Dyer and Gallagher

[Kitchandro]

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%.

Gallagher just looks like he never tries IMO

This is an example of singling him out, Gallagher was poor against Leeds for example but he was one of the few who looked like he was trying. Yet everyone slated him for being awful and 'not putting his foot in'. Almost everyone was poor and lacking effort that day. Now fair play, there are times when I wish he would stop being a pussy but I think it's exaggerated. TBF I think there's a difference between being slow, crap at tackling and heading - and not trying.

[Kitchandro]

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.

Yeh true tbf, both things had an effect on the game.

[Haydos]

I do wish he'd get stuck in tbh, it doesn't really take much skill but can disrupt an oppositions play. It would also force an unbiased opinion of him. Like I said though, I can let things like heading ability go, it doesnt need to be a big part of his game (handy nonetheless), i'm 6"1 and have always been shit at heading high balls because I could never tell where the fooking thing was gonna land

The football brain bit i'm inclined to agree with, he does pick out a fair few passes which mix things up going forwards and make the opposition defence have to think on their feet but too often I feel he takes an age to make his mind up and the correct decision is not always made. If you look at top passers like Xavi and Cesc, you see they know what pass they're going to make, then where they're going to move, then the next pass they're going to make, all before they've received the ball. Gally often doesn't even check the first of these boxes and this can be a hindrance to our attacking play.

[Leicester_Loyal]

We need someone who is more consistent than gallagher.

[Haydos]

We need someone who is more consistent than gallagher.

Apart from possibly Wellens, our whole team lacks consistency. A consistent team in this league gets promoted so easier said that done <_<

[ScouseFox]

The thing that annoys me and a few people who sit around me about Gallagher is the fact that everyone, including himself, knows he can produce a brilliant delivery, or a great piece of skill etc., but he tries to do it every time he receives the ball, and masters it about 1% of the time. It's so frustrating when he goes for goal from 25/30 yards when there are much better options, and I think he believes he's better than he is, which is frustrating aswell.

On his day, he can change a game and win a match, sad thing is his day comes about once or twice a season, and for the other 40 odd games, he's quite poor.

[Finnegan]

For me, a luxury player is one who does ok but never affects the outcome of a game directly.

No.

The term luxury player is used to describe the fact that he has many good attributes (his touch, his skill, his technique) that we'd love to have in a player but which people don't believe we can sacrifice the pace or the work ethic of someone like Waghorn or Dyer for. He's someone we'd like to have in the side but someone who doesn't quite fit, doesn't quite tick any essential boxes.

And I'd challenge any claim that he's a match winner. Being able to score a set piece doesn't really make someone a match-winning player. A real match-winner should be able to change the game, from open play, with a moment of brilliance.

We've never, really, seen Gallagher do that. Perhaps his first couple of goals for the club but that's about it.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Apart from possibly Wellens, our whole team lacks consistency. A consistent team in this league gets promoted so easier said that done <_<

Naughton and Abe generally have good games in my opinion.

Gallagher seems to be less so than anybody else. He only seems to be good at set pieces, maybe I don't watch him enough, but for me, we could do better on the wings than him.

[Haydos]

doesn't quite tick any essential boxes.

That sums it up for me, or its about as close to what I think describes him in our set up.

I'm not sure about not fitting, I think if his decision making was better and he was more clinical in and around the box he'd be one of the first names on the team sheet despite his obvious 'physical' deficiencies.

Unfortunately, he's showed no real sign of improving these attributes recently. After witnessing a mini-revival from Wellens in recent months, I was hoping Sven might have had the same effect on Gally. He looks like he needs tailoring and we can only hope for the best at the mo.

Personally I feel it's reached the stage where one of Waggy, Moussa or a potential signing need the opportunity to make that wide spot their own.

[leicester4life]

Dyer I rate very higly at Championship level, he's pace to burn, but his delivery is piss poor, if he had the left foot of Guppy, he'd not be a City player.

Gally infuriates me out wide, he has no pace, he's 6 foot tall and wins nothing in the air, he kills the ball and takes the pace out of the attack, tries his stupid fooking hollywood shite every 5 minutes, and he's still starting pretty much every game.

Maybe replace him with Moussa, who looks pretty quick, and would fit in more with the Sven ethos.

[Haydos]

Naughton and Abe generally have good games in my opinion.

Having good games isn't consistency They've all had good games.

Abe seems to have lost his favourite tag on here in the last couple of weeks, I assume after a couple of mediocre performances and the mess at Ipswich. And for me, Naughton just doesn't have the defensive ability at the moment (still feel he's our best option for what he offers going forward).

[Finnegan]

That sums it up for me, or its about as close to what I think describes him in our set up.

I'm not sure about not fitting, I think if his decision making was better and he was more clinical in and around the box he'd be one of the first names on the team sheet despite his obvious 'physical' deficiencies.

