OriginalRobboFOX Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Since this has reared its head in another thread..... well, lets have a vote... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koke Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Hume will win this. He is fan favourite number one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtles Head Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Hume, no question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wasyls Pec Deck Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Different types of striker...Fryatts touch in considerably better, level on technique. Although Hume possesses more pace and acceleration, yet both are even when it comes to finishing.... Hume seems to be less injury prone..... I can't choose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonisco Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 I'd choose Hume because he contributes more to the team. Fryatt is technically a better player, but Hume still has plenty of skill and has a higher workrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Baaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynny Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Fryatt is technically the better of the two players. Hume, despite his sometimes poor decision making and movement, plays further back the pitch and makes his own chances mostly from harrying the defence and midfield. In a very good squad, I might prefer Fryatt. (Though Hume in CM and a big striker alongside Fryatt sounds dead good to me.) In our squad this season, with our woeful lack of creativity, Hume's been the more important of the two, as he's far less reliant on the (poor) service of the rest of the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gist Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Fryatt is technically the better of the two players. Hume, despite his sometimes poor decision making and movement, plays further back the pitch and makes his own chances mostly from harrying the defence and midfield. In a very good squad, I might prefer Fryatt. (Though Hume in CM and a big striker alongside Fryatt sounds dead good to me.) In our squad this season, with our woeful lack of creativity, Hume's been the more important of the two, as he's far less reliant on the (poor) service of the rest of the squad. I think that sounds good too. Hume with Weso in the centre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Fryatt doesn't even have a case on this season's evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filbertway Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 If I had to choose one, it would be Fryatt because I think he is a better player to have in the box, more composed, better finisher than Hume. Hume can be erratic at times and is not the best in and aroudn the box, his best shots seem to be 20-25 yarders, when sometimes we are crying out for someone ro finish a one on one or a half chance in the box (like Fryatt did against Derby). Hume should play a deeper role, where his running, long range shots and ability would be put to better use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simi Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Fryatt is technically the better of the two players. Hume, despite his sometimes poor decision making and movement, plays further back the pitch and makes his own chances mostly from harrying the defence and midfield. In a very good squad, I might prefer Fryatt. (Though Hume in CM and a big striker alongside Fryatt sounds dead good to me.) In our squad this season, with our woeful lack of creativity, Hume's been the more important of the two, as he's far less reliant on the (poor) service of the rest of the squad. Well said. I think that sounds good too. Hume with Weso in the centre I like the sound of that. Maybe a more effective central midfielder than Weso, who could provide decent back up. -------------------Weso/New CM -------------------------Hume --------Fryatt---------------------New ST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Thracian has a point, it's hard to say Fryatt's a better player given what's gone on this season. But then again, if we go on previous seasons it's clear Fryatt has a lot of talent, but so has Hume IMO. Technically I think Fryatt is gifted, he just lacks pace, which will mean he'll have to adapt his game somewhat at a higher level. On the other hand he has a footballing brain, which seems a lot quicker than most footballers and that's almost as good an asset to have. I expect a big season from Fryatt next season, especially with the right service. Hume has shown he can cut it at this level, but he needs to improve on his weaknesses as well, because he's inconsistent and his decision making is questionable in the final third of the pitch. Both better than 90% of the players we have and we need them both next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommeh Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 As an out and out striker, Fryatt, however, their both different players, Hume is better at picking the ball up deep and running and creating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 I think for the start of next season we should be planning to use Fryatt moreso than Hume because I think he has the potential to be a very classy striker. On this season, Hume has been quality but I think Fryatt is the better player and if both are fit and ready for next season I think I'd prefer Fryatt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee7 Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 hume has been better this season but i think fryatt will develop into a really good striker and will get you a lot more goals than hume would thats if he gets the right service Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe. Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Hume is the better player I would say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue blood Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 its difficult comparing the two. they have different strengths, if we were comparing hume with the horse than fair enough but fryatt is a srtiker and hume is a second striker. --------------------Hume------------------------------------- --------------------------------Fryatt------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Ruddle Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 no disrespects to fryatt, but hume works his socks off every game, even if he doesn't score for ages. but then again, fryatt helped out a draw for us against the sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue blood Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 no disrespects to fryatt, but hume works his socks off every game, even if he doesn't score for ages. but then again, fryatt helped out a draw for us against the sheep. its difficult comparing the two. they have different strengths, if we were comparing hume with the horse than fair enough but fryatt is a srtiker and hume is a second striker. --------------------Hume------------------------------------- --------------------------------Fryatt------------------------- its like saying heskey worked too hard and was rarely in the right place at the right time to score. Cottee didnt work hard for the team tracking back and making the extra midfielder. The role of a second striker is to link up play, run down the channels, flick balls on, play the 1-2's, dribble with the ball etc. The role of the striker is to get the tap ins, be in the right place at the right time, have the 6th sense of knowing where the ball will fall etc. Just incase we still dont understand let me break it down; Classic second strikers: HUME HESKEY HORSE Crouch maradonna sherringham totti rivaldo Classic Striker; FRYATT COTTEE Linekar nistlerooy crespo fowler ian wright ronaldo rooney Would one ever think of comparing Linekar with Crouch?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Do we understand now the two should not be and are not comparable????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo V Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Both It all depends on who the striker partner is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB11 Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Hume really because he trys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 its difficult comparing the two. they have different strengths, if we were comparing hume with the horse than fair enough but fryatt is a srtiker and hume is a second striker.--------------------Hume------------------------------------- --------------------------------Fryatt------------------------- its like saying heskey worked too hard and was rarely in the right place at the right time to score. Cottee didnt work hard for the team tracking back and making the extra midfielder. The role of a second striker is to link up play, run down the channels, flick balls on, play the 1-2's, dribble with the ball etc. The role of the striker is to get the tap ins, be in the right place at the right time, have the 6th sense of knowing where the ball will fall etc. Just incase we still dont understand let me break it down; Classic second strikers: HUME HESKEY HORSE Crouch maradonna sherringham totti rivaldo Classic Striker; FRYATT COTTEE Linekar nistlerooy crespo fowler ian wright ronaldo rooney Would one ever think of comparing Linekar with Crouch?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Do we understand now the two should not be and are not comparable????? Looking at that list of classic strikers they are all gluttons for goals. Where does Fryatt fit in? If he sees that list I'd advise he cuts it out and frame it. Cos that like putting a paper aeroplane in with Concorde and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue blood Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Looking at that list of classic strikers they are all gluttons for goals.Where does Fryatt fit in? If he sees that list I'd advise he cuts it out and frame it. Cos that like putting a paper aeroplane in with Concorde and the like. agreed fryatt is not ever gonna be in the same league as the other classic strikers but he is a 'classic striker' - not a 'second striker' as most ppl on here seem to think. the objective of the list was to point out although they are both 'Strikers' they have different roles up front. there would be no balance if we had 2 second strikers or if we had 2 out and out strikers. This means the two are not comparable. Imagine both of them chasing down the same pass or going for the same tap in or going for the same header......whats the point?????????????????????????? would you compare an attacking midfielder with a defensive midfielder? they are both midfielders but have their own role within that. we are not comparing like for like here therefor the comparison is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 Yes, fine, I see the point you're making. But I still find it hard to see where Fryatt fits in. Cos it's hard to relate to him as a serious striker at all. Barton thinks that will all change and so, it seems, do others. I hope he and they are right. Cos I can't see one reason he gets in the side at all. Yes I can see him bagging the odd goal or too. But the 15/20 of a frontline marksman?. I see no reasons. It's not as if he's being unlucky and having lots of shots. Or having just a few shots but they're cannoning off the woodwork. Or lots of dangerous runs that are clearly worrying defenders. Or curling free kicks that are being blocked or just missing. If any of that was happening I'd put it down to a bad run but it's not. His big strength is his dribbling and accurate shooting. But he's not getting anywhere with that. Either because he's been sussed or he's just not sharp enough. So what's left. He might poach two or three and he might head one or two but they'll be just scraps. What does he have in his armoury by way of speed, height, leap, elusiveness, deft skills or all-round shooting prowess? I want to see it but I can't. And certainly not in recent matches. Surely it can't all be down to confidence and match fitness? Or can it. In which case why is he starting the matches. Why not have him on the bench? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynny Posted 24 April 2007 Share Posted 24 April 2007 How is Rooney a classic striker? And how is Horsfield a support striker who plays in the hole and drops back into midfield? I'd take your point but your list was all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.