bald reynard Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 Now I know I'll get 'shot down' by most for saying this; but I think IF Waghorn goes back to Sunderland in January, it might well be a good thing for City. For a start off, Pearson will have to play a logical team formation - none of this 'strikers in midfield' business - Kermorgant will play where he should be, in attack (in Waggie's place), with Fryatt - and we could then have some width, with a / 2 wingers (not Gallagher). I think Kermorgant would be much better 'foil' for Fryatt than Waghorn - and get the best out of him (lacking of late).
lildave3 Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 No, not really, because we'll have lost our best striker (imo).
FoxesFan123 Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 I can kind of see your point. But....you just can't get away from the fact that Waghorn is a really good player, in my opinion also our best forward, and it would be a shame to lose him. Also, Pearson will continue to play Gally on the wing, Oakley on the wing, Kermo in mid....etc. But hey, if we're winning games, we can't complain.
lcfc_jme Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 Epic fail. If you think that losing Waggy will mean Gally will all of a sudden stop playing in midfield, you're an imbecile; he still won't have a place up-front and Pearson is hell-bent on keeping him in the side. If Waggy goes, we'll lose what pace and endeavour we have upfront, and also our best striker. Because that's what he is.
Tommeh Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 If Waghorn goes back and Jermaine Beckford is not signed within 3 working days I'm off to support Hereford.
Fox You Forest Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 I can't see it being a good thing whichever way you look at it. Yann and Waggy up top!
maddog Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 Now I know I'll get 'shot down' by most for saying this; but I think IF Waghorn goes back to Sunderland in January, it might well be a good thing for City. For a start off, Pearson will have to play a logical team formation - none of this 'strikers in midfield' business - Kermorgant will play where he should be, in attack (in Waggie's place), with Fryatt - and we could then have some width, with a / 2 wingers (not Gallagher). I think Kermorgant would be much better 'foil' for Fryatt than Waghorn - and get the best out of him (lacking of late). Waghorn is the nearest we have to a Premier League striker at the moment, i think he could cope there now. Kermo can play in Midfield, or just behind the front two, i don't think he's an out and out striker so he's not really being played out of position. Pearsons paid a lot for Gallagher which is why he plays a lot.
Guest Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 Pearsons paid a lot for Gallagher which is why he plays a lot. Are you part of Nigel's backroom staff now maddog? I'm guessing that Nige sees a lot more of them in action than you do and so picks his team accordingly, even if it doesn't always seem logical to your average city fan
Koke Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 Waghorn is the best striker we have, and him leaving in January will weaken our team whichever way you look at it.
Budweiser Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 Rather have Fryatt than Waghorn, which seems crazy considering you lot
MPH Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 i can see no benefit for a team that struggles to score goals to lose someone who plays so well.
Bert Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 Yep. Fantastic news. In fact, I don't know why we don't send him back now.
Fox92 Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 I know where you are coming from but I don't think we will gain any width out of it because the wingers don't play (think I have just stated the obvious ) I mean it seems that Dyer and N'Guessan only get a game every 10 matches or whatever and although they may not be good enough for this level, we do need width. Which leaves us with one thing, Nigel could go for Peter Halmosi from Hull, or a quality winger like that! Personally, I am a big fan of Waghorn. His goal on saturday was a prime example of pace and strength that we require at this level. I am not sure if Fryatt would have scored that goal to be honest, as he is not as fast as Waghorn. I would be sad to see Waghorn leave in January and there is no doubt that we do need a quality centre forward with genuine pace and power - the sort of player what Didier Drogba is. I do have faith in Nigel Pearson, his backroom staff and Milan Mandaric and am sure that we will sign the players that are needed, whether Waghorn comes back or not.
Radovan's Caravan Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 From what I've seen of the youngster I don't think he will be a great loss - he is not a clinical finisher and this is borne out by your recent stats. And all the replays that I have seen of his last goal (against S****horpe) show that it came off the S****horpe player.
Fox92 Posted 2 December 2009 Posted 2 December 2009 And all the replays that I have seen of his last goal (against S****horpe) show that it came off the S****horpe player. Couldn't see it from where I was sitting at Glanford Park really and on the replay I thought it was his goal alright. Anyway, he did great to actually control the ball like he did against a tall defender and he did well with his close control and pace to get him virtually one - on - one. His other goals though, apart from Swansea, have been ace. I mean, Coventry, ohh what a goal.
