Thracian Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 From the Blue Army website: "One of the most promising signs for City is that the old partnership of Matty Fryatt and Iain Hume seems to be sparking more like it did last season." Has Fryatt gone into PR? How the hell do they come up with that remark?. There's the suggestion of improvement at long last, that's all. One assist. Talk about grasping at straws. We need a centre-forward who scores 15/18 goals a season. That's the fact. I don't care if it's Fryatt, Dodds, a combination of the two or someone else. But that's what we need and despite the Blue Army comment there's been precious little sign of it yet... All Fryatt's done so far is miss almost every chance and half chance he's had. Perhaps it will change tonight. I hope so. But I see no evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 From the Blue Army website: "One of the most promising signs for City is that the old partnership of Matty Fryatt and Iain Hume seems to be sparking more like it did last season." Has Fryatt gone into PR? How the hell do they come up with that remark?. There's the suggestion of improvement at long last, that's all. One assist. Talk about grasping at straws. We need a centre-forward who scores 15/18 goals a season. That's the fact. I don't care if it's Fryatt, Dodds, a combination of the two or someone else. But that's what we need and despite the Blue Army comment there's been precious little sign of it yet... All Fryatt's done so far is miss almost every chance and half chance he's had. Perhaps it will change tonight. I hope so. But I see no evidence. He's actually playing well at the minute. He's looking like a good footballer, however he's still looking like he can't hit a barn door despite the improvement of his all round game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 He's actually playing well at the minute. He's looking like a good footballer, however he's still looking like he can't hit a barn door despite the improvement of his all round game. He really lacks a lot of sharpness and IMO in the limited times I've seen him he looks like a man who just doesn't want to be playing football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 He really lacks a lot of sharpness and IMO in the limited times I've seen him he looks like a man who just doesn't want to be playing football. He did but he's looked busy the past two games. It's just the sharpeness in front of goal thats the problem at the minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 He did but he's looked busy the past two games. It's just the sharpeness in front of goal thats the problem at the minute. I'd echo what a lot of people say - I think he needs a goal... what I don't think is true is one going in off his arse it's going to help him... I don't think strikers take confidence from that in any great amount... one of his better performances needs to be rewarded with a good goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo V Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 NOT THIS AGAIN????!!!!!! It was obvious the Hume/Fryatt partnership did well in the last game, so well that RK didnt bring on Cada until about 8 mins from time. Hume is quoted as saying he wants to form a partnership with Matty and we can see from the outside that its a partnership that could work. Let them have another run together with a midfield that supplies the ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 17 January 2007 Author Share Posted 17 January 2007 NOT THIS AGAIN????!!!!!! It was obvious the Hume/Fryatt partnership did well in the last game, so well that RK didnt bring on Cada until about 8 mins from time. Hume is quoted as saying he wants to form a partnership with Matty and we can see from the outside that its a partnership that could work. Let them have another run together with a midfield that supplies the ammo. Do you mean: King, Williams, Hughes/Tiatto; Hume, Fryatt, Porter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo V Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 Do you mean: King, Williams, Hughes/Tiatto; Hume, Fryatt, Porter? The problem with our midfield at the moment is its too hit and miss. One day Williams look sgood, then he looks out of his depth. I hope that MMs money is spent on the midfield ahead of anything else as I think we will see a better return if we feed the strikers with better service. BTW Thracian, Im not sure what the best combination is from our first team squad including King, but I wouldnt always blame Matty Fryatt for everything that goes wrong with our performances! