Waghorn

[Corky]

Pearson should have brought on futacs waghorn is gash

I don't quite get the love for Futacs.

[Fox92]

Is this thread really still going?

For me it's simple.

From what I've seen so far, Waggy will need three or four good chances to convert a goal.

Wood needs one or two.

You do the math.

Simple.

And don't give me all this 'Waggy's all round game' gubbins.

Wood has that AS WELL as being a clinical finisher.

From what I've seen so far.

Agree with that Col.

[Ely fox]

Futacs would be more of a threat than waghorn at the end of a game imo thats why he should have come on the pitch with 15 mins to go. From my position in the dolman stand i got a good look at waghorn and how crap he was

[dynamark]

Have to agree on limited viewing Futacs before Waggy towards the end .Still got row Z on his sat nav unfortunately.

[kingfox]

2011/2012 - Reading (69 goals), Southampton (85 goals), West Ham (81 goals)

2010/2011 - QPR (71 goals), Norwich (83 goals), Swansea (69 goals)

2009/2010 - Newcastle (90 goals), West Brom (89 goals), Blackpool (74 goals)

2008/2009 - Wolves (80 goals), Birmingham (54 goals), Burnley (72 goals)

2007/2008 - West Brom (88 goals), Stoke (69 goals), Hull (65 goals)

2006/2007 - Sunderland (76 goals), Birmingham (67 goals), Derby (62 goals)

2005/2006 - Reading (99 goals), Sheffield United (76 goals), Watford (77 goals)

2004/2005 - Sunderland (76 goals), Wigan (79 goals), West Ham (66 goals)

2003/2004 - Norwich (79 goals), West Brom (64 goals), Crystal Palace (72 goals)

2002/2003 - Portsmouth (97 goals), Leicester (73 goals), Wolves (81 goals)

NOOOOOOOOOO MARK.

My head hurts.

[Manwell Pablo]

2011/2012 - Reading (69 goals), Southampton (85 goals), West Ham (81 goals)

2010/2011 - QPR (71 goals), Norwich (83 goals), Swansea (69 goals)

2009/2010 - Newcastle (90 goals), West Brom (89 goals), Blackpool (74 goals)

2008/2009 - Wolves (80 goals), Birmingham (54 goals), Burnley (72 goals)

2007/2008 - West Brom (88 goals), Stoke (69 goals), Hull (65 goals)

2006/2007 - Sunderland (76 goals), Birmingham (67 goals), Derby (62 goals)

2005/2006 - Reading (99 goals), Sheffield United (76 goals), Watford (77 goals)

2004/2005 - Sunderland (76 goals), Wigan (79 goals), West Ham (66 goals)

2003/2004 - Norwich (79 goals), West Brom (64 goals), Crystal Palace (72 goals)

2002/2003 - Portsmouth (97 goals), Leicester (73 goals), Wolves (81 goals)

NOOOOOOOOOO MARK.

My head hurts.

Mine to.

This isn't the proper reply like, as again I'm not going through that on a Monday night

Now I know Mark looking at those teams, most had a couple of decent strikers, or at least ones that you could rely on for more than 3 goals at Chirstmas, without tediously going through them. So your proving my point? Im also confused, a minute ago, we had a good enough side to get play offs, and now it's been upped to promotion? What are you actually saying that we could of got top two without Chris Wood.

If you honestly beleive that you should pissed off we've signed him. Waste of 1.2 million pounds if thats your view.

[Mark_w]

Mine to.

This isn't the proper reply like, as again I'm not going through that on a Monday night

Now I know Mark looking at those teams, most had a couple of decent strikers, or at least ones that you could rely on for more than 3 goals at Chirstmas, without tediously going through them. So your proving my point? Im also confused, a minute ago, we had a good enough side to get play offs, and now it's been upped to promotion? What are you actually saying that we could of got top two without Chris Wood.

If you honestly beleive that you should pissed off we've signed him. Waste of 1.2 million pounds if thats your view.

No because as I say before Wood signed we were on course to get about 70 goals which is a similar total to about half of those teams. So to suggest that we didn't have enough goals in the team prior to Wood's arrival is a little harsh.

