Ash Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Carroll again? Honestly, if he was Spanish..... Harper Geremi Simpson Coloccini Enrique R Taylor Nolan Guthrie Jonas Harewood Ranger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 It's obvious that we need R Taylor higher up the pitch and Simpson at CB instead of Khiz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 It's obvious that we need R Taylor higher up the pitch and Simpson at CB instead of Khiz We need Taylor higher up the pitch, not doubting that. But Simpson at CB ahead of Zurab? No way. Simpson is woeful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 He looks a better defender than Zurab Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 He looks a better defender than Zurab Can't agree with that. He's clumsy, panics on the ball and although I know he isn't a centre back, his positioning is shocking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I suppose I should make a case for my Carroll inclusion. I think that of late we have made a habit of finding scapegoats for the teams problems. It'll be Jonas one week: he just doesn't cut it. Nolan the next: he's woeful. Or Ranger: he hasn't scored yet. But in football, as I think the likes of Keegan and Robson realised, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I guarantee you the likes of Jonny Evans, Geovanni dos Santos or any other bright young talent would never look as good in our team. Lack of confidence, lack of performance. See Mr. Bramble for an example. Hell, Oguchi Onyewu was signed for Milan after us. The point is, for the team to function, it has to flow and perform right. We've been at our most dangerous with Carroll and Ranger up front, with Nolan playing off them. It's like the Owen/Martins/Viduka triumvirate: often appearing poor when playing apart, suddenly playing well with each other. I think we have to experiment more with the Carroll/Ranger/Nolan thing. I don't give a shit if Ranger scores or not, if we can facilitate a team line-up that wins matches. See Ipswich Town (A). Capello picks Heskey for the England team for exactly the same reason. I fear it's an indication of Hughton's inexperience that he chops and changes the way our team lines up up front. Consistency comes in stability - the Simpson/Taylor/Colo/Enrique back pairing for instance. When we played Carroll and Ranger consistently, goals came from the midfield and up front. Now Harewood's introduction (I do think he's a good player, by the way) has messed up the team's shape and flow. Harewood may well be a good player for us yet, but Hughton has to find in training the team format that facilitates him and our victory. What we're playing at the minute is what Hughton thinks will work, because it works with other players. But Harewood is not as good at Ranger at holding up the ball, simple as. And he's not as good a foil for Carroll. That said, if we had to play a lone striker, I'd fancy Harewood to fashion something out of nothing more than anyone else at the club. It's all about a mix, and for the time being, Carroll's in the mix I feel will work. Hope some of you read that and haven't felt it a waste of time. I really should be reading about epidemic mortality rates between different religious groups in the late Roman Empire. Thought I'd take a break. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 He looks a better defender than Zurab Not a better CB, looks like an accident waiting to happen there. Harper Simpson Khiz Coloccini Enrique Raylor Smith Nolan Jonas Ranger Lovenkrands Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 He looks a better defender than Zurab Not a better CB, looks like an accident waiting to happen there. Harper Simpson Khiz Coloccini Enrique Raylor Smith Nolan Jonas Ranger Lovenkrands and Khiz is an accident which has happened, and will continue to do so Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I suppose I should make a case for my Carroll inclusion. I think that of late we have made a habit of finding scapegoats for the teams problems. It'll be Jonas one week: he just doesn't cut it. Nolan the next: he's woeful. Or Ranger: he hasn't scored yet. But in football, as I think the likes of Keegan and Robson realised, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I guarantee you the likes of Jonny Evans, Geovanni dos Santos or any other bright young talent would never look as good in our team. Lack of confidence, lack of performance. See Mr. Bramble for an example. Hell, Oguchi Onyewu was signed for Milan after us. The point is, for the team to function, it has to flow and perform right. We've been at our most dangerous with Carroll and Ranger up front, with Nolan playing off them. It's like the Owen/Martins/Viduka triumvirate: often appearing poor when playing apart, suddenly