Minhosa Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 We could have done with a striker who can finish, we had something like 11 corners and they were all pretty bloody good including one that bounced a couple of times in the 6 yard box without being attacking by anyone! Why didn't Shola put a chance away then? He's our best striker isn't he? Maybe it's because we have a **** central midfield. Because we took Taylor off and they put more pressure on Gutierrez in the second half. There was no way Taylor should've been taken off - there was at least three dead ball kicks in dangerous areas that he would have delivered more effectively on than Jonas/Enrique. He doesn't bring much Taylor, but he can take a dead ball - ridiculous move bringing him off and leaving Simples on the pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Its a bit worrying that more often than not we come out in the second half as if they've just woken from a deep sleep. We've been doing it all year. Basically if we're not losing we come out look utterly shite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Its a bit worrying that more often than not we come out in the second half as if they've just woken from a deep sleep. We normally attack well/half decently for 20 minutes then waste chances/let the opposition put pressure on for 70 minutes which is why it is vital we have people who can finish chances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Anyone (and there are a few on here) who think that Shola, Loven, Ranger and Carroll are adequate needs a talking to. Only one of those is good enough for side in the top 2. Didn't you say last night that if Harewood came back we'd have four of the best strikers in the league? We could've done with a Harewood vintage tonight like, maybe the Notts Forest or Doncaster perormances. Harewood has more goals than your pal Carroll despite having half the time on the pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 I don't think he would've made much difference today other than we'd have had a whole lot less movement and probably looked as bad in the first half as we did in the second. No idea's, no door opener and f*** all movement. Exactly. Some people like to rewrite history though... Everytime we draw or lose some idiots are going to bring up Harewood. We went on our worst run because Harewood was shoehorned into the team. If you can't see we need as many goalscorers as we can get you shouldn't be calling anyone else an idiot. If you can't see the improvement* in Harewood as he got fitter then you shouldn't be calling anyone else an idiot. *Improvement does not mean more effort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Anyone (and there are a few on here) who think that Shola, Loven, Ranger and Carroll are adequate needs a talking to. Only one of those is good enough for side in the top 2. Didn't you say last night that if Harewood came back we'd have four of the best strikers in the league? We could've done with a Harewood vintage tonight like, maybe the Notts Forest or Doncaster perormances. Harewood has more goals than your pal Carroll despite having half the time on the pitch. If Ranger, Ryan Taylor and Steven Taylor had finished their easy chances today would anyone have even brought up Harewood? No... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 I didn't bring him up either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Anyone (and there are a few on here) who think that Shola, Loven, Ranger and Carroll are adequate needs a talking to. Only one of those is good enough for side in the top 2. Didn't you say last night that if Harewood came back we'd have four of the best strikers in the league? We could've done with a Harewood vintage tonight like, maybe the Notts Forest or Doncaster perormances. Harewood has more goals than your pal Carroll despite having half the time on the pitch. If Ranger, Ryan Taylor and Steven Taylor had finished their easy chances today would anyone have even brought up Harewood? No... No comment needed but lots of :mackems: :mackems: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Harewood wouldn't have made any difference today, the same as he made no difference against Sheff Wed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Harewood wouldn't have made any difference today, the same as he made no difference against Sheff Wed. He was scoring and playing amazing every game wasn't he? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 5 goals in his last 6 games and he'd have made no difference? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Anyone (and there are a few on here) who think that Shola, Loven, Ranger and Carroll are adequate needs a talking to. Only one of those is good enough for side in the top 2. Didn't you say last night that if Harewood came back we'd have four of the best strikers in the league? We could've done with a Harewood vintage tonight like, maybe the Notts Forest or Doncaster perormances. Harewood has more goals than your pal Carroll despite having half the time on the pitch. If Ranger, Ryan Taylor and Steven Taylor had finished their easy chances today would anyone have even brought up Harewood? No... No comment needed but lots of :mackems: :mackems: I'd like a comment to be honest because I haven't got a clue what you're going on about. It's not like Harewood scored in every game he played. When we were winning without Harewood scoring were you asking for another goalscorer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 5 goals in his last 6 games and he'd have made no difference? Stop being silly Ronaldo, if other players had taken their "easy" chances then we wouldn't even be talking about the player who can finish chances Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 5 goals in his last 6 games and he'd have made no difference? No ones saying he made no difference, he won us points, he improved. He wasn't however scoring every game, he missed chances. We don't need to bring him back up every time we don't score. There were times we were woeful with him and won in spite of him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 He deserves a contract, based on his goalscoring ability alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 5 goals in his last 6 games and he'd have made no difference? Stop being silly Ronaldo, if other players had taken their "easy" chances then we wouldn't even be talking about the player who can finish chances Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Anyone (and there are a few on here) who think that Shola, Loven, Ranger and Carroll are adequate needs a talking to. Only one of those is good enough for side in the top 2. Didn't you say last night that if Harewood came back we'd have four of the best strikers in the league? We could've done with a Harewood vintage tonight like, maybe the Notts Forest or Doncaster perormances. Harewood has more goals than your pal Carroll despite having half the time on the pitch. If Ranger, Ryan Taylor and Steven Taylor had finished their easy chances today would anyone have even brought up Harewood? No... No comment needed but lots of :mackems: :mackems: I'd like a comment to be honest because I haven't got a clue what you're going on about. It's not like Harewood scored in every game he played. When we were winning without Harewood scoring were you asking for another goalscorer? Because Harewood was looking like a goalscorer which is what we needed tonight but your apparent argument is that if we had scored these "easy" chances we wouldn't even be talking about Harewood. Do you not realise why I am laughing at your comment? Fuck sake! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 If Carroll or Lovenkrands missed those chances then you'd have a better point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 He deserves a contract, based on his goalscoring ability alone. Maybe so. But let's not rewrite history and say we would've scored everytime we don't score without him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 If Carroll or Lovenkrands missed those chances then you'd have a better point. We created plenty of chances which neither got on the end of or put wide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Are we really going to keep Harewood on the belief that the likes of Lovenkrands/Ameobi wont score in this league given chances? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 He deserves a contract, based on his goalscoring ability alone. Maybe so. But let's not rewrite history and say we would've scored everytime we don't score without him. This thread was bumped before the game had even finished. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 If Carroll or Lovenkrands missed those chances then you'd have a better point. We created plenty of chances which neither got on the end of or put wide. Would Harewood have held his line like Ryan Taylor did and get that chance? Would he have been quick enough to react like Ranger? Maybe he would've, maybe not though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Are we really going to keep Harewood on the belief that the likes of Lovenkrands/Ameobi wont score in this league given chances? 2 strikers, 1 of which has proved nowt in this league? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 5 goals in his last 6 games and he'd have made no difference? Well said - he improved dramatically (apart from where he - like every other player - slept through the Sheff Wed game) and 5 from 6 tells its own story. Still had lots on here against him (I had my doubts, but he won me over) In complete contrast to a young lad who, if you criticise his lack of goals, brings ranting and weeping and wailing ! 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