I'm saying that the side absolutely was capable of finishing in the top six and could potentially have finished in the top two. But I am delighted that we've signed him because he's clearly a great player and at 20 years old will do a brilliant job in the long run. You seemed to think that your suggestion, that we couldn't have possibily been promoted (either way) without a new striker joining the club, could not possibly be argued with. I just took exception to the smug 'I told you so' nature of your post when there's no proof at all that we weren't capable of scoring enough goals to get promoted. That list of teams, compared to the number we had scored at the half way stage, shows that it's more than possible for a team to go up having scored the amount of goals that we would have hypothetically got, if we had kept scoring at the same rate we had in the first 25 games of the season.

[Thracian]

I've still to see anything from Waghorn that sets him apart as a striker.

His one unerring quality is effort, surely that's a minimum requirement of any footballer.

Otherwise...

a) He doesn't hold the ball up well.

b) He carries virtually no aerial threat.

c) He doesn't pass the ball particularly well.

d) He's so woefully one-footed he's easy to shepherd away from danger.

e) He's not notably quick.

f) He's not a natural spotter of the best final ball.

g) He spurns far too many of the chances he does get by missing the target.

h) He's not a prolific goalscorer anyway.

i) He's not a natural predator.

j) He offers no exceptional quality as a forward in any department.

Since Wood has arrived he's

a) Scored six goals in three games.

b) Won some much needed aerial possession.

c) Shot on sight.

d) Added so many astute final touches.

e) Added intelligent movement to our approach

f) Showed the ability to attack the near post which no-one else does in our team.

g) Been a good decision maker.

h) Inspired those around him and taken pressure off them to leave them with more space.

i) He hits the target with a good proportion of shots and has the knack to be there for tap ins.

With Pearson now having seemingly reverted back to his up-and-at-em attacking strategy - but with a better balanced all-round team - we are fast heading back up the table.

Our need now is just to be sure we don't weaken our team dramatically when someone comes off or gets injured.

And for me there remain two notable weaknesses. We don't have a dangerous first change striker. Nor does Marshall have enough impact as a winger or attacking midfielder.

[5waller5]

I've still to see anything from Waghorn that sets him apart as a striker.

His one unerring quality is effort, surely that's a minimum requirement of any footballer.

Otherwise...

a) He doesn't hold the ball up well.

b) He carries virtually no aerial threat.

c) He doesn't pass the ball particularly well.

d) He's so woefully one-footed he's easy to shepherd away from danger.

e) He's not notably quick.

f) He's not a natural spotter of the best final ball.

g) He spurns far too many of the chances he does get by missing the target.

h) He's not a prolific goalscorer anyway.

i) He's not a natural predator.

j) He offers no exceptional quality as a forward in any department.

Since Wood has arrived he's

a) Scored six goals in three games.

b) Won some much needed aerial possession.

c) Shot on sight.

d) Added so many astute final touches.

e) Added intelligent movement to our approach

f) Showed the ability to attack the near post which no-one else does in our team.

g) Been a good decision maker.

h) Inspired those around him and taken pressure off them to leave them with more space.

i) He hits the target with a good proportion of shots and has the knack to be there for tap ins.

With Pearson now having seemingly reverted back to his up-and-at-em attacking strategy - but with a better balanced all-round team - we are fast heading back up the table.

Our need now is just to be sure we don't weaken our team dramatically when someone comes off or gets injured.

And for me there remain two notable weaknesses. We don't have a dangerous first change striker. Nor does Marshall have enough impact as a winger or attacking midfielder.

I'd add a fundamental difference to the two in addition to those you've mentioned and that is MOVEMENT.

Wood takes a quick 10 yard run and allows the ball to be played to him. For me, Waggy is all too often behind the defender and static - he's either hiding or just not bright enough to make himself available.

Wood gambles and Waggy is too static.

[Captain...]

I'd add a fundamental difference to the two in addition to those you've mentioned and that is MOVEMENT.

Wood takes a quick 10 yard run and allows the ball to be played to him. For me, Waggy is all too often behind the defender and static - he's either hiding or just not bright enough to make himself available.

