Jayson Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Just read this post & made me think: We changed a winning formula of Carroll/Ranger and Nolan up top for Harewood and Carroll, its not bringing goals like the original. Colo and Taylor are injured. Hughton is fairly limited. These are the problems as I see them. So was wondering what our winning formula has been this season so far, atleast upfront as we have a lot of options now. Looked up the statsss & thought it was interesting. So here is the result: (this is based on these lineups staying like this for atleast 40 mins & what the results would have been in that time ignoring the rest of teh game.) So out of all of our wins. We've played Ameobi & Carroll upfront together twice and won twice. We've played Ameobi upfront alone once and won once. We've played Ranger upfront alone twice and won twice. We've played Carroll upfront alone twice & lost twice. We've played Carroll & Ranger upfront together 3 times, won Twice & drawn once. We've played Harewood & Lovenkrands together once and drawn once. Harewood & Carroll twice, lost once & drawn once. So based on the limited amount of info we have so far the answer is...... Dont play carroll upfront alone. Ranger upfront alone, Ameobi & Carroll or Ranger & Carroll is where we've had all of our wins. Lineups we havent used atall the past 3 games. <<< We should probably give Ranger/Carroll some time upfront together again. The last two games before QPR we played them together we scored 6 goals in two games. Then against QPR were unlucky - Missing a pen & them getting a deflected goal. Either that or Ranger & Harewood who havent had much real time together, but probably makes more sense to start with a lineup we've actually won games with. ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 seems a very naive way of looking at things. thats basing things purely on forwards and ignoring the rest of what we had available throughout the rest of the team and the performances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I agree that Ranger and Carroll should be persevered with......they both offer something to the team and as you say, its generally worked well for us this season. i just wonder if now he's got harewood in, hughton feels like he needs to play him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 seems a very naive way of looking at things. thats basing things purely on forwards and ignoring the rest of what we had available throughout the rest of the team and the performances. Well im not saying thats the pure reason we're losing. Obviously theres likely more to it, i constantly post that all over. But i think a good place to start would be to use a foward line up thats actually won us a game so far this season. Dont ya think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 seems a very naive way of looking at things. thats basing things purely on forwards and ignoring the rest of what we had available throughout the rest of the team and the performances. Well im not saying thats the pure reason we're losing. Obviously theres likely more to it, i constantly post that all over. But i think a good place to start would be to use a foward line up thats actually won us a game so far this season. Dont ya think? i'd think the midfield is a better place to start as for the past few games it has created little for the forwards and helped the defenders little. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I agree that Ranger and Carroll should be persevered with......they both offer something to the team and as you say, its generally worked well for us this season. i just wonder if now he's got harewood in, hughton feels like he needs to play him. Combination of that and Dropping Ranger because of us not dominating an in form QPR. Even though we were unlucky to not be winning that game, wasnt our best performance but hasnt compared atall to what we've tried since. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 i'd think the midfield is a better place to start as for the past few games it has created little for the forwards and helped the defenders little. But im not sure our midfield was ever creating much? A lot of our goals this season have come from long balls & crosses. We should have a good midfield, but we mainly play long ball football for whatever reason. We havent stopped doing that at any point really, reading was the only game we passed it well i can remember. Even then all our goals were the result of crosses. So i think the problem is we're no longer using fowards together who can do much of use with these longballs. Ranger atleast alone seems to improve our ability to do something with them, the results back that up significantly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 We either play long ball because our midfield can't create or because our Chris 'Barack' Houghton knows no better. Probably not mutually exclusive. I'd like to see what Ranger would be able to do with either Lovenkrands or Carroll again purely because Harewood is about as much use as a fart in a spacesuit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 whereas Carroll's been fucking brilliant all season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 whereas Carroll's been f***ing brilliant all season. Not saying he has or is, but I don't believe Harewood has anyhting to offer anymore. Know your gonna hate this but he seems like he could'nt trap a bag of cement and competes in the air like one too. Limited as he is even Carroll can just about manage the basics. I think Ranger would create more than either anyway and