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 17 January 2007 Author Share Posted 17 January 2007 The problem with our midfield at the moment is its too hit and miss. One day Williams look sgood, then he looks out of his depth. I hope that MMs money is spent on the midfield ahead of anything else as I think we will see a better return if we feed the strikers with better service. BTW Thracian, Im not sure what the best combination is from our first team squad including King, but I wouldnt always blame Matty Fryatt for everything that goes wrong with our performances! I don't and never have done. And I've campaigned constantly for goalscoring/creative midfielders to help our strikers even when Fryatt was out injured. That said Hume's got nine goals from lousy service and Fryatt, with two goals, has barely justified his place all season. He's only recently looked fit to play and, by now, many managers would have given others a chance. As for the choice in midfield I merely asked your opinion. You call for better service but if you had to make the choice what would you do?. It gets uncomfortable when you might have to leave our apparently reasonable performers like Williams, Tiatto, Hughes, Wesolowski but that is the midfield which gives us so few goals/chances. I all to see how you can keep persevering with all of them. There are options - and I don't mean just King by any means. So who would you choose?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo V Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 I don't and never have done. And I've campaigned constantly for goalscoring/creative midfielders to help our strikers even when Fryatt was out injured. That said Hume's got nine goals from lousy service and Fryatt, with two goals, has barely justified his place all season. He's only recently looked fit to play and, by now, many managers would have given others a chance. As for the choice in midfield I merely asked your opinion. You call for better service but if you had to make the choice what would you do?. It gets uncomfortable when you might have to leave our apparently reasonable performers like Williams, Tiatto, Hughes, Wesolowski but that is the midfield which gives us so few goals/chances. I all to see how you can keep persevering with all of them. There are options - and I don't mean just King by any means. So who would you choose?. I dont think we have got the right combination to choose from with the current squad. I dont like Hughes playing on the right as he "was" a quality passer of the ball but isnt blessed with pace. I suppose from what we have I`d drop Weso and prefer Tiatto as an attacking left-back who can link between the defence and midfield. Maybe Porter - Hughes - Williams - Stearman but again its a tentative choice. Whats your ideal midfield then??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 17 January 2007 Author Share Posted 17 January 2007 I dont think we have got the right combination to choose from with the current squad. I dont like Hughes playing on the right as he "was" a quality passer of the ball but isnt blessed with pace. I suppose from what we have I`d drop Weso and prefer Tiatto as an attacking left-back who can link between the defence and midfield. Maybe Porter - Hughes - Williams - Stearman but again its a tentative choice. Whats your ideal midfield then??? Not easy is it? Hughes, Williams, Stearman, Wesolowski, Tiatto don't really represent much hope for either goals or assists. You're right, Hughes is not a right winger, though he's tried. Stearman's no left midfielder. With current options I always go back to 4-3-3. Options I see: King, Hughes, Porter; Hume, Dodds, Fryatt. King, Williams, Tiatto/Hughes: Dodds/Hammond, Hume, Porter King, Williams, Tiatto/Hughes; Hume, Dodds/Fryatt, Porter Each of those midfield/attacking options rpresent scoring potential in 5.5 of the six positions, with Hughes having scored more than Williams or Tiatto. Or, a possible 4-4-2: Hammond, King, Hughes, Porter; Hume, Dodds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo V Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 Not easy is it? Hughes, Williams, Stearman, Wesolowski, Tiatto don't really represent much hope for either goals or assists. You're right, Hughes is not a right winger, though he's tried. Stearman's no left midfielder. With current options I always go back to 4-3-3. Options I see: King, Hughes, Porter; Hume, Dodds, Fryatt. King, Williams, Tiatto/Hughes: Dodds/Hammond, Hume, Porter King, Williams, Tiatto/Hughes; Hume, Dodds/Fryatt, Porter Each of those midfield/attacking options rpresent scoring potential in 5.5 of the six positions, with Hughes having scored more than Williams or Tiatto. Or, a possible 4-4-2: Hammond, King, Hughes, Porter; Hume, Dodds. I could see why you would play Hammond (his pace), but images of some dude running down the wing with no break pedal and swinging his foot at the ball as he shanks it into the crowd are possibilities on that one! I dont know anywhere near enough about King to make a judgement and I agree to Hughes playing down the middle as he can actually pass the ball and score a goal and similarly to Steve Gerrard ( at comparison), we wont see the best of him on the right. 