Or that is where he is told to play by np. Comparing waghorn and wood is like comparing drinkwater and knocky, they play in very different ways, waghorn is not a lead the line striker, that is not his strength, and criticising him for not playing in the same way as wood, is like criticising drinkwater for not doing a cryuff on the left wing.

@manwell: you say we were not good enough to get automatic promotion without wood, yet I seem to remember us being top without him.

If you look at our team bc (before Chris) we had waghorn and vardy playing second striker to Nugent, together they have scored 7 league goals. Nugent 11, extrapolated out over the season that would be a 20+ main strikes and 14-15 goals from our second striker. We have also adopted a 433, 451, with no second striker and support from knocky, Marshall and Dyer who have all chipped in with goals.

Now we have wood and he looks one hell of a signing, and nobody is suggesting waghorn should start ahead of him, but most people can see what he brings to the team and most people don't have a problem with him.

Anyway I will try and leave this one to your and Mark, but don't be surprised to get big eat I told you so when he proves you wrong, again.

[Thracian]

Or that is where he is told to play by np. Comparing waghorn and wood is like comparing drinkwater and knocky, they play in very different ways, waghorn is not a lead the line striker, that is not his strength, and criticising him for not playing in the same way as wood, is like criticising drinkwater for not doing a cryuff on the left wing.

@manwell: you say we were not good enough to get automatic promotion without wood, yet I seem to remember us being top without him.

If you look at our team bc (before Chris) we had waghorn and vardy playing second striker to Nugent, together they have scored 7 league goals. Nugent 11, extrapolated out over the season that would be a 20+ main strikes and 14-15 goals from our second striker. We have also adopted a 433, 451, with no second striker and support from knocky, Marshall and Dyer who have all chipped in with goals.

Now we have wood and he looks one hell of a signing, and nobody is suggesting waghorn should start ahead of him, but most people can see what he brings to the team and most people don't have a problem with him.

Anyway I will try and leave this one to your and Mark, but don't be surprised to get big eat I told you so when he proves you wrong, again.

So what exactly are Waghorn's strengths then, as an attacker, apart from his effort?

[5waller5]

Or that is where he is told to play by np. Comparing waghorn and wood is like comparing drinkwater and knocky, they play in very different ways, waghorn is not a lead the line striker, that is not his strength, and criticising him for not playing in the same way as wood, is like criticising drinkwater for not doing a cryuff on the left wing.

@manwell: you say we were not good enough to get automatic promotion without wood, yet I seem to remember us being top without him.

If you look at our team bc (before Chris) we had waghorn and vardy playing second striker to Nugent, together they have scored 7 league goals. Nugent 11, extrapolated out over the season that would be a 20+ main strikes and 14-15 goals from our second striker. We have also adopted a 433, 451, with no second striker and support from knocky, Marshall and Dyer who have all chipped in with goals.

Now we have wood and he looks one hell of a signing, and nobody is suggesting waghorn should start ahead of him, but most people can see what he brings to the team and most people don't have a problem with him.

Anyway I will try and leave this one to your and Mark, but don't be surprised to get big eat I told you so when he proves you wrong, again.

hmmmm ... not sure I can agree ..... It doesn't matter on the details too much for me ... Strikers need to move to enable them to receive the ball and they need to gamble to get goals.

I think the key difference is that Wood does both well and Waggy doesn't!

[Thracian]

On sat both waghorn and dyer's first touch was poor. Knockart looked premiership quality was gutted to see him go off and i thought keane played well too

if Knockaert hadn't been injured, and had continued playing the way he was, we might have had 10. He looked so sharp and everything he did seemed to leave the Bristol defence in a mess.

[Guest BlueBrett]

So what exactly are Waghorn's strengths then, as an attacker, apart from his effort?

a) his diligence

b) he works hard

c) he's a grafter

d) he's a team player

e) he runs a lot

f) he covers a lot of ground

g) he's not lazy

h) he's a trier

i) he has a good attitude

I know most of those sound like the same thing but I have put letters next to them so obviously they are in fact all valid points in their own right.

[Collymore]

I've still to see anything from Waghorn that sets him apart as a striker.

His one unerring quality is effort, surely that's a minimum requirement of any footballer.

