Mick Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 People keep going on about how s**** Lovenkrands is and how Ranger should start, and yet Ranger has had more games than Lovenkrands and has scored none. Lovenkrands may have scored only 1 goal but it's more than Ranger and despite what people say he was in the right place for the attempt which came of the post for Shola to tap in today. People need to stop making out that Nile Ranger is fabulous, he has proved nothing so far and if he has a bad attitude to training and discipline which I have heard for a long time now, why should he start? Lovenkrands is playing at the end of his career and is unlikely to improve, he ran about today and never looked like scoring and that is what he's in the side to do when playing up front. He wasn't bad today and he wasn't good either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 People keep going on about how shite Lovenkrands is and how Ranger should start, and yet Ranger has had more games than Lovenkrands and has scored none. Lovenkrands may have scored only 1 goal but it's more than Ranger and despite what people say he was in the right place for the attempt which came of the post for Shola to tap in today. People need to stop making out that Nile Ranger is fabulous, he has proved nothing so far and if he has a bad attitude to training and discipline which I have heard for a long time now, why should he start? Similar reasons to the Krul argument. Only one of them is going to improve with experience. Krul is actually on a par with Harper. Nile Ranger didn't exactly set the Championship alight, and hasn't shown much this season. Would prefer to see Lovenkrands in before him any day tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfmag Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I don't remember him and Routledge linking up much at all. We played against the worst team in the league today and he still didn't look a goal threat, that's what it comes down to. They sure did last season. Diagonal run from lovelypants and ball either side of the full back from Routledge for him to run on to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Krul is actually on a par with Harper. Nile Ranger didn't exactly set the Championship alight, and hasn't shown much this season. Would prefer to see Lovenkrands in before him any day tbh. Ranger is at least as good as Lovenkrands, certainly no further away than Krul is from Harper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 People keep going on about how s**** Lovenkrands is and how Ranger should start, and yet Ranger has had more games than Lovenkrands and has scored none. Lovenkrands may have scored only 1 goal but it's more than Ranger and despite what people say he was in the right place for the attempt which came of the post for Shola to tap in today. People need to stop making out that Nile Ranger is fabulous, he has proved nothing so far and if he has a bad attitude to training and discipline which I have heard for a long time now, why should he start? Shockingly transparent misrepresentation of the stats. Lovenkrands has started 3 or 4, compared to Nile's 0. He's still scored none. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Krul is actually on a par with Harper. Nile Ranger didn't exactly set the Championship alight, and hasn't shown much this season. Would prefer to see Lovenkrands in before him any day tbh. Ranger is at least as good as Lovenkrands, certainly no further away than Krul is from Harper. Based on what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 People keep going on about how shite Lovenkrands is and how Ranger should start, and yet Ranger has had more games than Lovenkrands and has scored none. Lovenkrands may have scored only 1 goal but it's more than Ranger and despite what people say he was in the right place for the attempt which came of the post for Shola to tap in today. People need to stop making out that Nile Ranger is fabulous, he has proved nothing so far and if he has a bad attitude to training and discipline which I have heard for a long time now, why should he start? Similar reasons to the Krul argument. Only one of them is going to improve with experience. Krul is actually on a par with Harper. Nile Ranger didn't exactly set the Championship alight, and hasn't shown much this season. Would prefer to see Lovenkrands in before him any day tbh. Lovenkrands should be given a couple of games to make his case but he has to be more consistent. For me he's like Guthrie, seems to disappear all too easily. Ranger, disciplinary issues aside can't really be judged on a few cameo performances as sub. Let's see him start a couple of games before we decide he's useless. Personally I like him and think he's got a future if he keeps his head right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Based on what? Based on what they've all done this season when playing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 No shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Must say, Lovenkrands just edges it for me based on the fact that he's a different 'type' of striker. The rest of them are in the Carroll 'mould' and so don't really offer much more to the team. We're desperate for a quick, play it on the floor striker to add to the squad like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Krul is actually on a par with Harper. Nile Ranger didn't exactly set the Championship alight, and hasn't shown much this season. Would prefer to see Lovenkrands in before him any day tbh. Ranger is at least as good as Lovenkrands, certainly no further away than Krul is from Harper. Based on what? based on not falling over if he's sneezed at by a defender. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 People keep going on about how s**** Lovenkrands is and how Ranger should start, and yet Ranger has had more games than Lovenkrands and has scored none. Lovenkrands may have scored only 1 goal but it's more than Ranger and despite what people say he was in the right place for the attempt which came of the post for Shola to tap in today. People need to stop making out that Nile Ranger is fabulous, he has proved nothing so far and if he has a bad attitude to training and discipline which I have heard for a long time now, why should he start? Shockingly transparent misrepresentation of the stats. Lovenkrands has started 3 or 4, compared to Nile's 0. He's still scored none. Neither of them are going to get goals at this level, so it comes down to which one troubles defenders more and which one is a better partner for the other striker. There's only one answer to those questions, and it most certainly isn't Peter Lovenkrands. The other thing, he's nearly 31. If he was capable of playing at this level, why hasn't he demonstrated it yet? Ranger will be a PL class player within 2 or 3 years if we use him the right way, Lovenkrands