playing well with each other. I think we have to experiment more with the Carroll/Ranger/Nolan thing. I don't give a s*** if Ranger scores or not, if we can facilitate a team line-up that wins matches. See Ipswich Town (A). Capello picks Heskey for the England team for exactly the same reason. I fear it's an indication of Hughton's inexperience that he chops and changes the way our team lines up up front. Consistency comes in stability - the Simpson/Taylor/Colo/Enrique back pairing for instance. When we played Carroll and Ranger consistently, goals came from the midfield and up front. Now Harewood's introduction (I do think he's a good player, by the way) has messed up the team's shape and flow. Harewood may well be a good player for us yet, but Hughton has to find in training the team format that facilitates him and our victory. What we're playing at the minute is what Hughton thinks will work, because it works with other players. But Harewood is not as good at Ranger at holding up the ball, simple as. And he's not as good a foil for Carroll. That said, if we had to play a lone striker, I'd fancy Harewood to fashion something out of nothing more than anyone else at the club. It's all about a mix, and for the time being, Carroll's in the mix I feel will work. Hope some of you read that and haven't felt it a waste of time. I really should be reading about epidemic mortality rates between different religious groups in the late Roman Empire. Thought I'd take a break. Bramble and Carroll isn't a great comparison as Titus' talent was pretty evident from the start. Carroll isn't really demonstrating genuine ability to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 He looks a better defender than Zurab Not a better CB, looks like an accident waiting to happen there. Harper Simpson Khiz Coloccini Enrique Raylor Smith Nolan Jonas Ranger Lovenkrands and Khiz is an accident which has happened, and will continue to do so As is Simpson. He's played a part in the last three goals we've conceded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I think they're both shite CB's, but I have more confidence in Simpson to play alongside Coloccini and follow his lead. I've only ever heard incrediby negative things about Zurab's defending and i'm in total agreement based on his last 4 games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I suppose I should make a case for my Carroll inclusion. I think that of late we have made a habit of finding scapegoats for the teams problems. It'll be Jonas one week: he just doesn't cut it. Nolan the next: he's woeful. Or Ranger: he hasn't scored yet. But in football, as I think the likes of Keegan and Robson realised, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I guarantee you the likes of Jonny Evans, Geovanni dos Santos or any other bright young talent would never look as good in our team. Lack of confidence, lack of performance. See Mr. Bramble for an example. Hell, Oguchi Onyewu was signed for Milan after us. The point is, for the team to function, it has to flow and perform right. We've been at our most dangerous with Carroll and Ranger up front, with Nolan playing off them. It's like the Owen/Martins/Viduka triumvirate: often appearing poor when playing apart, suddenly playing well with each other. I think we have to experiment more with the Carroll/Ranger/Nolan thing. I don't give a s*** if Ranger scores or not, if we can facilitate a team line-up that wins matches. See Ipswich Town (A). Capello picks Heskey for the England team for exactly the same reason. I fear it's an indication of Hughton's inexperience that he chops and changes the way our team lines up up front. Consistency comes in stability - the Simpson/Taylor/Colo/Enrique back pairing for instance. When we played Carroll and Ranger consistently, goals came from the midfield and up front. Now Harewood's introduction (I do think he's a good player, by the way) has messed up the team's shape and flow. Harewood may well be a good player for us yet, but Hughton has to find in training the team format that facilitates him and our victory. What we're playing at the minute is what Hughton thinks will work, because it works with other players. But Harewood is not as good at Ranger at holding up the ball, simple as. And he's not as good a foil for Carroll. That said, if we had to play a lone striker, I'd fancy Harewood to fashion something out of nothing more than anyone else at the club. It's all about a mix, and for the time being, Carroll's in the mix I feel will work. Hope some of you read that and haven't felt it a waste of time. I really should be reading about epidemic mortality rates between different religious groups in the late Roman Empire. Thought I'd take a break. Bramble and Carroll isn't a great comparison as Titus' talent was pretty