Otherwise...

a) He doesn't hold the ball up well.

b) He carries virtually no aerial threat.

c) He doesn't pass the ball particularly well.

d) He's so woefully one-footed he's easy to shepherd away from danger.

e) He's not notably quick.

f) He's not a natural spotter of the best final ball.

g) He spurns far too many of the chances he does get by missing the target.

h) He's not a prolific goalscorer anyway.

i) He's not a natural predator.

j) He offers no exceptional quality as a forward in any department.

Since Wood has arrived he's

a) Scored six goals in three games.

b) Won some much needed aerial possession.

c) Shot on sight.

d) Added so many astute final touches.

e) Added intelligent movement to our approach

f) Showed the ability to attack the near post which no-one else does in our team.

g) Been a good decision maker.

h) Inspired those around him and taken pressure off them to leave them with more space.

i) He hits the target with a good proportion of shots and has the knack to be there for tap ins.

With Pearson now having seemingly reverted back to his up-and-at-em attacking strategy - but with a better balanced all-round team - we are fast heading back up the table.

Our need now is just to be sure we don't weaken our team dramatically when someone comes off or gets injured.

And for me there remain two notable weaknesses. We don't have a dangerous first change striker. Nor does Marshall have enough impact as a winger or attacking midfielder.

I agree with "not notably quick" believe it or not he's actually offically quicker than Lloyd as the result of club tests.

There's a reason why usain bolt doesn't play for man u.

Pace is all trigonometry, get your angles right and it adds 3 seconds on your 100m time.

I'm blessed with pace and get caught out by slow defenders all the time when I try and go the long way round.

Waggy just runs without no thought what's so ever.

[Fox in the North]

Why has waggy become a target when he's done nothing wrong? Have people run out of stuff to criticise on here?

[Captain...]

So what exactly are Waghorn's strengths then, as an attacker, apart from his effort?

It is not just effort, effort without applicatio is just wasted energy.

What he does do is give the defence no time on the ball, harries and harasses the defence and creates chances by doing that or forces them to hit it long.

He covers the left flank when knocky goes wandering so we can have our shape and let knocky roam a bit.

He is the best corner taker at the club, and he is one of the best at long range free kicks and been unlucky not to score this season.

He has a cracking long range shot on him and has again been unlucky not to score with some great efforts.

He is not, despite others' claims to the contrary, a terrible finishes, he is not as clinical as he should be, but a lot of that when he first came back was down to fitness and confidence, his performances before having his appendix out were him coming back to his best. His finish against hudders was further indication of what he can do.

He has got pace and strength and can hold the ball up well, he is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but he is still young, still learning and has shown his quality, sufficient for u21 call ups and for Nigel Pearson to continue to show his faith in him.

If we were relying on waghorn's goals for promotion then we would be disappointed, but as an option from the bench or as a back up, like vardy, he is more than capable at this level.

[hornyhollthefox123]

It is not just effort, effort without applicatio is just wasted energy.

What he does do is give the defence no time on the ball, harries and harasses the defence and creates chances by doing that or forces them to hit it long.

He covers the left flank when knocky goes wandering so we can have our shape and let knocky roam a bit.

He is the best corner taker at the club, and he is one of the best at long range free kicks and been unlucky not to score this season.

He has a cracking long range shot on him and has again been unlucky not to score with some great efforts.

He is not, despite others' claims to the contrary, a terrible finishes, he is not as clinical as he should be, but a lot of that when he first came back was down to fitness and confidence, his performances before having his appendix out were him coming back to his best. His finish against hudders was further indication of what he can do.

He has got pace and strength and can hold the ball up well, he is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but he is still young, still learning and has shown his quality, sufficient for u21 call ups and for Nigel Pearson to continue to show his faith in him.

If we were relying on waghorn's goals for promotion then we would be disappointed, but as an option from the bench or as a back up, like vardy, he is more than capable at this level.

Bang on.

[Manwell Pablo]

It is not just effort, effort without applicatio is just wasted energy.

What he does do is give the defence no time on the ball, harries and harasses the defence and creates chances by doing that or forces them to hit it long.

He covers the left flank when knocky goes wandering so we can have our shape and let knocky roam a bit.