4-3-3 isnt a convincing formation either. The way footy is going at the moment is the tendancy to play one forward and pack the midfield. IMO we would get dominated in midfield against decent teams playing 433. Its evident that we need some players and I am certain that we wouldnt have sold two rightsided players if no-one was due to come in. Lets see what formation and team is picked tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coale39 Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 Or, a possible 4-4-2: Hammond, King, Hughes, Porter; Hume, Dodds. Wouldn't ya prefer Danny Cada then Hammond? I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 17 January 2007 Author Share Posted 17 January 2007 I could see why you would play Hammond (his pace), but images of some dude running down the wing with no break pedal and swinging his foot at the ball as he shanks it into the crowd are possibilities on that one! I dont know anywhere near enough about King to make a judgement and I agree to Hughes playing down the middle as he can actually pass the ball and score a goal and similarly to Steve Gerrard ( at comparison), we wont see the best of him on the right. 4-3-3 isnt a convincing formation either. The way footy is going at the moment is the tendancy to play one forward and pack the midfield. IMO we would get dominated in midfield against decent teams playing 433. Its evident that we need some players and I am certain that we wouldnt have sold two rightsided players if no-one was due to come in. Lets see what formation and team is picked tonight. Let me be clear about Hammond. He is not someone I would ever have signed but he is the only option we've got for a bit of pace. And pace is a vital commodity in modern football. Nor do I think King is the next Martin Peters. But he has that style and is the only player at our club right now who can ghost through and score from midfield. If that were to change so might my preferred choice. As for 4-3-3 I'm no particular advocate of that system, it's too narrow, but we don't have the players for 4-4-2 and we need more scoring options. On your other points I'd rarely worry about opposition tactics nor would I be fearful of having to counter a packed midfield. But as you say, tonight's where the focus lies now and I hope Fryatt gets a goal or two, I hope Dodds gets his first chance and some support from the City fans, I hope King's on the bench (which he won't be) and I hope Kelly gets a win to put a smile on Mandaric's face not to mention the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverFox Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 If we actually had a reserve team I guarantee he would have been back to his best a long time ago. The lack of such a reserve team is really hindering our progression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 Let me be clear about Hammond. He is not someone I would ever have signed but he is the only option we've got for a bit of pace. And pace is a vital commodity in modern football. Nor do I think King is the next Martin Peters. But he has that style and is the only player at our club right now who can ghost through and score from midfield. If that were to change so might my preferred choice. As for 4-3-3 I'm no particular advocate of that system, it's too narrow, but we don't have the players for 4-4-2 and we need more scoring options. On your other points I'd rarely worry about opposition tactics nor would I be fearful of having to counter a packed midfield. But as you say, tonight's where the focus lies now and I hope Fryatt gets a goal or two, I hope Dodds gets his first chance and some support from the City fans, I hope King's on the bench (which he won't be) and I hope Kelly gets a win to put a smile on Mandaric's face not to mention the rest of us. No, I think "David Platt" was the player you compared him to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 17 January 2007 Author Share Posted 17 January 2007 No, I think "David Platt" was the player you compared him to. I think I compared him to both at one recent time or another. Same sort of build and pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hebangsthedrums Posted 17 January 2007 Share Posted 17 January 2007 Thracian, I think you place too much emphasis on this whole potential scoring thing. Its all very well you giving these scores but i had a look back at some line ups a while ago and tbh some of the games we scored a few in (Southampton, Ipswich and Barnsley IIRC) would prob get a low score in such a rating. I am all for playing attacking football but there is a lot more to consider - the blend of players, the opposition, experience etc All four of those line ups have both dodds and King in them. You honestly thing the best team we put out would have them both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 17 January 2007 Author Share Posted 17 January 2007 Thracian, I think you place too much emphasis on this whole potential scoring thing. Its all very well you giving these scores but i had a look back at some line ups a while ago and tbh some of the games we scored a few in (Southampton, Ipswich and Barnsley IIRC) would prob get a low score in such a rating. I am all for playing attacking football but there is a lot more to consider - the blend of players, the opposition, experience etc All four of those line ups have both dodds and King in them. You honestly thing the best team we put out would have them both? I'm not saying defensive/cautious line-ups never get goals, that would be