Would you extend Harewood's loan until the end of the season?

[Cajun]

Ameobi will score, Lovenkrands had good movement on the whole tonight so could do but we need as many scorers as possible as we aren't going to suddenly change our entire midfield/sign a top class playmaker/change the way we play.

 

Harewood despite being lazy was looking every bit the goalscorer Shola was by the time he got up to speed. Carroll, Ranger and Pancrate, despite rating them I don't have any confidence any of them will score enough this season.

[Ronaldo]

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.

 

I didn't say that, i just don't like starting a game with Carroll and Lovenkrands. I said 2 days ago to Kezman that the partnership wouldn't work.

[Mick]

 

He was scoring and playing amazing every game wasn't he?

 

 

 

The sarcasm detector just about picked that one up.

[Minhosa]

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!

 

I don't think he would've made a difference tonight because the reason we looked decent in the first half was because of the movement and options created by the space made up front - Harewood starting tonight would've been Sheff Weds all over again.

 

Yes he may be more likely to finish a chance when one appears but his lack of movement could mean far fewer chances being created for the team.

 

More generally, I'm unsure as to whether or not I'd re-sign him due to the four forwards all being fit now, and expect Ashleys preference would be not too due to the additional demand on the wage bill.

 

I'd be more inclined to push for a Wilshere on loan than get Harewood back - as the need for some creation is greater than the need for a fifth forward imho.

[Dave]

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.

 

I didn't say that, i just don't like starting a game with Carroll and Lovenkrands. I said 2 days ago to Kezman that the partnership wouldn't work.

 

[Cajun]

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.

 

Did he score 5 goals in his last 6 games? yes.

 

Would I have had more confidence in him scoring tonight than Lovenkrands or Carroll? Definitely.

[Guest Phil K]

We should have extended the loan for another 3 months.

[Frazzle]

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.

 

I didn't say that, i just don't like starting a game with Carroll and Lovenkrands. I said 2 days ago to Kezman that the partnership wouldn't work.

 

They've played together once haven't they?  Bit early to say it won't work.  We were playing alright in the first half.  

[Mick]

5 goals in his last 6 games and he'd have made no difference?

 

No, he would have made no difference because I don't think he would have been in any better positions than the forwards we played.  And I don't think he would have done any better if he had got on the end of any chance a forward had.

[Dave]

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Harewood as a player, the fee that Villa supposedly want for him may put the stop on any deal anyway - particularly if we're paying his wages in full.

 

One Mr Ashley probably won't sanction it.

[Guest Heneage]

The fee's been mentioned?

[Dave]

The fee's been mentioned?

 

It was in the comics yesterday (I know). It might explain why it's not been done or agreed already.

[Cajun]

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.

 

It was about 92 minutes in when I bumped this thread, after we played a game where we created a lot of chances but didn't have anyone who could finish.

[Jayson]

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? f*** sake!

 

I don't think he would've made a difference tonight because the reason we looked decent in the first half was because of the movement and options created by the space made up front - Harewood starting tonight would've been Sheff Weds all over again.

 

Yes he may be more likely to finish a chance when one appears but his lack of movement could mean far fewer chances being created for the team.

 

More generally, I'm unsure as to whether or not I'd re-sign him due to the four forwards all being fit now, and expect Ashleys preference would be not too due to the additional demand on the wage bill.

 

I'd be more inclined to push for a Wilshere on loan than get Harewood back - as the need for some creation is greater than the need for a fifth forward imho.

 

This is the thing isnt it, we look garbage when Harewood plays. Then he pops up in the 50th minute and puts in a tap in because hes in the right place. So we end up winning crap games.

We'd play better with him not in the side, but we have to have people who will be in the right place still.

 

I think Ameobi given a full game has shown he can & i think Lovenkrands improves our football as a team a lot just from being on the pitch. Gives us more options, we just have to put them in. Carroll should only be getting on as a sub from now on until he's shown he can find the net more often. All the build up play is great but hes not a midfielder.

[Frazzle]

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? f*** sake!

 

I don't think he would've made a difference tonight because the reason we looked decent in the first half was because of the movement and options created by the space made up front - Harewood starting tonight would've been Sheff Weds all over again.

 

Yes he may be more likely to finish a chance when one appears but his lack of movement could mean far fewer chances being created for the team.

 

More generally, I'm unsure as to whether or not I'd re-sign him due to the four forwards all being fit now, and expect Ashleys preference would be not too due to the additional demand on the wage bill.

 

I'd be more inclined to push for a Wilshere on loan than get Harewood back - as the need for some creation is greater than the need for a fifth forward imho.

 

Good post.

[Cajun]

As lovely as playing nice football is I would rather we won games.

[Frazzle]

As lovely as playing nice football is I would rather we won games.

 

The point is, we didn't always grind out results with Harewood.  We did drop points! 

[Dave]

The worry is that Hughton and the players will look at tonight and decide the long ball rubbish is a better bet...

[Guest Heneage]

The fee's been mentioned?

 

It was in the comics yesterday (I know). It might explain why it's not been done or agreed already.

250k? Is it really that bad. Boro paid 2m for Ledger.

[Jayson]

If Ameobi had played that entire game and itd still ended 0-0 id think its a decent move.

 

But hes been far to consistant to believe that we need Harewood now or we wont score. If we only brought him in to use as sub id go for it, but thats not what would happen.

[Dave]

The fee's been mentioned?

 

It was in the comics yesterday (I know). It might explain why it's not been done or agreed already.

250k? Is it really that bad. Boro paid 2m for Ledger.

 

I'm not saying it's bad, I'm wondering whether Ashley will pay it considering we're top of the league and really ace.

[JH]

Harewood is not the answer IMO.

 

He may have scored 5 goals, but let's not forget about the chances he missed and the times he didn't even chase or jump for a ball.

 

There's no point in replacing a waster with a waster.

[Dave]

Harewood is not the answer IMO.

 

He may have scored 5 goals, but let's not forget about the chances he missed and the times he didn't even chase or jump for a ball.

 

There's no point in replacing a waster with a waster.

 

All depends who the alternatives are. I said this the other day, aren't I great.

[Minhosa]

The fee's been mentioned?

 

It was in the comics yesterday (I know). It might explain why it's not been done or agreed already.

250k? Is it really that bad. Boro paid 2m for Ledger.

 

I'm not saying it's bad, I'm wondering whether Ashley will pay it considering we're top of the league and really ace.

 

That's what I touched upon earlier - the fat fucker is a gambler and I suspect he'd rather take a chance than pay to be sure of something.

 

I wouldn't be gutted if we did bring Harewood back but I think his limited movement can impact the side negatively - he could come off the bench and win games though and that shouldn't be overlooked.

[JH]

Harewood is not the answer IMO.

 

He may have scored 5 goals, but let's not forget about the chances he missed and the times he didn't even chase or jump for a ball.

 

There's no point in replacing a waster with a waster.

 

All depends who the alternatives are. I said this the other day, aren't I great.

 

If there are no alternatives, I don't see why we should waste our money and settle for second best.

 

If you add up all of what they contribute and score in each game, Harewood is no better or worse than what we've already got.