DanTheFox07 Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 Really disappointed by the fact we are left turning to someone with the ability of hayles who clearly isn`t of a good enough standard to be playing for us. Why pearson didn`t Look to play dickov or chambers instead baffles me. We have lost campbell out on loan to blackpool and have never identified upfront being a pivitol area where we need to strengthen in the january market, this might cost us going up as champions now in my opinion. When you look back to the start of the season mandaric wasted so much time getting dickov to sign for us again and for what? the guy is a has been and is here for his paycheck every week, for the amount of links mandaric has im disappointed that our hopes are down to hayles when howard is banned as leicester fan`s how inspired we must all feel. Can only hope pearson is knocking on mandaric`s door now to get someone in on loan for next weeks must win game against peterborough, who have to fancy there chances being at home and winning the last 5 games.
potter3 Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 I thought Hayles was one of our better players today. Would still rather have seen Chambers starting, or on the bench, we lack pace up front, which isn't as much of a problem when Howard plays.
teblin Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 I thought Hayles was one of our better players today. Would still rather have seen Chambers starting, or on the bench, we lack pace up front, which isn't as much of a problem when Howard plays. I thought hayles was poor.
WardyisPukka Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 Hayles did bugger all today , We obviously missed Howard holding up the ball , but we do need to buy another striker that can hold the ball like Howard and not too old but im pretty sure there arent many of those type of strikers around
teblin Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 The problem we have, is if you haven't got height you need pace and today we had neither. It is the last week of the loan window i think we have to get some in with one of the above (both ideally). When teams come to to the walkers they know they can get away witha high line, as they won;t get caught for pace, would be nice to be able to have that other option of a ball in behind.
Jimmy Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 the strikers were fine the problem was we by-passed the midfield the whole game and when we did use them Oakley was shocking
stevie909 Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 The problem i have with hayles is that he looks like ronaldo when he's not needed or we're winning, and absolute wankshite when we could do with him. Couple of substitute appearances last season he came on and absolutely pardewed the hell out of defences, but when remembering these instances my mind is constantly diverted back to the image of him running around like a headless chicken on the left wing at stoke. Didn't see him in action today but from what i have heard on here and on the radio, he might have missed an opportunity.
clazkel Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 I didnt think the forwards got enough support today especially first half, midfield were too deep, too many long balls first half that they were never going to win. If midfield supported and played the ball to feet more then the strikers wouldve been more of a threat. I would like to see Chambers play tho, someone with pace to run at defences
Thracian Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 the strikers were fine the problem was we by-passed the midfield the whole game and when we did use them Oakley was shocking :D Surprise me. Tell me how many shots Hayles had? Or saves he forced. Or even chances he created? On today's performance I doubt he'd have merited a place in our title-winning Academy team. What the hell ever happened to Billy McKay?
BlabyFox Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 I thought Hayles was one of our better players today. Would still rather have seen Chambers starting, or on the bench, we lack pace up front, which isn't as much of a problem when Howard plays.
Dan Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 I thought Hayles was one of our better players today. Would still rather have seen Chambers starting, or on the bench, we lack pace up front, which isn't as much of a problem when Howard plays.
Jimmy Posted 21 March 2009 Posted 21 March 2009 :D Surprise me. Tell me how many shots Hayles had? Or saves he forced. Or even chances he created? On today's performance I doubt he'd have merited a place in our title-winning Academy team. What the hell ever happened to Billy McKay? How many chances did he get to shot considering most of the time our "passes" to him found the head of their big no 20
MPH Posted 22 March 2009 Posted 22 March 2009 In all honesty i think the players had one eye on the Peterborough game. They know if they can beat Peterborough we are champions.
maddog Posted 22 March 2009 Posted 22 March 2009 If Dj doesn't want to play for us then pretty much all our strikers at the club aren't good enough for the Championship. Dickov and Hayles no chance, Chambers Fryatt and Howard, both useless there last season. Dj has got 6 goals in 14 games for Blackpool now, and Blackpool are struggling near the relegation though, that proves that Dj is probably our best striker for the Championship next season. But if we sell him we are seriously short of options, we need to sign 2 new strikers definately, Beckford, Lambert, Cox, Mcail Smith, Mclean, Beckford, Tyson. 2 of them will do.
