cairnsy Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Is it just me or does everyone agree they are just both one trick ponies? Gallagher can only do set pieces and isn't great at set pieces. And dyer can just run, his crossing and shooting is awful. I think we would be better off with moussa and vassell on each wing with waghorn up front. They all offer much more than dyer and Gallagher can. Opinions?
Bugg Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Vassell can't play on the wing and is better in the middle, but I do agree that Moussa should be given a game instead of Gallagher who is a bit of a luxury player.
Finnegan Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Dyer is terrific at this level. Will never likely cut it much above - but he terrifies full backs at this level. He completely turned the Doncaster game around.
Narborough_fox Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Dyer can change a game in a blink of an eye, he drifts in and out of games horrifically but when he's in the game he's the most influencal player on the pitch. He just needs to score more goals and he will be on the starting sheet for a long time. Gallagher on the other hand is a very iffy player, he doesn't want to get stuck in, can't head the ball and is (once again) a very in and out player. When he is in a macth he can be a handful for any defence in this league, he just needs to be more clinical infront of goal and work on his bravery and he would be a very ood winger for any team. Dyer and Gallagher works very well, Dyer a full of energy player who can skin a defence inside out. Gallagher a player who has a fantastic passing abilty and can add a little bit of extra class to the team, if both players can work on there weaknesses we will have to wingers who can give so many defence's a scare and set many goal's up along with scoring many. Keep with them and it will work.
ScouseFox Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Most defences in this league can't handle Dyer, even when he's off form, he can still run. He's good for any type of situation aswell, if you're chasing a game, you need pace, if you're holding onto a lead, you need pace on the counter. Our only player with pace to burn all match is Dyer. I'm not a Gally fan though. He offers very little except a handful of decent set pieces a season. He backs out of challenges, isn't quick, has inconsistent delivery, makes incorrect decisions quite often and still starts every game because he scores penalties.
cairnsy Posted 2 January 2011 Author Posted 2 January 2011 The thing I mentioned dyer is sure he can get through defences but he's had 3 1 on 1 with the keeper in the last two games and hasn't scored once
Finnegan Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Yes it's frustrating - but most players at this level have significant flaws, that's why they're playing at this level. All in all, I'm sure even Thracian (who adores a midfielder who'll contribute goals) would concede, a winger's ability to score one-on-ones isn't his biggest attribute. Dyer frightens defences more than any other player currently in our arsenal. Far more than any other winger we've probably had in the last five or six years, to be honest. Even Gradel, who was equally lightweight, lacked his pace and agility.
Kitchandro Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Is it just me or does everyone agree they are just both one trick ponies? Gallagher can only do set pieces and isn't great at set pieces. And dyer can just run, his crossing and shooting is awful. I think we would be better off with moussa and vassell on each wing with waghorn up front. They all offer much more than dyer and Gallagher can. Opinions? Absolutely not. Have you been watching Vassell since he came here? Completely useless and anonymous on the wing. Been played in the centre for about 3 games and scored 2 goals in that time. Moussa might be a better shout, I've not seen much of him but heard good things. Certainly Gallagher has got to pull his finger out, I like him and he has been good for us since Sven took over (despite people singling him out every time the team plays crap) but he hasn't really played well since the Doncaster game. Dyer is a very useful player, we haven't got much pace in this team and we need that. Like Gallagher and King he will go missing in some games but also like them he is a matchwinner when on form. The thing is though, we played a front 3 of Gallagher-Vassell-Dyer against Doncaster in the second half, and destroyed them. We played it against Ipswich, but that game was a write off, not worth taking into account really. Sven changed it for the next 2 games and didn't win. Then he changed it back and we won away for the first time in 4. I'm not a big fan of changing winning teams, and I think it would be a big mistake to change it after that win (except Berner in for Cunningham obviously) We need to pick a winning side (done) and keep picking it for a run of games. If you want consistency we need a settled side.
cairnsy Posted 2 January 2011 Author Posted 2 January 2011 I'd take vassell over Gallagher anyday. And I would rather have waggy than vassell down the centre. So saying that I would definitely have Gallagher out as he is shocking and for dyer he can play well but he doesn't do it often. He drifts to centre mid so often and doesnt run on the wing, he almost has to have blinkers just looking at the line and nothing else.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 DYER on his day is very good, as people have stated above he can drift in and out of games but hes good when hes good, GALLAGHER i think is more of a luxury in the side but again he can be very good when he is on his game. I would agree that both need to work on other sides of their game but generally both are good if inconsistent players
Bugg Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Vassell is gash on the wing, as proved his best games have been when he's played up front.
cairnsy Posted 2 January 2011 Author Posted 2 January 2011 Who would you rather have up front, vassell or waggy?
Ozwin Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Dyer is decent but he could be so much better which is what gets on peoples tits.
Kitchandro Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Who would you rather have up front, vassell or waggy? Vassell at the moment cos he scored against Hull. No point in Vassell being on the wing though, Gallagher can go missing but Vassell might as well not be there.