Unfortunately, he's showed no real sign of improving these attributes recently. After witnessing a mini-revival from Wellens in recent months, I was hoping Sven might have had the same effect on Gally. He looks like he needs tailoring and we can only hope for the best at the mo.

Personally I feel it's reached the stage where one of Waggy, Moussa or a potential signing need the opportunity to make that wide spot their own.

In my opinion, Gallagher is good enough for a side at this level - but he needs to be played in a very specific position and it's a position no Championship side (or, really, any English side) utilise. The classic, Italian number ten; the 'second striker', the man in 'the hole.'

He isn't a winger, never has been a winger and his inclusion out wide is one of the main reasons we lack any sort of thrust or penetration (tee hee, etc.)

I die a little inside every time he's picked over a genuine wide man. I really, really hope we sign another winger soon.

[Kitchandro]

No.

The term luxury player is used to describe the fact that he has many good attributes (his touch, his skill, his technique) that we'd love to have in a player but which people don't believe we can sacrifice the pace or the work ethic of someone like Waghorn or Dyer for. He's someone we'd like to have in the side but someone who doesn't quite fit, doesn't quite tick any essential boxes.

And I'd challenge any claim that he's a match winner. Being able to score a set piece doesn't really make someone a match-winning player. A real match-winner should be able to change the game, from open play, with a moment of brilliance.

We've never, really, seen Gallagher do that. Perhaps his first couple of goals for the club but that's about it.

Ok thanks for explaining that one, but I'd contest touch, skill and technique as being luxuries.

I think he's a match winner because he can produce a moment of magic. His skill can create something whereas some of the other players are more consistent but never eally do anything special. In the area that Gallagher plays it's more important to have something different in your locker than to be consistent. Dyer is inconsistent too but everyone knows that with pace he can change the game in an instant. King rarely does anything when we are playing crap on the whole but would you say he's not a matchwinner?

You say being good at set-pieces doesn't make you a matchwinner but how many times did we see Beckham (in his heyday) produce a moment of magic from a set piece? Granted Gallagher doesn't produce as often as Becks but his final ball is a lot more consistent than Dyer's and quite a few other players in the squad.

I will rephrase it to potential match winner if you like because I agree he doesn't do it as much as he should.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Having good games isn't consistency They've all had good games.

Abe seems to have lost his favourite tag on here in the last couple of weeks, I assume after a couple of mediocre performances and the mess at Ipswich. And for me, Naughton just doesn't have the defensive ability at the moment (still feel he's our best option for what he offers going forward).

Having good games week in week out is consistency for me

[accessory]

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 most games he'll go missing.

..like the last four games he's played in...

Waghorn > Gallagher.

[Kitchandro]

..like the last four games he's played in...

Waghorn > Gallagher.

Well that's why I said he needs to pull his finger out. Since the Doncaster game he's not performed. But he has shown he can be effective in that position.

Waghorn is a striker. Vassell is a striker. Neither should be played on the wing. I agree that Gallagher is not a winger and his best position is behind the strikers in the middle, but he's more competent there than Waghorn or Vassell.

I seem to remember most of us slating Sousa for playing Waghorn on the wing.

[Haydos]

In my opinion, Gallagher is good enough for a side at this level - but he needs to be played in a very specific position and it's a position no Championship side (or, really, any English side) utilise. The classic, Italian number ten; the 'second striker', the man in 'the hole.'

That's something I've mentioned on here before. But like you say, it's redundant in reality at this level. Even in that position I feel his decision making would let him down. He just hasn't reached his potential yet. Nothing much else you can say about him

Would just love a player in the mould of Chris Brunt/Kris Commons to fill his role.

[Finnegan]

Ok thanks for explaining that one, but I'd contest touch, skill and technique as being luxuries.

I think he's a match winner because he can produce a moment of magic. His skill can create something whereas some of the other players are more consistent but never eally do anything special. In the area that Gallagher plays it's more important to have something different in your locker than to be consistent. Dyer is inconsistent too but everyone knows that with pace he can change the game in an instant. King rarely does anything when we are playing crap on the whole but would you say he's not a matchwinner?

You say being good at set-pieces doesn't make you a matchwinner but how many times did we see Beckham (in his heyday) produce a moment of magic from a set piece? Granted Gallagher doesn't produce as often as Becks but his final ball is a lot more consistent than Dyer's and quite a few other players in the squad.

I will rephrase it to potential match winner if you like because I agree he doesn't do it as much as he should.

But Beckham was a good player besides his set pieces. Gallagher's (supposedly good, I'd personally say mostly wasteful) set pieces are a classic example of why he's described as a luxury player. You can't carry someone for ninety minutes, just to take a free kick from twenty yards out, central.

You say he can change games in a moment with his skill... but when does he? How do you actually know that that potential is there? Because I can't say I've frequently seen it.

[leicester4life]

..like the last four games he's played in...