He is the best corner taker at the club, and he is one of the best at long range free kicks and been unlucky not to score this season.

He has a cracking long range shot on him and has again been unlucky not to score with some great efforts.

He is not, despite others' claims to the contrary, a terrible finishes, he is not as clinical as he should be, but a lot of that when he first came back was down to fitness and confidence, his performances before having his appendix out were him coming back to his best. His finish against hudders was further indication of what he can do.

He has got pace and strength and can hold the ball up well, he is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but he is still young, still learning and has shown his quality, sufficient for u21 call ups and for Nigel Pearson to continue to show his faith in him.

If we were relying on waghorn's goals for promotion then we would be disappointed, but as an option from the bench or as a back up, like vardy, he is more than capable at this level.

In which case why are any of you bothering to argue as that's exactly what I've been saying. In response to your point about us previously being top, it is the team top of the table in May that goes up, not October.

I really don't see what' s so difficult to understand, since the start of November we've just about held on to a play off place up until the Burnley/Hull games when droppped Mr "Link up" (for a link up striker he misses shit load of clear cut chances) and low and behold just three games and nine points later, two of which being away from home where he has been terrible. We're back in the chase for automatic, and thankfully no longer looking back to 7th place.

So Vardy is back up, Futacs is back up, and Waghorn is back up, not to mention we haven't actually completley got rid of Jermaine yet, Exactly how many back up strikers do we want at the club? Although granted I'd have him as the third striker at the moment that isn't what I've been saying, he just isn't good enough to start (under any circumstances while Nugent and Wood are not suspended or injured). Plus Nugent, or the team for that matter, will not have scored enough away goals, and therefore gained enough away points, to secure automatic promotion. Our failings away from home have been blatent. We dominated games but did not tuck the chances away and often ended up losing as a result. Hopefully that'll change now.

It's impossible to say whether we will have improved away from the King Power if we had taken the 4-5-1 approach for the remainder of the season I'll give you all that, although at the end of the day, that team is still one without Waghorn!

[Thracian]

It is not just effort, effort without applicatio is just wasted energy.

What he does do is give the defence no time on the ball, harries and harasses the defence and creates chances by doing that or forces them to hit it long.

He covers the left flank when knocky goes wandering so we can have our shape and let knocky roam a bit.

He is the best corner taker at the club, and he is one of the best at long range free kicks and been unlucky not to score this season.

He has a cracking long range shot on him and has again been unlucky not to score with some great efforts.

He is not, despite others' claims to the contrary, a terrible finishes, he is not as clinical as he should be, but a lot of that when he first came back was down to fitness and confidence, his performances before having his appendix out were him coming back to his best. His finish against hudders was further indication of what he can do.

He has got pace and strength and can hold the ball up well, he is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but he is still young, still learning and has shown his quality, sufficient for u21 call ups and for Nigel Pearson to continue to show his faith in him.

If we were relying on waghorn's goals for promotion then we would be disappointed, but as an option from the bench or as a back up, like vardy, he is more than capable at this level.

Appreciate your response and I'd agree about the corner kicks and harrassing although I'd bracket the latter as part of his "effort".

Seems to me that what Waghorn needs is to play conditioned football for three months whereby he's not allowed to pass or shoot with his left foot.

He needs to develop the confidence and belief in his right foot that he has with his left and then he might find the extra yard or so that he needs to get away from defenders or lay the ball off more effectively.

Yes, it's always nice to see him score the sort of goal he got against Huddfersfield but I'd like him to despatch the simple chances too - the ones that just require a tap in or the balance needed to simply get the shot on target.

I don't see that he holds the ball up well - i wish he did. For me his first touch is so unreliable and, with his lack of height sometimes not helping, he often struggles to even control the ball let alone keep it.

It's alright fans talking about his potential but we've been doing that for a long time now and what disappoints me most is that he doesn't seem to be noticeably improving any of the flaws that are so holding him back.

He does get chances (who wouldn't in our current team?) but, like Vardy he's got to be much more ruthless about putting them away to ever be considered a consistent striker.

[Oxfordfox83]

Anyone else Fancy seeing how Waghorn gets on partnering Wood?