evident from the start. Carroll isn't really demonstrating genuine ability to me. I wasn't trying to directly compare Bramble and Carroll. Bramble is an example of how a player can crack under the pressure of a system which doesn't play to their strengths. To say Carroll doesn't have any ability is symptomatic of what's wrong here. Carroll was one of the NE's brightest young talents, and Bufffon tipped him for a good future in the game. He CAN score, as he has shown over the last two seasons. But his talent is being stifled by the system we have at the moment, which doesn't work and fractures confidence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Simpson was entirely at fault for the goal we conceded against Forest. I'd rather have Khiz alongside Coloccini if I'm honest, but like you say, they're both shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I suppose I should make a case for my Carroll inclusion. I think that of late we have made a habit of finding scapegoats for the teams problems. It'll be Jonas one week: he just doesn't cut it. Nolan the next: he's woeful. Or Ranger: he hasn't scored yet. But in football, as I think the likes of Keegan and Robson realised, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I guarantee you the likes of Jonny Evans, Geovanni dos Santos or any other bright young talent would never look as good in our team. Lack of confidence, lack of performance. See Mr. Bramble for an example. Hell, Oguchi Onyewu was signed for Milan after us. The point is, for the team to function, it has to flow and perform right. We've been at our most dangerous with Carroll and Ranger up front, with Nolan playing off them. It's like the Owen/Martins/Viduka triumvirate: often appearing poor when playing apart, suddenly playing well with each other. I think we have to experiment more with the Carroll/Ranger/Nolan thing. I don't give a shit if Ranger scores or not, if we can facilitate a team line-up that wins matches. See Ipswich Town (A). Capello picks Heskey for the England team for exactly the same reason. I fear it's an indication of Hughton's inexperience that he chops and changes the way our team lines up up front. Consistency comes in stability - the Simpson/Taylor/Colo/Enrique back pairing for instance. When we played Carroll and Ranger consistently, goals came from the midfield and up front. Now Harewood's introduction (I do think he's a good player, by the way) has messed up the team's shape and flow. Harewood may well be a good player for us yet, but Hughton has to find in training the team format that facilitates him and our victory. What we're playing at the minute is what Hughton thinks will work, because it works with other players. But Harewood is not as good at Ranger at holding up the ball, simple as. And he's not as good a foil for Carroll. That said, if we had to play a lone striker, I'd fancy Harewood to fashion something out of nothing more than anyone else at the club. It's all about a mix, and for the time being, Carroll's in the mix I feel will work. Hope some of you read that and haven't felt it a waste of time. I really should be reading about epidemic mortality rates between different religious groups in the late Roman Empire. Thought I'd take a break. Good post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Someone tell those tossers this is a must win. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I suppose I should make a case for my Carroll inclusion. I think that of late we have made a habit of finding scapegoats for the teams problems. It'll be Jonas one week: he just doesn't cut it. Nolan the next: he's woeful. Or Ranger: he hasn't scored yet. But in football, as I think the likes of Keegan and Robson realised, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I guarantee you the likes of Jonny Evans, Geovanni dos Santos or any other bright young talent would never look as good in our team. Lack of confidence, lack of performance. See Mr. Bramble for an example. Hell, Oguchi Onyewu was signed for Milan after us. The point is, for the team to function, it has to flow and perform right. We've been at our most dangerous with Carroll and Ranger up front, with Nolan playing off them. It's like the Owen/Martins/Viduka triumvirate: often appearing poor when playing apart, suddenly playing well with each other. I think we have to experiment more with the Carroll/Ranger/Nolan thing. I don't give a s*** if Ranger scores or not, if we can facilitate a team line-up that wins matches. See Ipswich Town (A). Capello picks Heskey for the England team for exactly the same reason. I fear it's an indication of Hughton's inexperience that he chops and changes the way our team lines up up front. Consistency comes in stability - the Simpson/Taylor/Colo/Enrique back pairing for instance. When we