Finnegan Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 My biggest problem with Gallagher isn't really his fault. I've defended him countless times and used to be very positive about him but even I'm getting increasingly frustrated with his presence on the wing. He just isn't a winger. He's got no pace what so ever, rarely takes people on and doesn't terrify anyone defensively. Nor does he have that unique, Steve Guppy ability to whip in inch-perfect crosses without needing to beat his man. He will never be an out and out striker. He doesn't have pace to run off the shoulder of the last defender, he doesn't have strength to hold off any defender - and before someone points out the fact that neither does Fryatt - Gallagher lacks the natural, predatory instincts of our misfiring man. See that's why Gallagher is just such a natural target for criticism - because wherever we put him he's going to be playing out of position. It's like he was built, specifically, to sit in the classic, continental number ten position. That "second striker," "in the hole," Francesco Totti position - a position that neither Sven nor Pearson (nor any other manager we've ever had) utilizes. He has great touch, when he's confident and on form he rarely ever fails to find another city player, has good technique when hitting the ball and is fairly composed on it. But a winger? No chance.
Kent Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 I think his work rate defensively more than anything annoys me. He could at least try to get back and help.
marbelladave Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 Was having a chat by the coaches yesterday, and some bloke hit the nail on the head. Its one of the first times he could say that, even a player who scored two goals played crap. He's good, but doesnt hack it for me, he doesnt offer anything else much except set peices. For example that header yesterday or the shot in the box, he should of buried them. Plus his corners are woeful. Because he is not a natural goalscorer! At least not the classic 'fox in the box' type. Yesterday he had two great chances close in but does not have the reactions of a real striker so he fluffed his shot and 'bottled' his header. When he does score from open play it is usually from range, he is most effective playing centrally in 'the hole' where he can dictate our attacking play, when he goes out wide as is required in his current role he largely disappears. As I said above he needs to play the attacking role in a midfield three, it would be a bold decision to give it a go but it is the only role that really works for him.
Finnegan Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 I wouldn't play him ahead of King, Wellens or Abe, mind. I think we've actually got one of the best central midfields in the league in those three.
marbelladave Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 My biggest problem with Gallagher isn't really his fault. I've defended him countless times and used to be very positive about him but even I'm getting increasingly frustrated with his presence on the wing. He just isn't a winger. He's got no pace what so ever, rarely takes people on and doesn't terrify anyone defensively. Nor does he have that unique, Steve Guppy ability to whip in inch-perfect crosses without needing to beat his man. He will never be an out and out striker. He doesn't have pace to run off the shoulder of the last defender, he doesn't have strength to hold off any defender - and before someone points out the fact that neither does Fryatt - Gallagher lacks the natural, predatory instincts of our misfiring man. See that's why Gallagher is just such a natural target for criticism - because wherever we put him he's going to be playing out of position. It's like he was built, specifically, to sit in the classic, continental number ten position. That "second striker," "in the hole," Francesco Totti position - a position that neither Sven nor Pearson (nor any other manager we've ever had) utilizes. He has great touch, when he's confident and on form he rarely ever fails to find another city player, has good technique when hitting the ball and is fairly composed on it. But a winger? No chance. Agree entirely, ( rarely the case I know) have said exactly this in two recent posts... He is our most creative player, give him the playmaker role with two of our more hardworking midfielders covering him in (more or less) holding roles.
Guest ttfn Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 Yesterday the worst thing about Gallagher's performance was his use of the ball. He'd receive it, and then either wait to be tackled, or lash the ball wildly in the vague direction of another City player. He may be the most technically gifted player in the side but he is also the laziest. Yesterday if he hadn't got those 2 goals he would have been lucky to get 2/10.
davieG Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 It would appear that none of our strikers are capable of scoring with their head either, how many have Howard, Waghorn or Fryatt scored with their head? That's why we never get anything from corners apart from the occasional King and Morrison goals that's is.
marbelladave Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 I wouldn't play him ahead of King, Wellens or Abe, mind. I think we've actually got one of the best central midfields in the league in those three. Ahhh.......knew I would find something to disagree with... To my mind the three players you mention are too similar, they play well as individuals but the combined effect is simply not effective enough. Look at yesterday, no real cutting edge from midfield, Wellens tries but rarely plays the frontmen in and does not present any sort of a threat on goal, Abe hustles and chases and does good work defensively but there is still way too much space in front of our back 4 and King, far all his talents, does not really create anything for his team mates. I understand what you are saying but do we really need three players who play pretty much the same position, the same hard running up and down style? I suggest not, pick two of them and get them to play a little more conservatively to provide the cover for Gallagher playing in the hole.
