good if they can do it without giving away needless fouls and when it is necessary, a comodity only Kisnorbo possesses People who can dribble. (Gradel/Hume/McKay). All well and good but is there and end product? And is there people in the team that can provide that finish? Not in yours in my humble opinion. People who are quick. (Gradel/Hammond/Hume) Pace means nothing without guile and ability to be consistent certainly none of these guys have demonstrated that at senior Championship level. People who are cunning. (Porter) How is young Levi cunning, can you give me one exapmle of what he has done that is cunning while a member of the first team squad? People who are winners. ???? I think we have several winners but it is all defined in different ways People who see the passes. Porter/Williams/King (maybe) Seems to be an infatuation with Levi here. Williams and Hughes would be the 2 midfielders that can do that and so would Weslowski. People who can run for ever. Hammond/Porter/Weso/O'Grady/Hume/Stearman. They would have to run forever as they'd be chasing any remotely competant side around the field for 90 minutes. People who can shoot. Chambers/Dodds/Gradel/Hume/Fryatt (maybe) Whats the point if they don't get the ball? People who can head the ball. (Kisnorbo/McCarthy) You need more than 2 players to do that and even then I am far from convinced either are the commanding type we need. People who naturally inspire. (Kisnorbo) I agree, what a difference a year makes. People who can hold the ball (O'Grady) I'd like to share you optimism but I can't. I'd love for him to make it he did a cracking job at R&DFC but there is something missing. People who lead (Kisnorbo maybe) He does But everyone should be able to pass, support and talk to their colleagues. And no-one should be happy to contemplate anything but winning. I don't think they go out there with the mentality they don't want to win, just a philosophy of not wanting to lose which are one in the same.
lildave3 Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 Well aren't you being negative! I don't know how you can say Hume is not a finisher though, looking back at last seasons dvd there is alot of good finishes, Hull at home, Brighton away etc. This season v Ipswich aswell
Thracian Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 i like the theory and thats all it can be as it will never be tried i still think a lot comes down to who wins the personal battles and who is the better player your team actually got beat 6-5 thanks to goals from pele , maradona 2 , puskas, best and di stefano and before you say it , sheehan didnt have best in his pocket I actually believe the biggest single factor is the personal impact of the manager (MON/Shankly/Ferguson are prime examples). It is not about coaching it is about inspiration and single-minded belief in every single player he puts on the field. But it's not just about words. A good manager has to pay attention to detail and make sure every player goes out on the field with all he needs to do his part of the job. They must all feel they are playing a vital part in something special.
Joe. Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I actually believe the biggest single factor is the personal impact of the manager (MON/Shankly/Ferguson are prime examples). It is not about coaching it is about inspiration and single-minded belief in every single player he puts on the field. But it's not just about words. A good manager has to pay attention to detail and make sure every player goes out on the field with all he needs to do his part of the job. They must all feel they are playing a vital part in something special. Example Aston Villa Under O'Leary- Never looked like winning anything except a ticket to the championship Under Martin O'Neill- Don't look like losing! The manager has a massive influence on the team. He chooses who starts, who he sells, who he buys, how he motivates them etc.
stez Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I actually believe the biggest single factor is the personal impact of the manager (MON/Shankly/Ferguson are prime examples). It is not about coaching it is about inspiration and single-minded belief in every single player he puts on the field. But it's not just about words. A good manager has to pay attention to detail and make sure every player goes out on the field with all he needs to do his part of the job. They must all feel they are playing a vital part in something special. i agree with you re. the managers role, but they are rare hence you picking 3 from three different footballing era's we were so lucky to have o'neill, but it's made the job near impossible for anyone following him
Thracian Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 What a hideously idealistic view that is. If you go pushing a high line to combat a big man then the ball over the top of the 2 cumbersome central defenders will have you crucified time and again. Because no matter your instruction they will migrate towards him time after time and flick on will have them turned and chasing shadows. If you think Hammond will be able to cut anything out then again I wonder what level of opposition you think you are facing? You claim he is not a right winger but more of a right sided forward, if that is the case then the full back will have acres of space to what ever he wants with the ball. You can't have it both ways. If your XI are such passing masters, may I ask why they are plying their trade at a lower end Championship team either as fringe players or youth teamers? Sadly our players neither have the ability, speed of thought, wit or pace to cope with this style you are preaching. Of course they would give the ball away or are we playing Earl Shilton under 11's? The difference between you and Kelly is he might pick defenders that can defend, their primary job. John Terry defends first, Cannavaro defends first, Terry Butcher and Steve Walsh defended first. As pro's they obviously have some sort of passing ability but to expect you back line to be Ronald Koeman's is frankly suicidal. a) There's the full-back sweeping around behind and one centre-back moving off the other anyway. b) Hammond is perfectly able to cover any break from the full-back. He wouldn't want an afternoon trying to win races with Hammond. c) There are people who can defend and pass in the style of Rio Ferdinand. Leicester fans talk about Steve Walsh as our best centre-back but Ian King, for example, simply won the ball and passed it accurately to feet. It's much easier to pass short accurately than to hoof accurately. Hoofing is often the lazy/cautious way out.
Thracian Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 Oh where to begin I agree whole-heartedly that McCarthey should be no where near the team, let alone have the honour of captaining the team. But Kenton is our most composed player with the ball despite his mishap at the Hawthorns. I'd have him alongside Kisnorbo. I would like to see Sheehan given the chance as I believe he has ability and although I have pulled your leg on occassion regarding your 'support' for him I think he is better at left full back than anyone who has been played there thus far. I think it is time for Kelly to swallow his prejudices and get Alan Maybury back in and playing like he did when he arrived, our best natural right back by a mile. Also given our lack of decent right wingers we need that solidity in there. I'd start to mould Stearman in to the central area as it might focus his concentration for 90 minutes a bit more. Oh good grief, Elvis Hammond. Are you on medication? He is a terrible footballer and he could not cope with the basics of that position, out of our senior players the only one we have (and I can't believe I am going to say this ) is Momo Sylla, the others just aren't up to it. I am yet to be convinced that Weslowski has sufficently overcome the physical trauma of 2 leg breaks in a year to think he'll ever reach the potential we all saw. Williams is an enigma, as is Hughes and Andy Johnson is a sand dancing has been. We don't possess any quality out on the left hand side either, but if I'm picking Sheehan it has to be Tiatto with some experience in front of him. That front line would get us next to nothing. O'Grady has shown nothing against poor to mediocre teams in this division to warrant any kind of future first team action, Hammond has a better scoring record than him!!!!! I am beginning to see why Levein saw fit to 'drop' Hume as well, however I do believe if used correctly then he can be a player. Fryatt is our only natural scorer so he starts regardless. Plus I'd get de Vries back like a shot even if to bring off the bench because whether he means it or not he creates chances in and around the box, something O'Grady doesn't do. I reckon we'd be hounded playing that mob. Fascinating. But anyone who suggests Momo Sylla is a credible right winger makes me highly sceptical for a start. Sheehan? Both of us have doubts but, yes, he's the best we've got overall. Kenton centre-back? Not impressive against Sociedad. Never seen him there again. Maybury? Just not as good an attacker as Stearman and the value-added future is with the youngster. Weso? You're spot on. Fryatt? Our most natural scorer is probably Chambers. The problem with Fryatt is he's no bloody use when he's not scoring... which is pretty well all the time right now. COG? We just see him differently. I think COG's useful whatever the situation. He's rarely played as a true striker and I'd like to see him with proper support players before calling him. Not that he sounded in any way impressive at Birmingham. But he's a positive guy and might just have been pissed off with the tactics and the people behind him.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.