JH Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ahh another "Harewood is better than Ranger because he can tap the ball in net" argument. How many of Harewood's goals have actually required any effort? Most have been 6 yards out infront of goal. We could all score from there man. Ranger and Carroll don't seem to. Harewood's only scored one more than Carroll. And at least Carroll's have required a bit more to them than "oh, there's a ball, there's the goal...*tap*" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ahh another "Harewood is better than Ranger because he can tap the ball in net" argument. How many of Harewood's goals have actually required any effort? Most have been 6 yards out infront of goal. We could all score from there man. Ranger and Carroll don't seem to. Harewood's only scored one more than Carroll. And at least Carroll's have required a bit more to them than "oh, there's a ball, there's the goal...*tap*" I really couldn't give a flying fuck how we score tbh. If we make 25 passes which are crossed in for an overhead kick, then great, if we win every game 1-0 with a goal like R.Taylor against Sheff Utd, or Harewood's first on Sunday, then that's fine too. Also, the fact that Ranger and Carroll don't seem to score many tap-ins or be near the box when we need them to be surely means Harewood has a bigger case to stay here? You need versatility in your striking options and he seems to be alright as a poacher. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 When did you become such a terrible poster JH? Carroll has had a lot more time on the pitch than Harewood and Marlon has only really been match fit for the last 5 or 6 games. What an absurd argument though, he only scores goals than any of us could score. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 When did you become such a terrible poster JH? Carroll has had a lot more time on the pitch than Harewood and Marlon has only really been match fit for the last 5 or 6 games. What an absurd argument though, he only scores goals than any of us could score. At least I don't hold a ridiciulous bias against Carroll. So I'm a 'terrible poster' because I think Harewood lacks the effort of a decent footballer? I know he scores goals, but he offers very little to play other than that. He doesn't chase balls, he doesn't challenge for headers or stick a foot out to try and get posession - he's lazy and wasteful - not even Nolan's as useless as him in build up play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 We could always send Marlon back & recall our striker who is on loan at Roma Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Carroll has the potential to become a good player, not a top player but a solid enough striker. There's no bias here. Myself and I suspect the majority of the rest of toon fans are confident of Harewood scoring more or less everytime he steps onto the pitch, reason in itself surely to want him to start. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amir_9 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ahh another "Harewood is better than Ranger because he can tap the ball in net" argument. How many of Harewood's goals have actually required any effort? Most have been 6 yards out infront of goal. We could all score from there man. So what if they were 6 yards infront of goal? Ranger's one and only goal this season was a tap in, im not biased towards anyone, but in my opinion on a good day Harewood is capable of more than Ranger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weezertron Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 If his loan is extended and he does OK there's no doubt Hughton will try and sign him up permanently for the prem. And so, for that reason, I'm out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ahh another "Harewood is better than Ranger because he can tap the ball in net" argument. How many of Harewood's goals have actually required any effort? Most have been 6 yards out infront of goal. We could all score from there man. So what if they were 6 yards infront of goal? Ranger's one and only goal this season was a tap in, im not biased towards anyone, but in my opinion on a good day Harewood is capable of more than Ranger. Ranger actually has intelligence on the pitch and work rate. He can take on defenders and run with the ball, the only thing lacking has been goals but with every game he is getting in better positions and creating chances for others. The only thing Harewood did, was tap the ball into the net, otherwise he was non-exist. Zero ball retention with him in the side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Aye, plenty of ball retention without him. Ranger has intelligence? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amir_9 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ahh another "Harewood is better than Ranger because he can tap the ball in net" argument. How many of Harewood's goals have actually required any effort? Most have been 6 yards out infront of goal. We could all score from there man. So what if they were 6 yards infront of goal? Ranger's one and only goal this season was a tap in, im not biased towards anyone, but in my opinion on a good day Harewood is capable of more than Ranger. Ranger actually has intelligence on the pitch and work rate. He can take on defenders and run with the ball, the only thing lacking has been goals but with every game he is getting in better positions and creating chances for others. The only thing Harewood did, was tap the ball into the net, otherwise he was non-exist. Zero ball retention with him in the side. Think this discussion has gone on and on for the last few pages in the thread, some folks are really overrating ranger as I mentioned in my original post, hes a lad with lots of potential and lots of talent, but I would rather start Harewood ahead