Guest Posted 3 December 2009 Posted 3 December 2009 I think at this point we all need reminding of his heroic goal against Cov Goals
TrickyTrev Posted 3 December 2009 Posted 3 December 2009 From what I've seen of the youngster I don't think he will be a great loss - he is not a clinical finisher and this is borne out by your recent stats.And all the replays that I have seen of his last goal (against S****horpe) show that it came off the S****horpe player. He is our most rounded forward though, equally adept at playing back to goal or on the shoulder/running the channels. Hs willingness and ability to do the latter us particularly important to us considering we don't play with wingers or attacking full backs, at the moment he is our width. On another note... I don't get why people say Gallagher is not a midfield player. From what i can see his strengths are his close control, his ability to spot and play through balls and his long range shooting. All of these abilities lend themselves to playing attacking midfield, something which he has been doing to good effect. Just because he does not match some stereotypical notion of a 'winger' doesn't mean that he is not most effectively deployed out wide, or more importantly that he doesn't help the side from wide positions more than anyone else. The recent history of the left midfield position is that of technically sound right footed players who find it easier to discover space drifting from the left and enjoy the angle of attacking the goal with their stronger right foot. It hasn't been that of a left footed player trying to take on 2 players then whip in a 50/50 ball for the centre forward since the 1950's. Why people still think that such a latter is a 'proper' winger and the former is 'out of position' I will never know.
Radovan's Caravan Posted 3 December 2009 Posted 3 December 2009 He is our most rounded forward though, equally adept at playing back to goal or on the shoulder/running the channels. Hs willingness and ability to do the latter us particularly important to us considering we don't play with wingers or attacking full backs, at the moment he is our width. On another note... I don't get why people say Gallagher is not a midfield player. From what i can see his strengths are his close control, his ability to spot and play through balls and his long range shooting. All of these abilities lend themselves to playing attacking midfield, something which he has been doing to good effect. Just because he does not match some stereotypical notion of a 'winger' doesn't mean that he is not most effectively deployed out wide, or more importantly that he doesn't help the side from wide positions more than anyone else. The recent history of the left midfield position is that of technically sound right footed players who find it easier to discover space drifting from the left and enjoy the angle of attacking the goal with their stronger right foot. It hasn't been that of a left footed player trying to take on 2 players then whip in a 50/50 ball for the centre forward since the 1950's. Why people still think that such a latter is a 'proper' winger and the former is 'out of position' I will never know. That is 'mongball' not 'football' 'fusbal' or 'calcio'. In 'football' you run towards goal into space without the ball. When it comes to you, you first tme it to a team mate less than 10 metres away and he first times it either back to you or to someone else. That's how you cut through a massed defence and create chances. But you have to be technically good to play this way and you have to practice constantly to hone and maintain this skill. Few British players do this.
potter3 Posted 3 December 2009 Posted 3 December 2009 And all the replays that I have seen of his last goal (against S****horpe) show that it came off the S****horpe player. Well it didn't. The class control was the main element of the goal anyway.
Finnegan Posted 3 December 2009 Posted 3 December 2009 That is 'mongball' not 'football' 'fusbal' or 'calcio'. In 'football' you run towards goal into space without the ball. When it comes to you, you first tme it to a team mate less than 10 metres away and he first times it either back to you or to someone else. That's how you cut through a massed defence and create chances. But you have to be technically good to play this way and you have to practice constantly to hone and maintain this skill. Few British players do this. You put a team together, on a fresh-from-League-One budget, that can play like that and fantastic, mate. We'll all be behind you. For now we'll stick with Nigel Pearson and if mongball gets us promoted then, frankly? Fucking brilliant.
Guest Mee-9 Posted 3 December 2009 Posted 3 December 2009 Nah, How is it a good thing? He's our second top scorer, and with fryatt not grabbing goals consistently, Waghorn would be the first name on my teamsheet. His sheer effort, strength and pace is enough for NP to try and grab him a bit longer!
marbelladave Posted 3 December 2009 Posted 3 December 2009 The issue here is, as I have posted elsewhere, the Fryatt / Waghorn partnership really is not that effective. They may improve as a pairing but as of now they are 2 individuals each playing their own game. Assuming we are going to continue playing the long ball, then we clearly need a player to compliment one or the other of them, a 'big' man (Yanni?) with Fryatt or a more deft player (Gallagher?) alongside Waghorn. Waghorn returning to Sunderland in January saves anyone having to make a difficult decision. Regarding our wingers, I for one believe they could be very effective at this level. I is my view that when they have played they have been deployed too deep with too much emphasis on their defensive duties. Dyer or N'Guessan receiving the ball 20 yards out and attacking the opponents back 4 can be very effective in a way that getting the ball 40 yards out and having to get past 2 midfield players before attacking the box is not! Generally this requires us to to play a variant on 4-3-3 but as Pearson seems determined to play two central strikers, it is not going to happen. Mongball..... :giggle: :D
Fox92 Posted 3 December 2009 Posted 3 December 2009 I think at this point we all need reminding of his heroic goal against CovGoals
Kilworthfox Posted 3 December 2009 Posted 3 December 2009 I may not know a lot about football, but losing a good player is never a good thing.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.