[Thracian]

Anyone else Fancy seeing how Waghorn gets on partnering Wood?

i'm sure we will see that in time and I'd like to see how Vardy gets on alongside him too. Wood strikes me as the sort of striker who sees the game so clearly he'll always provide chances for others.

[Captain...]

In which case why are any of you bothering to argue as that's exactly what I've been saying. In response to your point about us previously being top, it is the team top of the table in May that goes up, not October.

I really don't see what' s so difficult to understand, since the start of November we've just about held on to a play off place up until the Burnley/Hull games when droppped Mr "Link up" (for a link up striker he misses shit load of clear cut chances) and low and behold just three games and nine points later, two of which being away from home where he has been terrible. We're back in the chase for automatic, and thankfully no longer looking back to 7th place.

So Vardy is back up, Futacs is back up, and Waghorn is back up, not to mention we haven't actually completley got rid of Jermaine yet, Exactly how many back up strikers do we want at the club? Although granted I'd have him as the third striker at the moment that isn't what I've been saying, he just isn't good enough to start (under any circumstances while Nugent and Wood are not suspended or injured). Plus Nugent, or the team for that matter, will not have scored enough away goals, and therefore gained enough away points, to secure automatic promotion. Our failings away from home have been blatent. We dominated games but did not tuck the chances away and often ended up losing as a result. Hopefully that'll change now.

It's impossible to say whether we will have improved away from the King Power if we had taken the 4-5-1 approach for the remainder of the season I'll give you all that, although at the end of the day, that team is still one without Waghorn!

Weren't you arguing earlier about Cardiff and others having lots of striking options, now you are complaining that we have lots of striking options, Waghorn and Vardy are similar but offer different things to Wood and Nugent, Futacs again offers something different, they are all 3 decent championship level strikers, but we have 2 potentially prem level strikers in Wood and Nugent, and they should be first choice in most games, but some games we won't be able to batter teams and will have to work a lot harder for a win than we did against Brizzle or Hudders, I don't know how a Wood and Nuge strikeforce would cope in that situation, but I know that Waghorn and Vardy will play unselfishly and contribute to the team by dropping back or out wide and doing a defensive stint, whilst still be able to chip in goals.

[Manwell Pablo]

Weren't you arguing earlier about Cardiff and others having lots of striking options, now you are complaining that we have lots of striking options, Waghorn and Vardy are similar but offer different things to Wood and Nugent, Futacs again offers something different, they are all 3 decent championship level strikers, but we have 2 potentially prem level strikers in Wood and Nugent, and they should be first choice in most games, but some games we won't be able to batter teams and will have to work a lot harder for a win than we did against Brizzle or Hudders, I don't know how a Wood and Nuge strikeforce would cope in that situation, but I know that Waghorn and Vardy will play unselfishly and contribute to the team by dropping back or out wide and doing a defensive stint, whilst still be able to chip in goals.

Striking options who score, yes!

This is just rubbish, Quite recently you seem to just be making things up! When the chips are down, Waghorn NEVER comes through for us or chips in goals. The only time Waghorn finds the net is when we are battering teams, at home, he has never once scored a vital goal unless you make a case for the opener against Derby (who for some reason he always does well against) and in most "hard games" he is poor, well he did ok against Brighton and Forest from what I've seen that is it.

EDIT: I would like to add due to recent posts from yourself Mark has replaced you as my faviourate Waghorn lover.

[marbelladave]

Interesting discussion......

My personal view is that Waghorn (and Vardey too) are different types of striker who have strengths that are rarely utilised in our current set up.

Wood and Futacs are fairly conventional center forwards who want to lead the line, Nugent can do that but has more of an all round game, the way we play pretty much suits them.

A more flexible system (4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1) allows you to play strikers from wide positions, both Waghorn and Vardey have the energy to get up and down their flanks while still being a real threat in the box. I would love to see either (or both) of them played in that role but given our inability to play anything other than 4-4-2, they are probably only going to get the odd game as one of the front 2.

Another great advantage of playing strikers from wide positions is , as I have said before, that it takes a bit of pressure off players who, for one reason or another, are not quite firing on all cylinders........