will never be that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Based on what? Based on what they've all done this season when playing. What has he done, that has resulted in anything? He's given the ball away a couple of times in dangerous areas which have resulted in goals for the opposition, once in the league cup against Accrington. He's got himself into some good areas, but has he scored any? Has he set up any? Ok so he hurries the defence a bit, but he's hardly set the league alight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Must say, Lovenkrands just edges it for me based on the fact that he's a different 'type' of striker. The rest of them are in the Carroll 'mould' and so don't really offer much more to the team. We're desperate for a quick, play it on the floor striker to add to the squad like. At least that's an argument. To slag a forward off because he's scored no goals coming on as a sub is just plain ignorant. Players like Ranger can hold the ball up, knock defenders about and win balls in the air for a start. Not aimed at you btw, more at blefescu. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Based on what? Based on what they've all done this season when playing. What has he done, that has resulted in anything? He's given the ball away a couple of times in dangerous areas which have resulted in goals for the opposition, once in the league cup against Accrington. He's got himself into some good areas, but has he scored any? Has he set up any? Ok so he hurries the defence a bit, but he's hardly set the league alight. Yeah I've heard Crumpy use that one to have a go at Tiote recently. What a prophetic insight that proved to be today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Must say, Lovenkrands just edges it for me based on the fact that he's a different 'type' of striker. The rest of them are in the Carroll 'mould' and so don't really offer much more to the team. We're desperate for a quick, play it on the floor striker to add to the squad like. At least that's an argument. To slag a forward off because he's scored no goals coming on as a sub is just plain ignorant. Players like Ranger can hold the ball up, knock defenders about and win balls in the air for a start. Not aimed at you btw, more at blefescu. Just can't see why everyone is slavvering over Ranger and yet slagging off Lovenkrands. Ranger has done nothing to convince me that he's anything but a pompous, arrogant and immature boy. He certainly hasn't done anything marvellous on the pitch either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 No s*** What else could I have said? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 At the moment Ranger's main strength is he will disrupt defences, he's erratic but it works in his favour because defenders don't really know what to expect. Over a longer period, (90 minutes), there's an argument for Loven over him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 No s*** What else could I have said? I know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I agree with Ronaldo,Ranger is far more a threat than Lovenkrands.Indeed,Ranger's introduction versus the Dippers was the catalyst to us winning that game,Lovenkrands doesn't do that at this level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 At the moment Ranger's main strength is he will disrupt defences, he's erratic but it works in his favour because defenders don't really know what to expect. Over a longer period, (90 minutes), there's an argument for Loven over him. Lovenkrands is incapble of 90 minutes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Must say, Lovenkrands just edges it for me based on the fact that he's a different 'type' of striker. The rest of them are in the Carroll 'mould' and so don't really offer much more to the team. We're desperate for a quick, play it on the floor striker to add to the squad like. At least that's an argument. To slag a forward off because he's scored no goals coming on as a sub is just plain ignorant. Players like Ranger can hold the ball up, knock defenders about and win balls in the air for a start. Not aimed at you btw, more at blefescu. Just can't see why everyone is slavvering over Ranger and yet slagging off Lovenkrands. Ranger has done nothing to convince me that he's anything but a pompous, arrogant and immature boy. He certainly hasn't done anything marvellous on the pitch either. The only thing Krul and Ranger have over Harper and Lovenkrands is age and potential, but that doesn't win you games right here right now, does it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 What has he done, that has resulted in anything? He's given the ball away a couple of times in dangerous areas which have resulted in goals for the opposition, once in the league cup against Accrington. He's got himself into some good areas, but has he scored any? Has he set up any? Ok so he hurries the defence a bit, but he's hardly set the league alight. What has he done? Did you see the Liverpool game? He came on and totally changed the game, he didn't score but he did as much as anybody to get those points. Honestly, you look as if you're clutching at straws in an attempt to put him down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 At the moment Ranger's main strength is he will disrupt defences, he's erratic but it works in his favour because defenders don't really know what to expect. Over a longer period, (90 minutes), there's an argument for Loven over him. I think there's more to his game than that, he did quite well playing on the wing in the cup games. You wouldn't get many target men playing wide unless there's some ability there. But yeah, let Loven have a couple of games and see if he can string some performances together. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Must say, Lovenkrands just edges it for me based on the fact that he's a different 'type' of striker. The rest of them are in the Carroll 'mould' and so don't really offer much more to the team. We're desperate for a quick, play it on the floor striker to add to the squad like. At least that's an argument. To slag a forward off because he's scored no goals coming on as a sub is just plain ignorant. Players like Ranger can hold the ball up, knock defenders about and win balls in the air for a start. Not aimed at you btw, more at blefescu. Just can't see why everyone is slavvering over Ranger and yet slagging off Lovenkrands. Ranger has done nothing to convince me that he's anything but a pompous, arrogant and immature boy. He certainly hasn't done anything marvellous on the pitch either. The only thing Krul and Ranger have over Harper and Lovenkrands is age and potential, but that doesn't win you games right here right now, does it? Is that a joke? Ranger's a far better athlete and far better on the ball. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now