Guest ttfn Posted 22 March 2009 Posted 22 March 2009 If Dj doesn't want to play for us then pretty much all our strikers at the club aren't good enough for the Championship.Dickov and Hayles no chance, Chambers Fryatt and Howard, both useless there last season. Dj has got 6 goals in 14 games for Blackpool now, and Blackpool are struggling near the relegation though, that proves that Dj is probably our best striker for the Championship next season. But if we sell him we are seriously short of options, we need to sign 2 new strikers definately, Beckford, Lambert, Cox, Mcail Smith, Mclean, Beckford, Tyson. 2 of them will do. What makes you think that any of those strikers are a better option than the Howard/Fryatt pairing, which has been quite frankly excellent this season. We need to give them a chance to play together in the championship - that barely ever happened last season
potter3 Posted 22 March 2009 Posted 22 March 2009 I have done, and it still baffles me. Without Campbell, unless we play Chambers, we have no pace up front. Fryatt, Howard, Hayles, Dickov. But when Howard plays it's less of a problem, due to his aerial power, and his ability to bring others into play.
Dan Posted 22 March 2009 Posted 22 March 2009 Without Campbell, unless we play Chambers, we have no pace up front. Fryatt, Howard, Hayles, Dickov. But when Howard plays it's less of a problem, due to his aerial power, and his ability to bring others into play. Honestly next year there is no way we can keep the same front 2, it worked at this level, it wont next season and if I had to drop one of them myself it would be Fryatt. Get someone like Beckford or Billy Sharp in etc.
Tilley Posted 22 March 2009 Posted 22 March 2009 Hayles should have been rid of in the summer. Dickov should never have been signed. Both need to be gone come August.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 22 March 2009 Posted 22 March 2009 I'm gonna put this thought in here too This is REALLY throwing the cat amongst the pigeons BUT...how about throwing a defender up front with Fryatt for nod downs and air power, a lá Walsh/Elliott in the MON years. Can't be worse than Hayles or Dickov and might throw Posh off their stride. The question is of course, which defender would be up for it and which we can spare from the defence?
Guest ttfn Posted 22 March 2009 Posted 22 March 2009 Honestly next year there is no way we can keep the same front 2, it worked at this level, it wont next season and if I had to drop one of them myself it would be Fryatt. Get someone like Beckford or Billy Sharp in etc. Why why why?! The guy has 28 goals this season - yes Beckford has 29 - but we'd have to pay loads of money for him, which could be better spent elsewhere. Howard and Fryatt will do for me next season. What we need is an experienced prem striker for next season - I'd like to see someone like David Healy at the club next year - someone we can rotate with Howard and Fryatt, and the pace can be provided by a more mature Ashley Chambers as and when it's needed. Also, Billy Sharp's hardly set the Championship alight.
Rich Fox Posted 22 March 2009 Posted 22 March 2009 Fryatt and hayles were shocking yesterday. I dont think fryatt is really good enough for the championship too slow poor finisher no good in air. hayles is wank. The midfield is a big problem oakley was shocking and shows no presence in the middle kingys ok dyers 3rd division standard. The only thing we have is a good defence when tunchevs back i think we will go straight back down unless we make major changes in the summer and im sure nigel will have faith in him hes built a team good enough to get out league 1 now he had to pretty much start from scratch and build a team to compete in the championship.
DanTheFox07 Posted 22 March 2009 Author Posted 22 March 2009 Does anyone think we could actually sign beckford and that surely premiership clubs are sniffing around him get a grip. mckail smith would be a good signing but i think they would want at least 3.5-4million for him.
Raj Posted 23 March 2009 Posted 23 March 2009 Does anyone think we could actually sign beckford and that surely premiership clubs are sniffing around him get a grip. mckail smith would be a good signing but i think they would want at least 3.5-4million for him. Heard Drogba's unhappy at Chelsea!!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.