Waghorn > Gallagher.

Quality shout, would rather see Waghorn on the left, closing down and working hard, forcing mistakes rather than Gally just waiting for something to happen around him.

Maybe bring him on after an hour when everyone's a bit tired so he's got more time on the ball before he's closed down, technically, he's a good player, but he's not quite quick enough at it or brave enough to do it when there's a challenge coming in.

[Bettsj2]

In a sea of expectation, Gallagher falls short.

If he clenched his fists, ran around a bit more and shouted at the ref, he'd be a hero.

Personally I dont want to see him tackling anyone. He's one of our best players with the ball at his feet so i'd prefer him to just be available to receive the ball and then form an attack.

It's too late for him though i'm afraid. If you dont win the fans within the first 5 games of your City career (Bednar and Kirkland cases in point) then there are some you'll never win over.

[Haydos]

It's too late for him though i'm afraid. If you dont win the fans within the first 5 games of your City career (Bednar and Kirkland cases in point) then there are some you'll never win over.

Well thats's a load of cock. Neither of them have done anything for us. Bednar's been downright awful and granted, some fans have been rather dickish with the way they've treated Kirkland but it doesn't change the fact that they don't warrant a place anywhere near the team.

Gallagher's form has been questionable all season and despite what you say, he has been lagging behind the others in what he offers going forward. Dyer, Vassell, King, Wellens all outshine him.

[Kitchandro]

But Beckham was a good player besides his set pieces. Gallagher's (supposedly good, I'd personally say mostly wasteful) set pieces are a classic example of why he's described as a luxury player. You can't carry someone for ninety minutes, just to take a free kick from twenty yards out, central.

You say he can change games in a moment with his skill... but when does he? How do you actually know that that potential is there? Because I can't say I've frequently seen it.

Well, define frequently. As I said, players like that are rarely consistently amazing, or else they'd be playing at the highest level.

Last season Pearson played Gallagher on the wing in a 4-4-2 most of the time and even though he was out of position (even more so than now) he was regularly involved in our positive play. He scored a reasonable amount of goals and they were mostly screamers. Take the goals against Forest, Watford and Palace for example. And frankly, when he's playing well as part of the team he often goes unnoticed by a lot of fans, it's not just his individual brilliance that he's in for, take the Derby game this season for example.

Beckham was a good player but how often did he change the game from open play? He couldn't go buy a man, most of his magic was when he had an acre of space in which to use his right foot.

It's harsh to say we carry Gallagher for 90 minutes because when we are playing well he's often involved. I doubt Sven's just putting him in to take penalties and according to you waste free kicks.

Gallagher's not been good in recent games but how many players have? Don't remember many good ratings from the Millwall game, and having seen the Leeds game there were few positive performances from that as well. it just annoys me though that he's singled out.

[marbelladave]

In my opinion, Gallagher is good enough for a side at this level - but he needs to be played in a very specific position and it's a position no Championship side (or, really, any English side) utilise. The classic, Italian number ten; the 'second striker', the man in 'the hole.'

He isn't a winger, never has been a winger and his inclusion out wide is one of the main reasons we lack any sort of thrust or penetration (tee hee, etc.)

I die a little inside every time he's picked over a genuine wide man. I really, really hope we sign another winger soon.

This is spot on...

Accomodating him in a wide position is a compromise and we already have far too many of them. Both he and Wellens are guilty of taking the pace out of our game with the result that our build up is laboured so that the defense is set and our forward players well marked when we play the final ball.

Gallagher plays because he scores and occasionally does something exceptional in open play, Wellens because he is fiesty and always involved, but both players have flaws that need to be addressed. In some respects, both players want to play the same role, (effectively the playmaker,) perhaps we would be better playing one or the other?...

[Kitchandro]

Well thats's a load of cock. Neither of them have done anything for us. Bednar's been downright awful and granted, some fans have been rather dickish with the way they've treated Kirkland but it doesn't change the fact that they don't warrant a place anywhere near the team.

Gallagher's form has been questionable all season and despite what you say, he has been lagging behind the others in what he offers going forward. Dyer, Vassell, King, Wellens all outshine him.

But even without penalties, he's scored more than Dyer, Vassell and Wellens.

Again this is why I think people have just got it in for him - Vassell has shown something in the 2 games he's scored and the second half against Forest - the rest of the time he's been pretty poor and largely anonymous. There's no way he's contributed more than Gallagher since Sven took over.

[accessory]

In my opinion, Gallagher is good enough for a side at this level - but he needs to be played in a very specific position and it's a position no Championship side (or, really, any English side) utilise. The classic, Italian number ten; the 'second striker', the man in 'the hole.'

We already have a number 10 who comes closer to playing that role than Gallagher does.

Gallagher doesn't have the range or accuracy of passing to be considered as an equivalent (in reality a destitute person's version) of Baggio, Zola, Mancini, et al.