Austin Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 thinks he's ronaldo or something, bangs every single shot in top corner in the warm up before games .. Obviously because there's no opposition <_< Lives off of the odd "wonder goal" .. I dislike him alot, but if he's in the city shirt i'll have to accept him, just like all the shite over previous years Step forward Momo sylla and CO.
Guest ttfn Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 Ahhh.......knew I would find something to disagree with... To my mind the three players you mention are too similar, they play well as individuals but the combined effect is simply not effective enough. Look at yesterday, no real cutting edge from midfield, Wellens tries but rarely plays the frontmen in and does not present any sort of a threat on goal, Abe hustles and chases and does good work defensively but there is still way too much space in front of our back 4 and King, far all his talents, does not really create anything for his team mates. I understand what you are saying but do we really need three players who play pretty much the same position, the same hard running up and down style? I suggest not, pick two of them and get them to play a little more conservatively to provide the cover for Gallagher playing in the hole. I think the balance of that midfield trio is pretty good. Abe the holder, Wellens the carrier, King the poacher. We had control of the midfield from about the 30 minute mark onwards yesterday, and for 90 minutes against Forest.
B52 Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 Gallagher is not a striker, important this, so I will say it again, he is not a striker! It does not matter what position he is played in, he simply does not have the instincts of a striker. He reacts poorly to the chances and half chances that fall to him in and around the 6 yard box as was amply demonstrated yesterday, he hit a great chance straight at the keeper and 'wimped' out on a header that any worthwhile striker would have buried. Currently he is deployed in a wide position with a degree of freedom to come inside, when he does so he looks effective but when he stays wide he is a peripheral figure, hence his tendency to drift in and out of games. I have said this before, but he needs to be given the attacking central midfield role to be truly effective. He needs to get on the ball in front of the opposition back 4 and play from there, he can play his team mates in with his sharp passing and as we know he posesses a real goal threat from distance, he could actually provide our midfield with the creativity that it so clearly lacks. Of course there is an issue here, with Gallagher in midfield there is only space for two of our three regular midfielders, someone has to drop out. To me that is not an issue as, despite all the running and effort, our midfield really is not that effective. Much of the time Wellens, King and Abe seem to be doing pretty much the same job, there is no variety and as a consequence prescious little in the way of a cutting edge. Gallagher could give us this edge, give him the playmaker role supported by two of our usual three midfielders playing just that bit deeper than is currently the case. Which two is open to debate, I know my preference but others will undoubtable think differently. Oh, one last thing, dropping Gallagher into midfield frees up a position for someone who might actually score goals from close in, with Fryatt seemingly on his way out that means a place for Dyer or Wahorn either of whom would be more effective given enough game time. Send marbelladaves post to Sven. How about this team: Weale(or someone the defence can trust, something is wrong in communication between the defence itself and the gk) Naughton Davies(or Vitor) Cunningham Abe Wellens Dyer Gallagher as a playmaker Vassell King - How about this for our King, the perfect linc..... Bednar Subs: Logan, Vitor, Berner, Oakley, Waghorn, Hobbs, Howard
Tewy5 Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 Gallagher mite look lazy but does his bit 4 the team comes up with goals has a good touch and not scared 2 shoot need 2 score from his corners at least test the keeper
themotivator Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 he could do with drilling a few of his countless chances under the keeper instead of floating them wide/over/onto their strikers chest. either that or he should be setting up all our goals with lovely little through balls to vassell or bednar to tap in. It just seems like these are the last things on his mind. he has a fantastic touch and technique though and beneath the frustrating laziness you can tell that he cares so much.