like saying an attacking team would never return a goalless drawer. I am saying that over a season there is no chance they'll get enough and we are progressing through this season - as I anticipated - at a Championship scoring rate of just under a goal a game. That speaks for itself and it is interesting that, after winning the Championsip with a stack of goals last season, Steve Coppell at Reading (very experienced) has done best of the promoted sides with a policy of attacking as much as possible away and at home. As for Dodds and King I'm like everyone else in truth, I don't know for sure. As people point out, it is difficult to judge how people from one level will perform at another. Som struggle, others, like Levi blossom. But no midfielder in our first tam is remotely capable of what King does in an attacking sense for the Academy. And I've not seen anyone at the club who can consistently despatch bread-and-butter chances like Louis Dodds. On that basis I'd have no problem with either or both being in the team...simply on the basis that they seem better at those particular things than anyone else - and we need those skills. If I'm wrong - and I don't mean after one 15 minute excuse for a chance, then I'll know better. I'd have no fears or reservations about finding out though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London_Fox Posted 18 January 2007 Share Posted 18 January 2007 A small portion of humble pie tonight? Fryatt got a goal, partnership did look a lot like last season. Promising no... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 18 January 2007 Author Share Posted 18 January 2007 A small portion of humble pie tonight? Fryatt got a goal, partnership did look a lot like last season. Promising no... I said in my posts yesterday that I hoped he'd score and that I hoped it might restore some confidence. My point was that he hadn't dione it all season up to Janury 17, 2007 and it couldn't continue. Furthermore I still think ignoring Dodds is a mistake and was a mistake last night. We had only one alternative striker on the bench last night, Fryatt and Hume seemed to find it harder later on and while Cadamarteri is a worthwhile gamble there is no way he's a striker of Dodds consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bold_fox Posted 18 January 2007 Share Posted 18 January 2007 I said in my posts yesterday that I hoped he'd score and that I hoped it might restore some confidence. My point was that he hadn't dione it all season up to Janury 17, 2007 and it couldn't continue. Furthermore I still think ignoring Dodds is a mistake and was a mistake last night. We had only one alternative striker on the bench last night, Fryatt and Hume seemed to find it harder later on and while Cadamarteri is a worthwhile gamble there is no way he's a striker of Dodds consistency. So how many strikers would you have on the bench ? Every day you make these comments Thracian, about how great our youngsters are and how they arent given a chance. You must understand that RK is doing his best for the team, and if he feels that Dodd's isnt good enough to make the squad then thats the right decision. ( remember he watches the lad every day and has done for a long time now, as have other managers ) .... As i've said before, i think you say these thing for reaction. Be content with the youngsters that are coming through and seem to look really impressive. ( i.e. Weso, Porter, Stearman, McAuley...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 18 January 2007 Author Share Posted 18 January 2007 So how many strikers would you have on the bench ? Every day you make these comments Thracian, about how great our youngsters are and how they arent given a chance. You must understand that RK is doing his best for the team, and if he feels that Dodd's isnt good enough to make the squad then thats the right decision. ( remember he watches the lad every day and has done for a long time now, as have other managers ) .... As i've said before, i think you say these thing for reaction. Be content with the youngsters that are coming through and seem to look really impressive. ( i.e. Weso, Porter, Stearman, McAuley...) Are you honestly saying Cadamarteri is a better striker to have on the bench than Dodds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bold_fox Posted 18 January 2007 Share Posted 18 January 2007 Are you honestly saying Cadamarteri is a better striker to have on the bench than Dodds? I don't make the decision. But i trust RK's judgement as he watches the players day in day out.... he's is in the best position to make the judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife Posted 18 January 2007 Share Posted 18 January 2007 I don't make the decision. But i trust RK's judgement as he watches the players day in day out.... he's is in the best position to make the judgement. Exactly! If RK thought he was better than what we have then he would be playing! Its not like he is thinking "we have the next Lineker on our hands here but I won't pick him because I want to piss Thracian off on Foxestalk!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.