should be first name on the team sheet atm, whoever plays should have a better chance of scoring if he was imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 When Carroll plays it's far too easy for the team just to lump it long as they use him as a bit of a get out clause. It's also nice to see Harewood becoming the new scapegoat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It's f***ing brilliant, reminds me of Taylor's early days when it was always somebody else's fault we were s*** at the back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It's f***ing brilliant, reminds me of Taylor's early days when it was always somebody else's fault we were s*** at the back. Early days? It was like that at times last year as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It finally seemed to sink it at the start of last season tbf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Difference is Taylor is clearly class, Harewood has done sweet FA in evey game he's had in a Newcastle shirt and has nothing to offer other than not being Andy Carroll Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Difference is Taylor is clearly class, Harewood has done sweet FA in evey game he's had in a Newcastle shirt and has nothing to offer other than not being Andy Carroll In this league I would agree. Only proven to be average at best during his Premiership career (Barring the end of last season playing at full-back). It's fairly obviously as well btw that Harewood isn't very good in the air yet we seem to persist on lumping long balls up to him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Difference is Taylor is clearly class, Harewood has done sweet FA in evey game he's had in a Newcastle shirt and has nothing to offer other than not being Andy Carroll He's had like 3 or 4 games. no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It's f***ing brilliant, reminds me of Taylor's early days when it was always somebody else's fault we were s*** at the back. Early days? It was like that at times last year as well. Colo was the weakest link for the majority of last season tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Difference is Taylor is clearly class, Harewood has done sweet FA in evey game he's had in a Newcastle shirt and has nothing to offer other than not being Andy Carroll Harewood's managed a goal with only 2 starts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Difference is Taylor is clearly class, Harewood has done sweet FA in evey game he's had in a Newcastle shirt and has nothing to offer other than not being Andy Carroll In this league I would agree. Only proven to be average at best during his Premiership career (Barring the end of last season playing at full-back). It's fairly obviously as well btw that Harewood isn't very good in the air yet we seem to persist on lumping long balls up to him. Aye. inclined to agree. It doesn't help. Not out for a character assasination of the lad but I just happen to think Harewood's as mediocre a footballer as Andy Carroll and yet starts ahead of the likes of Nile Ranger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It's f***ing brilliant, reminds me of Taylor's early days when it was always somebody else's fault we were s*** at the back. Early days? It was like that at times last year as well. Colo was the weakest link for the majority of last season tbh. not biting Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I certainly think Ranger deserves a chance, as in a run in the first team with a strike partner alongside him. Early on in the season I thought he was being thrown in the deep end too fast but he looks surprisingly comfortable on the ball and looks a decent footballer who brings good hold up play to the team. I now believe from what I've seen that he's worth a shot. I'd like to see Ranger paired with Lovenkrands or Harewood. Chopping and changing has an air of desperation about it but then so do our performances, it's a case of needs must at the minute. Changes need to be made and Ranger looks a real prospect to me. I think our recent poor form has a lot to do with missing players and just generally being found out as a one-dimensional team. We always knew these would be problems due to our lack of squad depth. The first XI will scrape plenty of wins but any time the poor squad depth gets exposed we will drop points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Difference is Taylor is clearly class, Harewood has done sweet FA in evey game he's had in a Newcastle shirt and has nothing to offer other than not being Andy Carroll Harewood's managed a goal with only 2 starts. That's a crap statistic, given that he didn't actually score it in either of those starts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It's f***ing brilliant, reminds me of Taylor's early days when it was always somebody else's fault we were s*** at the back. Early days? It was like that at times last year as well. Colo was the weakest link for the majority of last season tbh. I never said he wasn't. But last year at centre half Taylor was poor as well. He only hit form when he was out the way at full-back, as he can get away with his marking of space when played out there. That and he gets to pretend that he is Cafu. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It's f***ing brilliant, reminds me of Taylor's early days when it was always somebody else's fault we were s*** at the back. Early days? It was like that at times last year as well. Colo was the weakest link for the majority of last season tbh. not biting 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