Joe. Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 He just needs some service. Im suprised Hume has scored as many as he has because he always has too come deep or out wide to collect the ball. David Connolly did it aswell , no wonder strikers get frustrated at this club nobody supplys them with any service to score bags of goals. Exactly right. Fryatt is by no means a bad player but he will turn into one if we don't change the way we play.
lcfc_jme Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 Matty Fryatt is a good player and could easily rediscover his form. He just needs to start putting more work/effort in (amazing really considering we're meant to be redoubling efforts in training every week!) in order to lose some pounds and regain some sharpness. Fryatt should also look at his own gameplay, and look at the amount of times he dribbles the ball and the length of time he holds on to it. If he mixes up laying the ball off early and dribbling the ball, he should find he has more time and space than he has at the minute, and so will have more chances to score.
jumbo mills Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 send him out on loan to a lower division team
Mort Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 He might do well with a new manager and fitness coach... as Glenn was saying on RL how many of our team have improved since last season? Stearman, Hughes and Fryatt have not come close to their form last season (not helped by playing Stearman outside of RB IMHO) and at the same time even the likes of Kisnorbo and Hume are starting to look jaded, well at least Sylla and Elvis seem to have picked up a bit
Webbo Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 that is where he is from isnt? i thought he was from Belgrave.
The People's Hero Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 Different players have different strengths. Hume is someone who can drop deep, run at players, shoot from distance and create a bit for himself. Fryatt is someone who needs service into the box so that he can then find space and finish. I think Hume is a better player than Fryatt, but just because Hume can score from long range, doesn't mean Fryatt is shit because he can't. To use Van Nistelrooy as an example again, he doesn't bang them in from outside the area, he doesn't run through a defence and create loads of chances for himself. Doesn't mean he's crap, just means he's not that type of player. Oh and for the record, Matty Fry-up is the better name I'm not a fu cking idiot, thanks. The point is, one of them is willing to work. One isn't. This is even evident in the physique of the two.
Ric Flair Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 I'm not a fu cking idiot, thanks. The point is, one of them is willing to work. One isn't. This is even evident in the physique of the two. I have to disagree with you TPH. Fryatt is made to look like he's lazy and couldn't give a shit because of the way we play football. Fryatt is an old-fashioned goal hanger, who does his work inside the box. When the ball is hoofed up to him, he's pretty limited in what he can do, he needs the ball at his feet or infront of him to run on to. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve some stick because he looks a shadow of the player he was last season, but as a team we look a shadow of the team we were under Kelly at the back end of the season. Gone is the non-stop closing down opposition and the passing the ball in to channels where Fryatt and Hume really struck up a partnership. Fryatt does look un-fit, but is that because he can't do anything without the ball at his feet? The one thing he doesn't do this season than he did last, was getting the ball and turning players inside and out. He's not got much pace, but when he's on his game he can take defenders to the cleaners. He's not being able to do this due to not getting the service and I think that has something to do with the idea that he's looking fat, un-fit and un-interested. He needs re-vitalising, he needs coaching properly and either a good kick up the 'arris or an arm round his shoulder to boost his confidence. Plus a footballing side to play to his strengths. I still believe he's potentially premiership class.
The People's Hero Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 One thing I suspect we can agree on Ric, is that the coaches presently at the club (RK included) seem incapable (so far at least) of getting Fryatt fit and firing, motivated... in short, at his best. I really think Fryatt needs a change in terms of management and/or coaching staff.
Ric Flair Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 One thing I suspect we can agree on Ric, is that the coaches presently at the club (RK included) seem incapable (so far at least) of getting Fryatt fit and firing, motivated... in short, at his best. I really think Fryatt needs a change in terms of management and/or coaching staff. Spot on. I fear if he leaves, it will be our loss and not his.
Head Honcho Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 I'm not a fu cking idiot, thanks. The point is, one of them is willing to work. One isn't. This is even evident in the physique of the two. Spot on! Fryatt has too many frailties for a team like Leicester he may run around like a blue arsed fly but hey I'll do that for his money. Good players make their own luck Fryatt hasn't even looked average so far this season
Head Honcho Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 Spot on. I fear if he leaves, it will be our loss and not his. He's a comfort player and I've no doubt with better players around him he'd be a better player but I don't think we can afford to have a player like him around. It may seem like I'm contradicting myself but what I mean is that with our current crop of players we aren't going to get the best out of him and he's unable to adapt to our style of play so get rid I say!
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 He's a comfort player and I've no doubt with better players around him he'd be a better player but I don't think we can afford to have a player like him around. It may seem like I'm contradicting myself but what I mean is that with our current crop of players we aren't going to get the best out of him and he's unable to adapt to our style of play so get rid I say! Surely it would be better for us to get better players in to play with him instead of flogging him and getting someone else in.
Head Honcho Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 Surely it would be better for us to get better players in to play with him instead of flogging him and getting someone else in. I think the rot has set in with Matty and he'd be better off elsewhere he know's it and I think that shows in his performances. I can only see our players getting worse unless we get some kind of warchest in January and even then I wouldn't trust Kelly to spend it wisely.
Ric Flair Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 He's a comfort player and I've no doubt with better players around him he'd be a better player but I don't think we can afford to have a player like him around. It may seem like I'm contradicting myself but what I mean is that with our current crop of players we aren't going to get the best out of him and he's unable to adapt to our style of play so get rid I say! Correct me if i'm wrong, but he did more than ok for us for 5 months last season and if I remember rightly, we've only lost one player from last seasons team. Now that's not all down to Matty Fryatt. The fact is, he's off form and the team don't play to his strengths any longer. Whether it was all Gudjonsson's doing that made Fryatt effective is debatable, but I don't think Fryatt should shoulder all the blame for why he's not doing well for us this season. There's only 3 or 4 first team players that have done well for us this season and some of them haven't been as consistent as we'd like. Kisnorbo Hume Logan Porter The rest have more or less let us down several times or more over the season.
surrifox Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 I remember seeing Fryatt and Hume running the Reading defence ragged in the first half on the day they clinched promotion last year . They were the best side in the division and were made to look ordinary by our two. Its a real pity that they couldn't push on from there as we had real hopes at the time
Ric Flair Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 I remember seeing Fryatt and Hume running the Reading defence ragged in the first half on the day they clinched promotion last year . They were the best side in the division and were made to look ordinary by our two. Its a real pity that they couldn't push on from there as we had real hopes at the time It is a shame, but the reason behind it is the way the team has been playing this season. Not good enough, starving our strikers of service.
Head Honcho Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 Correct me if i'm wrong, but he did more than ok for us for 5 months last season and if I remember rightly, we've only lost one player from last seasons team. Now that's not all down to Matty Fryatt. The fact is, he's off form and the team don't play to his strengths any longer. Whether it was all Gudjonsson's doing that made Fryatt effective is debatable, but I don't think Fryatt should shoulder all the blame for why he's not doing well for us this season. There's only 3 or 4 first team players that have done well for us this season and some of them haven't been as consistent as we'd like. Kisnorbo Hume Logan Porter The rest have more or less let us down several times or more over the season. You said it, he did ok His goals did get help us beat relegation but imo even regarding for injuries he hasn't progressed at all. You could say that championship defence's have sussed him out but that's his problem, he needs to adapt his game accordingly. As I've said before Akinbiyi was lynched for much less, so why are we giving Fryatt such an easy ride?
surrifox Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 [ As I've said before Akinbiyi was lynched for much less, so why are we giving Fryatt such an easy ride? Akinbadbuy was bought as a finished striker at a cost of some £5 million more- but then you knew that
Head Honcho Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 [ As I've said before Akinbiyi was lynched for much less, so why are we giving Fryatt such an easy ride? Akinbadbuy was bought as a finished striker at a cost of some £5 million more- but then you knew that ........and relatively speaking if you consider how much money we had when we bought Fryatt he probably cost us more! I'm not sure but I don't think AA had ever played in the Premiership until he got to Leicester
Ric Flair Posted 6 December 2006 Posted 6 December 2006 ........and relatively speaking if you consider how much money we had when we bought Fryatt he probably cost us more! I'm not sure but I don't think AA had ever played in the Premiership until he got to Leicester Not far off the mark. I think he made one or two appearances for Norwich when they were in the premiership, he was about 18 at the time. Perhaps i'm in the minority here and I can't explain why, but i've never felt the same level of frustration with Fryatt that I had with Akinbiyi. Whether that's unfair on Ade or not, or the fact that Fryatt is just having a bad spell and i'm sure he'll come good. Only time will tell.
Thracian Posted 6 December 2006 Author Posted 6 December 2006 Correct me if i'm wrong, but he did more than ok for us for 5 months last season and if I remember rightly, we've only lost one player from last seasons team. Now that's not all down to Matty Fryatt. The fact is, he's off form and the team don't play to his strengths any longer. Whether it was all Gudjonsson's doing that made Fryatt effective is debatable, but I don't think Fryatt should shoulder all the blame for why he's not doing well for us this season. There's only 3 or 4 first team players that have done well for us this season and some of them haven't been as consistent as we'd like. Kisnorbo Hume Logan Porter The rest have more or less let us down several times or more over the season. Stripped of all the ifs and buts that's the truth. Four from a first team squad of 16 and a pool of close to 30. It's a disgrace really.
The People's Hero Posted 6 December 2006 Posted 6 December 2006 Jiggady Jig Eee Orrr Eee Orrr Elvis is a donkey!
Head Honcho Posted 6 December 2006 Posted 6 December 2006 Not far off the mark. I think he made one or two appearances for Norwich when they were in the premiership, he was about 18 at the time. Perhaps i'm in the minority here and I can't explain why, but i've never felt the same level of frustration with Fryatt that I had with Akinbiyi. Whether that's unfair on Ade or not, or the fact that Fryatt is just having a bad spell and i'm sure he'll come good. Only time will tell. Conciously or subconciously and I'm not for one minute suggesting anything untoward regarding why he wasn't given enough time by the fans but I'm sure if he'd had say more of an Anglo Saxon look about him he may have been given a little more time
Dr The Singh Posted 6 December 2006 Posted 6 December 2006 Conciously or subconciously and I'm not for one minute suggesting anything untoward regarding why he wasn't given enough time by the fans but I'm sure if he'd had say more of an Anglo Saxon look about him he may have been given a little more time You are kiddin Allen, his colour had nothing to do with it, it was the fact that PT paid £5 mill for him as an accomplished striker and Heskeys replacement and the fact that his finishing was very poor and so was his overall play especially his first touch!!! Now, I beleive he couldn't handle the pressure of the £5 mill tag!!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.