Jay Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 The thing that annoys me most about Gallagher is his total in ability to do the simple things. he can score a great free kick, he can score from the edge of the area with an amazing curling shot, but it seems when something simple needs to be done to score he picks the wrong option. he could be 6yards out and instead of a sidefoot or a toe poke he would try and curl it with the outside of his foot or place it. he doesn't seem to have a strikers instinct and possibly thinks to much at times
marbelladave Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 I think the balance of that midfield trio is pretty good. Abe the holder, Wellens the carrier, King the poacher. We had control of the midfield from about the 30 minute mark onwards yesterday, and for 90 minutes against Forest. Disagree entirely. Abe does not 'hold' at all, he chases and harries all over the pitch and rarely, if ever, 'holds' the position in front of the back 4. Wellens gets up and down too but given the amount of ball he gets he simply does not create enough and as I said elsware, provides absolutely no goal threat. King's goals are very, very handy but in the middle third he is just another player who works hard and closes down the opposition. If the balance is so good, why is there always space in front of our back 4? and why do our midfield get so few assists? and King apart so few goals? No, good players maybe, but a balanced unit, no way! The thing that annoys me most about Gallagher is his total in ability to do the simple things. he can score a great free kick, he can score from the edge of the area with an amazing curling shot, but it seems when something simple needs to be done to score he picks the wrong option. he could be 6yards out and instead of a sidefoot or a toe poke he would try and curl it with the outside of his foot or place it. he doesn't seem to have a strikers instinct and possibly thinks to much at times He is hopeless close to goal, he really does not have the instincts. Play him in the 'hole' and he will have plenty of the ball in the areas he is most comfortable in so he will have time to make the right decisions. In addition playing this role will occupy defenders and give King more room for his trademark runs, means we can play three proper forwards, strikers or wingers as you please.
Corky Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 He's frustrating, when he has a poor game it drifts him by, he's not the sort to go charging around to make an impact. I don't mind him, he can have moments of brilliance, but he's out of position on the wing (espeically the left) and doesn't have the winger's instinct to run at players and push them back.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 He's frustrating, when he has a poor game it drifts him by, he's not the sort to go charging around to make an impact. I don't mind him, he can have moments of brilliance, but he's out of position on the wing (espeically the left) and doesn't have the winger's instinct to run at players and push them back. Then where is his postion? He has got to be the only player in City history who has never had a natural postion with us. He is not a striker, as he missed too many, and the majority of strikers are either big and strong or very quick, and he is neither. I agree that he isnt quick enough to be on the wing, but he seems to get played there the most, when all he does is get the ball cut insdie and cross into the box, and he isnt the best defensively either leaving no cover for Cunningham.
North-LondonFox Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 Strange player - clearly very tallented but not strong enough to play upfront and not quick enough to play wide. To be honest I would far rather see a winger who can beat a player and we have Llloyd Dyer who can do just that!
NGoloMode Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 I'd put him behind a front two. Me too but I wouldn't change our formation to suit him..
The Doctor Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 Technically he's very very good but he misses easy chances that, natural goalscorer or not, he should be burying. For a player of his hieght he lacks any ability in the air, his set-pieces are hit and miss - he'll score a cracker or two from free-kicks, then balloon several over the bar. His delieveries are on the whole quite poor and he lacks pace. He is creative but he needs to be playing in the hole - something we could do but would probably have to drop one of king, abe or wellens and i wouldn't drop them just to get gallagher in his position when we could just drop gallagher and put in moussa or dyer.
lou Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 Technially should be one of best players.. had a poor game yesterday but so did many of the others and he at least scored 2 goals which is more than the other strikers did yet they are still thought of more highly by some! Oh and I definately would!!
Adster Posted 5 December 2010 Posted 5 December 2010 Technially should be one of best players.. had a poor game yesterday but so did many of the others and he at least scored 2 goals which is more than the other strikers did yet they are still thought of more highly by some! Oh and I definately would!! i would to ;)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.