played Carroll and Ranger consistently, goals came from the midfield and up front. Now Harewood's introduction (I do think he's a good player, by the way) has messed up the team's shape and flow. Harewood may well be a good player for us yet, but Hughton has to find in training the team format that facilitates him and our victory. What we're playing at the minute is what Hughton thinks will work, because it works with other players. But Harewood is not as good at Ranger at holding up the ball, simple as. And he's not as good a foil for Carroll. That said, if we had to play a lone striker, I'd fancy Harewood to fashion something out of nothing more than anyone else at the club. It's all about a mix, and for the time being, Carroll's in the mix I feel will work. Hope some of you read that and haven't felt it a waste of time. I really should be reading about epidemic mortality rates between different religious groups in the late Roman Empire. Thought I'd take a break. Bramble and Carroll isn't a great comparison as Titus' talent was pretty evident from the start. Carroll isn't really demonstrating genuine ability to me. I wasn't trying to directly compare Bramble and Carroll. Bramble is an example of how a player can crack under the pressure of a system which doesn't play to their strengths. To say Carroll doesn't have any ability is symptomatic of what's wrong here. Carroll was one of the NE's brightest young talents, and Bufffon tipped him for a good future in the game. He CAN score, as he has shown over the last two seasons. But his talent is being stifled by the system we have at the moment, which doesn't work and fractures confidence. Carroll has scored 5 goals for NUFC, mate saying he CAN score is based on f*** all sadly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 According to .com and .cock Smith is going to miss the doncaster game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I suppose I should make a case for my Carroll inclusion. I think that of late we have made a habit of finding scapegoats for the teams problems. It'll be Jonas one week: he just doesn't cut it. Nolan the next: he's woeful. Or Ranger: he hasn't scored yet. But in football, as I think the likes of Keegan and Robson realised, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I guarantee you the likes of Jonny Evans, Geovanni dos Santos or any other bright young talent would never look as good in our team. Lack of confidence, lack of performance. See Mr. Bramble for an example. Hell, Oguchi Onyewu was signed for Milan after us. The point is, for the team to function, it has to flow and perform right. We've been at our most dangerous with Carroll and Ranger up front, with Nolan playing off them. It's like the Owen/Martins/Viduka triumvirate: often appearing poor when playing apart, suddenly playing well with each other. I think we have to experiment more with the Carroll/Ranger/Nolan thing. I don't give a s*** if Ranger scores or not, if we can facilitate a team line-up that wins matches. See Ipswich Town (A). Capello picks Heskey for the England team for exactly the same reason. I fear it's an indication of Hughton's inexperience that he chops and changes the way our team lines up up front. Consistency comes in stability - the Simpson/Taylor/Colo/Enrique back pairing for instance. When we played Carroll and Ranger consistently, goals came from the midfield and up front. Now Harewood's introduction (I do think he's a good player, by the way) has messed up the team's shape and flow. Harewood may well be a good player for us yet, but Hughton has to find in training the team format that facilitates him and our victory. What we're playing at the minute is what Hughton thinks will work, because it works with other players. But Harewood is not as good at Ranger at holding up the ball, simple as. And he's not as good a foil for Carroll. That said, if we had to play a lone striker, I'd fancy Harewood to fashion something out of nothing more than anyone else at the club. It's all about a mix, and for the time being, Carroll's in the mix I feel will work. Hope some of you read that and haven't felt it a waste of time. I really should be reading about epidemic mortality rates between different religious groups in the late Roman Empire. Thought I'd take a break. Bramble and Carroll isn't a great comparison as Titus' talent was pretty evident from the start. Carroll isn't really demonstrating genuine ability to me. I wasn't trying to directly compare Bramble and Carroll. Bramble is an example of how a player can crack under the pressure of a system which doesn't play to their strengths. To say Carroll doesn't have any ability is symptomatic of what's wrong here. Carroll was one of the NE's brightest young talents, and Bufffon tipped him for a good future in the game. He CAN score, as he has shown over the last two seasons. But his talent is being stifled by the system we have at the moment, which doesn't work and fractures confidence. Carroll has scored 5 goals for nufc mate saying he CAN score is based on f*** all :idiot2: Carroll has scored. So therefore, saying he can score is obviously deluded. What? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElDiablo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Harper Simpson Zurab Colo Enrique Guthrie Butt Jonas Nolan Harewood Ranger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 He's a striker who's never looked any genuine goal threat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 He's a striker who's never looked any genuine goal threat Did you even read my original post? Carroll and Ranger may not be the most prolific scorers of all time, but when they play together and Nolan plays behind them we perform better. Who cares if Carroll or Ranger score, if by playing together they create the space and opportunity to lay it to Nolan? This is exactly the point I was trying to make at the start: making Carroll a scapegoat. And when he's benched next week, and Harewood and Lovenkrands look shit by playing in an all-new, ill-practiced formation, we'll all be after Harewood and Lovenkrands as being shit. And then Ranger and Nolan the next week. And then we'll all want Carroll back, cause we've blamed everyone else since. These players are not all shit. They need a system to play to their strengths, and it's Hughton's job to recognise that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 He's a striker who's never looked any genuine goal threat Did you even read my original post? Carroll and Ranger may not be the most prolific scorers of all time, but when they play together and Nolan plays behind them we perform better. Who cares if Carroll or Ranger score, if by playing together they create the space and opportunity to lay it to Nolan? This is exactly the point I was trying to make at the start: making Carroll a scapegoat. And when he's benched next week, and Harewood and Lovenkrands look s*** by playing in an all-new, ill-practiced formation, we'll all be after Harewood and Lovenkrands as being s***. And then Ranger and Nolan the next week. And then we'll all want Carroll back, cause we've blamed everyone else since. These players are not all s***. They need a system to play to their strengths, and it's Hughton's job to recognise that. With the exception of the Ipswich game we've looked horrific with Carroll and Ranger up font. And even in the game most agreed that Carroll was poor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 According to .com and .cock Smith is going to miss the doncaster game. So the 7 day rule doesn't apply for the Championship? Can't say I mind, never saw the reason behind it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 He's a striker who's never looked any genuine goal threat Did you even read my original post? Carroll and Ranger may not be the most prolific scorers of all time, but when they play together and Nolan plays behind them we perform better. Who cares if Carroll or Ranger score, if by playing together they create the space and opportunity to lay it to Nolan? This is exactly the point I was trying to make at the start: making Carroll a scapegoat. And when he's benched next week, and Harewood and Lovenkrands look s*** by playing in an all-new, ill-practiced formation, we'll all be after Harewood and Lovenkrands as being s***. And then Ranger and Nolan the next week. And then we'll all want Carroll back, cause we've blamed everyone else since. These players are not all s***. They need a system to play to their strengths, and it's Hughton's job to recognise that. With the excpetion of the Ipswich game we've looked horrific with Carroll and Ranger up font. And even in the game most agreed that Carroll was poor. Wasn't it earlier someone said Nolan had scored 5 of his 7 goals this season behind Carroll and Ranger. They facilitate the team form that seems to work best. I would take issue with us looking "horrific" with Carroll and Ranger up front, and tbh, Carroll's looked better to me all season than his alternatives. So I don't see who'd replace him, which I wouldn't do anyway given that I think we need to stick to those tactics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 According to .com and .cock Smith is going to miss the doncaster game. So the 7 day rule doesn't apply for the Championship? Can't say I mind, never saw the reason behind it. I'm pretty sure that card was his 6th, and that the 5th ban had already been applied after the weekend. It does take into account the 7-day rule or whatever, hence he was going to be missing Doncaster anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts