MPH Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 Now I'll make a prediction. We WILL perform better tomorrow (Sheff Wed) WITHOUT Waghorn in the side !!When I originally asked if Waggie going back to Sunderland would be a good thing (I really meant it would NOT be a BAD thing !), I was thinking it might force Pearson to pick 'round pegs in round holes' (unlike the system he's been using for most of the season - 'square pegs in wiggly-shaped chasms') - ie Kermie up front with Matty Fryupp. Well that scenario is / could be (knowing NP, it won't !) up and running tomorrow - and my prediction is (and assuming he starts with both players up front - NOT one of them in midfield):- City goals (at least 2) A far more attractive side to watch A win ! You heard it here first !! thats a bit of a dumb thing to say.... so its ALL wahorns fault... also.... it would be pretty difficult to play any worse than the last 2 games...
kimsalabim Posted 12 December 2009 Posted 12 December 2009 Hmm... All i can say is this. Howard and Fryatt start up front... And Shocker. WE START WINNING AGAIN!!!!
Wilkesy Posted 12 December 2009 Posted 12 December 2009 Hmm... All i can say is this.Howard and Fryatt start up front... And Shocker. WE START WINNING AGAIN!!!! I think we won because they were so poor! Glad to see Howard get on the scoresheet, will hopefully give him the boost he needed
Ozwin Posted 12 December 2009 Posted 12 December 2009 I didn't think they were that bad tbh, Darren Purse is shocking though, can't even head a ball properly.
Wilkesy Posted 12 December 2009 Posted 12 December 2009 I didn't think they were that bad tbh, Darren Purse is shocking though, can't even head a ball properly. There are definately three teams worse than Wednesday in this division, so i don't think they will go down. But it was good to play them now and get three very welcome points.
bald reynard Posted 12 December 2009 Author Posted 12 December 2009 Now I'll make a prediction. We WILL perform better tomorrow (Sheff Wed) WITHOUT Waghorn in the side !!When I originally asked if Waggie going back to Sunderland would be a good thing (I really meant it would NOT be a BAD thing !), I was thinking it might force Pearson to pick 'round pegs in round holes' (unlike the system he's been using for most of the season - 'square pegs in wiggly-shaped chasms') - ie Kermie up front with Matty Fryupp. Well that scenario is / could be (knowing NP, it won't !) up and running tomorrow - and my prediction is (and assuming he starts with both players up front - NOT one of them in midfield):- City goals (at least 2) A far more attractive side to watch A win ! You heard it here first !! OK, so it was Howard instead of Kermorgant; but I was right, play round pegs in round holes and you get a win, some goals and a decent performance (I still think we would have had more / better with Kermie !). With Waghorn and Fryatt (or A.N. Other), we simply haven't got the physical presence to compete. I do really rate Waghorn, but not up front, in a 4-4-2 formation for City !
Captain... Posted 13 December 2009 Posted 13 December 2009 OK, so it was Howard instead of Kermorgant; but I was right, play round pegs in round holes and you get a win, some goals and a decent performance (I still think we would have had more / better with Kermie !). With Waghorn and Fryatt (or A.N. Other), we simply haven't got the physical presence to compete. I do really rate Waghorn, but not up front, in a 4-4-2 formation for City ! I agree entirely with you, I posted on here last week that Pearson has to learn to sacrifice the individual for the good of the team. There is no question that Waghorn, Gallagher, Kermit and Fryatt are better footballers than Howard. Hell I will even admit that DJ is a better footballer than Howard (and I hate Dudley) but it is clear that Howard is a more effective partner for Fryatt than the others, and trying to crowbar all 4 strikers into a starting 11 doesn't work. Whether Howard is better than Kermit I don't know, and I wouldn't change anything for the next game, but our front 2 should be a combination of Howard/Kermit and Fryatt/Waghorn/Gallagher. Whichever 2 are chosen the others unfortunately have to warm the bench. Sticking them in midfield instead of true midfieders or on the wing instead of wingers is not the solution.
Chrysalis Posted 14 December 2009 Posted 14 December 2009 wellens is fine the problem is the rest of the midfield which has meant his impact is less. I wish we still had davies as him, wellens and gradel would be 3 good players to have.
davieG Posted 14 December 2009 Posted 14 December 2009 wellens is fine the problem is the rest of the midfield which has meant his impact is less. I wish we still had davies as him, wellens and gradel would be 3 good players to have. Wellen's can certainly find a good pass but he's also wildly inconsistent - you can't blame that inconsistency onto other players. He's also very prone to misplacing his passes, yes even the easy ones and is often caught and robbed of the ball whilst hesitating on a pass.
marbelladave Posted 14 December 2009 Posted 14 December 2009 Wellen's can certainly find a good pass but he's also wildly inconsistent - you can't blame that inconsistency onto other players.He's also very prone to misplacing his passes, yes even the easy ones and is often caught and robbed of the ball whilst hesitating on a pass. You can say this about the midfield as a whole! We have three 'samey' players all doing pretty much the same job, defensively they all track and cover to a degree but no-one takes charge and the better opposition players slip past them. Similarly going forward there is no width or pace, they get closed down and, in the end, lump it forward giving away possession. On the other hand it was good to see King playing with a bit more freedom but he will not get that sort of space often.
davieG Posted 14 December 2009 Posted 14 December 2009 You can say this about the midfield as a whole!We have three 'samey' players all doing pretty much the same job, defensively they all track and cover to a degree but no-one takes charge and the better opposition players slip past them. Similarly going forward there is no width or pace, they get closed down and, in the end, lump it forward giving away possession. On the other hand it was good to see King playing with a bit more freedom but he will not get that sort of space often. Probably although my post was in response to someone suggest that Wellens was nigh on perfect and the other midfielders were gash and thus causing Wellens to make mistakes
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 14 December 2009 Posted 14 December 2009 Let's get rid of the deadwight. He cant play for Christs sake, and now he's fooked us up by getting red. What a bloody waster he is,
sbfox Posted 14 December 2009 Posted 14 December 2009 Let's get rid of the deadwight. He cant play for Christs sake, and now he's fooked us up by getting red. What a bloody waster he is, You know we banned Samuel and muffin, can't we ban this disabled too? Your post doesn't even make logical sense... You think he's crap, so he shouldn't play, so how does him being banned make any difference? I've yet to see you make a single positive post about us, yet we're in the strongest position we've been in for 4/5 years.
Vlad The Impaler Posted 14 December 2009 Posted 14 December 2009 You know we banned Samuel and muffin, can't we ban this disabled too? Your post doesn't even make logical sense... You think he's crap, so he shouldn't play, so how does him being banned make any difference? I've yet to see you make a single positive post about us, yet we're in the strongest position we've been in for 4/5 years. Some people ae never happy eh?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.