of him because hes more likely to get a goal. As far as ball retention, Ranger or no Ranger, take a look at the stats of most of our games, the other team always have more possession we basically played the long ball throughout most of the season, and we did it against Boro as well and it worked for us, were unattractive to watch but effective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ahh another "Harewood is better than Ranger because he can tap the ball in net" argument. How many of Harewood's goals have actually required any effort? Most have been 6 yards out infront of goal. We could all score from there man. So what if they were 6 yards infront of goal? Ranger's one and only goal this season was a tap in, im not biased towards anyone, but in my opinion on a good day Harewood is capable of more than Ranger. The argument had nothing to do with Ranger. Harewood's capability has nothing to do with Ranger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Aye, plenty of ball retention without him. Ranger has intelligence? Yep. Zero. And Ranger does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 That's me convinced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ranger is going to be a far superior player to Harewood and in many respects already is. But Marlon is a seasoned forward who will get goals at this level and it's unfair to throw such a big responsibility on Ranger by expecting him to score the goals to win us promotion. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 It is a shame we loaned Xisco out for the full season as he like others could of benefited from a year in CCC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazy Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ranger is going to be a far superior player to Harewood and in many respects already is. But Marlon is a seasoned forward who will get goals at this level and it's unfair to throw such a big responsibility on Ranger by expecting him to score the goals to win us promotion. . It's hardly unfair, that's what he's being paid to do :S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ranger is going to be a far superior player to Harewood and in many respects already is. But Marlon is a seasoned forward who will get goals at this level and it's unfair to throw such a big responsibility on Ranger by expecting him to score the goals to win us promotion. . It's hardly unfair, that's what he's being paid to do :S I'm sure he'd love to be given the opportunity but as a fan I wouldn't want to be depending on him scoring...or Carroll for that matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amir_9 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ranger is going to be a far superior player to Harewood and in many respects already is. But Marlon is a seasoned forward who will get goals at this level and it's unfair to throw such a big responsibility on Ranger by expecting him to score the goals to win us promotion. . It's hardly unfair, that's what he's being paid to do :S I'm sure he'd love to be given the opportunity but as a fan I wouldn't want to be depending on him scoring...or Carroll for that matter. If we cant depend on a striker to score, then what do we expect him to do? Like I said earlier, at the current climate I expect Harewood to score more than him, if they had both started. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ahh another "Harewood is better than Ranger because he can tap the ball in net" argument. How many of Harewood's goals have actually required any effort? Most have been 6 yards out infront of goal. We could all score from there man. ... is that a pisstake? Ranger's missed countless sitters, man. You think he would have buried them two headers against Swansea, or pulled off that lob at Barnsley? Come off it man. I can see why people wouldn't want anything to hinder Ranger's progress - cos we've seen it before with N'Zogbia and Duff, and subsequently lost the best young talent the club had had in the last decade. But Ranger's still only just 18 and we absolutely have to get promoted. Harewood's unspectacular but he's got 5 in 6 now and these are the things that really matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I cant understand whats the hype about Ranger about, yes hes a promising lad, yes he has loads of talent and is a very talented CF who can hold the ball well... Eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Shearer 9 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 JH = gone down the fucking pan mate Can't believe all the needless criticism of Harewood, it's a fucking joke, and I think people feel they can get away with it because of his appearance and because a lot of the time he's starting alongside the very much more handsome Shola 'goal machine' Ameobi. Sure, he's had bad games like vs Forrest but even Mozart had off days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 JH = gone down the fucking pan mate Can't believe all the needless criticism of Harewood, it's a fucking joke, and I think people feel they can get away with it because of his appearance and because a lot of the time he's starting alongside the very much more handsome Shola 'goal machine' Ameobi. Sure, he's had bad games like vs Forrest but even Mozart had off days. Irony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Shearer 9 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Irony - (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a situation, literary technique or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity, discordance or unintended connection that goes beyond the most evident meaning. It is the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite. YorkieJunkie - Drug addled menace to society Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 You're a treasure. 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