Dave Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 What annoyed me at Hillsborough was when Carroll came on, Harewood continuously made no attempt whatsoever to anticipate a flick on. He just wasn't interested; at times he didn't even look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzza Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 aye, there is deffo a lack of will to play 90 mins... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Beckford is an unknown quality at the highest level who scores most his goals through pace, an asset in the top league I think for 1.5 mill he is a good investment. If it dosnt work out over the next 2 years he will keep his value based on his previous performances. That just isn't true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 What annoyed me at Hillsborough was when Carroll came on, Harewood continuously made no attempt whatsoever to anticipate a flick on. He just wasn't interested; at times he didn't even look. Very true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben-nufc Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 no i wouldnt hes generally lazy and our contracted strikers are more than adequate at this level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Lucky we have all these goalscorers upfront when shola is out/rested huh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 It has fuck all to do with goalscorers. You could play anyone up there, it's creating chances for those strikers to score from. The problem is the midfield not the strikers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 It has f*** all to do with goalscorers. You could play anyone up there, it's creating chances for those strikers to score from. The problem is the midfield not the strikers. Exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tisd09 Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 I voted no, if we could go out and buy someone like Beckford I'd prefer that. Harewood is proven at this level but not as if he's been superb for us. The biggest disadvantage about signing Beckford is that we'd have to stump up cash, but I think he would be hungry and determined to prove that he can step up a level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 We definitely missed a poacher tonight. There were enough chances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 It has fuck all to do with goalscorers. You could play anyone up there, it's creating chances for those strikers to score from. The problem is the midfield not the strikers. Fuck off, we created plenty of chances in the first half but had no-one capable of putting them away. The midfield is a problem but there were a number of quality crosses put into the box but no-one capable to put them away! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 It has f*** all to do with goalscorers. You could play anyone up there, it's creating chances for those strikers to score from. The problem is the midfield not the strikers. f*** off, we created plenty of chances in the first half but had no-one capable of putting them away. The midfield is a problem but there were a number of quality crosses put into the box but no-one capable to put them away! I saw 3 chances. Rangers and the two Taylors. We were better in the first half when the game was more open and there was space to pass into, that's when we looked like scoring. But with a tighter game in the second half our chances came from a team's mistakes not our own quality. If we go up, that midfield will be over-run by teams, like it was tonight, we need players that can put chances to the strikers, be it crosses like Guthrie's against Boro and Sheff Wed, or Carroll's through ball for Nolan's goal at Ipswich. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 We created plenty of chances first half which should have been converted, end of. 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. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 We created plenty of chances first half which should have been converted, end of. What chances? Taylors one on one, and Lovenkrands are the only ones springing to mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun 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! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 We created plenty of chances first half which should have been converted, end of. What chances? Taylors one on one, and Lovenkrands are the only ones springing to mind. 11 corners and a few other quality balls in that were wasted. Just because no-one was intelligent enough to get on the end it doesn't mean a chance wasn't created, what is it you plan to do for a living again? Did you watch the first half? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun 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 he came on near the end when we had run out of steam/ideas. It's not rocket science Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa 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 fuck all movement. 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 fuck all movement. We created fuck loads in the first half. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Its a bit worrying that more often than not they come out in the second half as if they've just woken from a deep sleep. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle 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. 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