Bugg Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Who would you rather have up front, vassell or waggy? Not really bothered, as long as they both score for us. But sticking one on the wing to accommodate both is a bad decision.
Kitchandro Posted 2 January 2011 Posted 2 January 2011 Not really bothered, as long as they both score for us. But sticking one on the wing to accommodate both is a bad decision. yeh exactly, both are strikers and if they aren't played there we are never going to get the best out of either of them. It's one or the other at the moment IMO.
acooling08 Posted 3 January 2011 Posted 3 January 2011 Dyer is terrific at this level. Will never likely cut it much above - but he terrifies full backs at this level. He completely turned the Doncaster game around. Nah he didn't, he was very quiet, it was the penalty that turned it.
ousefox Posted 3 January 2011 Posted 3 January 2011 Dyer is good and his pace is a real asset- if he didn't have that he wouldn't be anywhere near the team, definitely good enough to start for us though Gallagher just annoys me as a player, yes he does have 'technical ability' but he hardly uses it and always likes to fanny out of tackles. Best thing about him is his peno's, we definitely have better options IMO
Haydos Posted 3 January 2011 Posted 3 January 2011 Gallagher seems to constantly split people. All I ever hear on here are buzz words, usually 'technical' or 'luxury'. I'm not even sure people know what they mean when they say this about him. I've only been able to see a couple of games on telly this season and none in the flesh so anyone that could shed any light on this would do well. Appropriately, i'm also divided on him. I think he complements the shape of the team but at the same time lacks ability in too many departments. And his technical ability. A lot of posters on here seem to think his passing is awful but in the same post say he's good technically. I class passing as being a technical ability. From what i've seen his shooting is often poor/wasteful. Also a technical ability. Would I have my finger on it if I said he obviously has the ability, he is just never performs at his best consistently over the course of a match? Is this what people mean when they mention his technical ability?
cairnsy Posted 3 January 2011 Author Posted 3 January 2011 Gallagher just looks like he never tries IMO
Kitchandro Posted 3 January 2011 Posted 3 January 2011 Nah he didn't, he was very quiet, it was the penalty that turned it. I disagree, as soon as Bednar went off we were much better. A penalty wouldn't have changed the fact that we had no cohesion or movement, but a change of personnel does sometimes, and di then. Dyer and Naughton linked up well the second half and he ran at them, his final ball wasn't the best but he stretched them.
Haydos Posted 3 January 2011 Posted 3 January 2011 I have little empathy for players that are 'lazy' or 'dont try'. I've always played rugby and football and I love competing, it comes as instinct so I find it hard to accept it when people say that so-and-so 'isnt bothered'. Its inherent to most sportsmen/women, when you're on a pitch you put in 100%.
Haydos Posted 3 January 2011 Posted 3 January 2011 I disagree, as soon as Bednar went off we were much better. A penalty wouldn't have changed the fact that we had no cohesion or movement, but a change of personnel does sometimes, and di then. Dyer and Naughton linked up well the second half and he ran at them, his final ball wasn't the best but he stretched them. Looked a combo of both of these. Our approach play (rightly) changed when Dyer came on and did cause them more problems. Don't think we'd have won the peno with Bednar on but similarly don't think that we'd have won 5-1 if we hadn't got that goal on the stroke of HT.
Kitchandro Posted 3 January 2011 Posted 3 January 2011 Gallagher seems to constantly split people. All I ever hear on here are buzz words, usually 'technical' or 'luxury'. I'm not even sure people know what they mean when they say this about him. I've only been able to see a couple of games on telly this season and none in the flesh so anyone that could shed any light on this would do well. Appropriately, i'm also divided on him. I think he complements the shape of the team but at the same time lacks ability in too many departments. And his technical ability. A lot of posters on here seem to think his passing is awful but in the same post say he's good technically. I class passing as being a technical ability. From what i've seen his shooting is often poor/wasteful. Also a technical ability. Would I have my finger on it if I said he obviously has the ability, he is just never performs at his best consistently over the course of a match? Is this what people mean when they mention his technical ability? Personally I don't really get this 'luxury' tag. For me, a luxury player is one who does ok but never affects the outcome of a game directly. For me Gallagher is the opposite, he is inconsistent but a matchwinner. A matchwinner isn't a luxury. My opnion of him is that he's a great passer, can shoot, has a good football brain and has skills that can beat a man even if his pace restricts him. So I think that is what people mean when they say he has technical ability. His main problem is not that he can't do it IMO, but that he doesn't do it often enough. Some games he'll run the show, like against Derby, but some games he'll go missing. If you ask me though, people are always slating him for being crap in games where he was no worse than the majority of his teammates. He's just one of those players that is quite unpopular with a significant section of Leicester fans and he can't do much right with them. I can understand this i a way because he is frustrating, but I think he's singled out far too often.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.