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...
Guest toonlass 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. Look, I'm not! I just don't think he's THAT good. He might get better in the future but his attitude is all wrong at the moment. The slagging off of Lovenkrands annoyed me tbh, considering he was instrumental in the goal today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Look, I'm not! I just don't think he's THAT good. He might get better in the future but his attitude is all wrong at the moment. The slagging off of Lovenkrands annoyed me tbh, considering he was instrumental in the goal today. His all round play was fairly decent as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Thought Lovenkrands was okay today. Right place/right time for the goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Look, I'm not! I just don't think he's THAT good. He might get better in the future but his attitude is all wrong at the moment. The slagging off of Lovenkrands annoyed me tbh, considering he was instrumental in the goal today. Who is slaggin Lovenkrands? I think he's a capable and reliable squad player who will get us goals, I don't think he's the future though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Thought Lovenkrands was okay today. Right place/right time for the goal. fucked about too much whe he had the ball at his feet right in front of thier goal. Good forwards have the knack of getting shots in in these situations he just, well, fucked about tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Look, I'm not! I just don't think he's THAT good. He might get better in the future but his attitude is all wrong at the moment. The slagging off of Lovenkrands annoyed me tbh, considering he was instrumental in the goal today. Who is slaggin Lovenkrands? I think he's a capable and reliable squad player who will get us goals, I don't think he's the future though. He's not the future. No-one is saying he is, but I would play him before Ranger at present. Just my opinion at the end of the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Good grief. He's a striker who can't really hold the ball up, get assists or score - at this level, anyway. Should we really be praising him because he finally contributed to a goal? So he should be doing that on occasion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 He's not the future. No-one is saying he is, but I would play him before Ranger at present. Just my opinion at the end of the day. I think you need to give Lovenkrands a run of games to get the best out of him, that's what happened last season when he was a late starter, I'm not sure he'll get a run of games though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weezertron Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Ranger's a teenager from london with a history of gangs and crime. His attitude is going to be sucky. It'll not change overnight. His footballing talent is clear though. This has little to do with the debate vs McLoven. I just wanted to stick up for Nile. Brap! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Ranger's a teenager from london with a history of gangs and crime. His attitude is going to be sucky. It'll not change overnight. I reckon it has changed for the better, it's just not perfect yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I really hope Ranger grows up a bit, knuckles down in training and learns some discipline. I really hope he is a success here. I just think while Carroll is out injured Lovenkrands should start and Ranger be brought on as a sub. I would be made up if Ranger scored on Wednesday night, but think Pardew might have him down as a trouble maker. Shola and Lovenkrands should start while Carrroll is out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PM 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. Premier League minutes this season: Lovenkrands - 308 Ranger - 190 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I really hope Ranger grows up a bit, knuckles down in training and learns some discipline. I really hope he is a success here. I just think while Carroll is out injured Lovenkrands should start and Ranger be brought on as a sub. I would be made up if Ranger scored on Wednesday night, but think Pardew might have him down as a trouble maker. Shola and Lovenkrands should start while Carrroll is out. If we are bringing attitude into this debate then I hope Lovenkrands grows a pair and grabs this opportunity to show us what he's got. He's had a few golden dawns with us now but then sinks without a trace just when you think he's on his way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 What Blef means to say is that she likes Lovenkrands because he used to play for Rangers. 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