Guest ttfn Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 Given Steve Howard's woeful performances this season, and MdV's excellent start to the campaign, who would we rather have had trying to head us to safety?
Thracian Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 It's speculative. I don't think either are what City really need but we never got the best out of DeVries. Who do we get the best out of? There's almost a desperation about the club which seems to act as a brake on the team and we really need a manager with the strength and personality to end all that and get people loving their football again and the team acting as one unit instead of various disjointed entities.
hairy Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 True but who would you have chosen before? Howard would have won hands down.
AyewJoking Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 Howard is a better player but he has done nothing since he's been here. de Vries was awful at times but he was great against Watford (4-1 Walkers Stadium) and he could have made the difference if he kept that form all season but it wasnt meant to be.
Mark Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 True but who would you have chosen before? Howard would have won hands down. Probably in most cases but I honestly would have chose the De Vries that started the season to what we're lumbered with now, I was never keen on Howard when it was initially just a rumour. At least De Vries wanted to make an impact.
Manwell Pablo Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 Howard is a better player but he has done nothing since he's been here. de Vries was awful at times but he was great against Watford (4-1 Walkers Stadium) and he could have made the difference if he kept that form all season but it wasnt meant to be. Agreed. I didn't think Howard was a good signing especially for the money we paid for him but he's been twice as woefull as I thought he'd be.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 I think that both players, and to a lesser extent Carl Cort, failed because the style of play didn't suit them, although it's fair to say that Howard's apparent effort has dropped off towards the end of this season, be it from frustration, lack of belief, whatever. With the benefit of hindsight signing two players (Howard and Oakley) from a hideously struggling team like Derby perhaps wasn't such a good idea because they've been in the habit of losing, although I refuse to believe that they aren't much better players than they've shown themselves to be in a blue shirt so far. Being a lumbering carthorse shouldn't be a barrier to scoring goals. Just look at Ian Marshall, Steve Walsh, Matt Elliott, Gerry Taggart, John Hartson etc etc, and even the horse during spells in his career.
Ric Flair Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 Howard has been shocking in the past 2 months, I really am disappointed with him. But Mark de Vries has hardly done much this season at the 3 clubs he's played for and off the top of my bonnet he's scored about half as many goals as Howard has done.
lildave3 Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 Howard is a better player but he has done nothing since he's been here. de Vries was awful at times but he was great against Watford (4-1 Walkers Stadium) and he could have made the difference if he kept that form all season but it wasnt meant to be. You mention one good game for De Vries, without mentioning the one good game for Howard?
Guest ttfn Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 hindsight is a wonderful thing Without it we'd have nothing to debate about, so there's no point in being patronising.
thecannon Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 You mention one good game for De Vries, without mentioning the one good game for Howard? Westr Brom, Hat trick!
General Smuts Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 I can't believe that De Vries is winning a poll about being a better player. Worse still i can't believe i voted for him. I voted for De Vries on the basis that out of the 2 of them i could definately not take him in a fight, whereas Howard would be wriggling around on the floor after i threw a punch.
The Reverend Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 De Vries - 51 games, 8 goals. Howard - 22 games, 6 goals. Thread CLOSED.
Guest ttfn Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 De Vries - 51 games, 8 goals.Howard - 22 games, 6 goals. Thread CLOSED. Erm no. Thread NOT closed. The fact is that de Vries actually played really well in the first 2-3 games of the season. People are probably forgetting the game we lost at home to Blackpool when he hit the woodwork twice, one of which was from an improbable 20 yard volley. At least he wanted to play for the club. Howard' s only here for the money.
The People's Hero Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 I only go to work for the money. Same as everyone else. West Brom's players are there to get paid - they do okay.
ASH17LCFC Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 De Vries - 51 games, 8 goals.Howard - 22 games, 6 goals. Thread CLOSED. De Vries scored more then 8 goals
The Reverend Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 Erm no. Thread NOT closed. The fact is that de Vries actually played really well in the first 2-3 games of the season. People are probably forgetting the game we lost at home to Blackpool when he hit the woodwork twice, one of which was from an improbable 20 yard volley. At least he wanted to play for the club. Howard' s only here for the money. He's had one good game, Watford at home. In 50 appearances.
Tilley Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 He's had one good game, Watford at home. In 50 appearances. Tottenham FA Cup. In front of the Kop. 3 - 2. 90th Minute.
The Reverend Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 Tottenham FA Cup.In front of the Kop. 3 - 2. 90th Minute. Ok, 2.
act smiley Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 "Okay, its a bit disappointing to lose, but this season should be great, I mean, Martin Allen's even made Mark deVries look like a good footballer!" - after the Blackpool match I'd certainly go with Mark deVries. A hard-working confidence player who spent much of his time here without any, but did occasionally show why he was decent in Scotland despite being badly-utilised. Howard on the other hand, has had one blinder and other than that been crap, lazy and one of the key components in taking us down.
Father Ted Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 We should have kept De Vries but I'm not sure who is better. At least De Vries compared to Howard always gave his all!
Ozwin Posted 7 May 2008 Posted 7 May 2008 I don't get why we need a target man at all to be honest. Not all clubs have to have one, it's not a law amongst footballers. A good manager would notice that he has some technically gifted players who aren't the tallest and would work around a system for it. 3 up front for example in a 4-3-3. Holloway is/was obsessed with the target man system this season and I don't think we've got a quick passing team to be able to play that way. We may hoof it constantly but I don't think we've played the system correctly at all. Just my general opinion anyway.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.