Jump to content

"two or three quality players"


Thespence
 Share

Recommended Posts

Queens Park Rangers boss Neil Warnock has suggested that there won't be a huge influx of players this summer, having spoken to Hughton before Sunday's season finale at Loftus Road.

 

"I was talking to Chris before the game," said Warnock. "They need two or three quality players, rather than five or six.

 

"They don't have the money to do more than that – it's all about getting the right players for his jigsaw."

 

Hughton himself has been guarded about his transfer market plans, though he has insisted the bulk of his Championship-winning squad will be given a crack at the top-flight.

 

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/nufc/United-tracking-Norwegian-starlet.6270736.jp

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Heneage

As long as it's undoubted quality and players that can take us up a level. And cause the weakest 3 in the team to have to truly fight and improve to get a game go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

??? Surely no need for a new thread...

 

Items with Quotes need a full thread.

 

That's in your opinion. And the past few weeks, it really has been every line uttered being put in a new thread :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

??? Surely no need for a new thread...

 

Items with Quotes need a full thread.

 

That's in your opinion. And the past few weeks, it really has been every line uttered being put in a new thread :lol:

 

I was the original creator of the "NOT WORTHY OF A THREAD" man :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it's undoubted quality and players that can take us up a level. And cause the weakest 3 in the team to have to truly fight and improve to get a game go for it.

 

Who do you reckon are the weakest 3 in our best XI are?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Heneage

As long as it's undoubted quality and players that can take us up a level. And cause the weakest 3 in the team to have to truly fight and improve to get a game go for it.

 

Who do you reckon are the weakest 3 in our best XI are?

See that suggests putting Taylor RB, but right now based on who's played it's a striker, a right back, and centre midfielder with some sort of presence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it's undoubted quality and players that can take us up a level. And cause the weakest 3 in the team to have to truly fight and improve to get a game go for it.

 

Who do you reckon are the weakest 3 in our best XI are?

 

Assuming we are looking at our typical 4-4-2 lineup, I would imagine we would be looking to upgrade on Guthrie, Lovenkrands and Simpson.

 

We will need a more dynamic, ball playing DM to replace Guthrie. A higher quality fast striker than Loven, who has more strength and gets more involved in play. Lastly a better right back than Simpson.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A left midfielder is surely more of a priority than a right sided one, as is GK.

right back,central midfielder and striker before all those.

 

Where did I say they weren't? I was responding to a post in which two of those positions were acknowledged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we could get three quality players than I'd go for a forward and 2 central midfielders or 2 forwards and 1 central midfielder, assuming nobody leaves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we could get three quality players than I'd go for a forward and 2 central midfielders or 2 forwards and 1 central midfielder, assuming nobody leaves.

 

That would be my thinking too. Defending is about organisation, tactics and fitness, you don't need to be Pele to play centre back and our defenders are good enough if they're well coached. We desperately need a quality central midfielder with a bit of creativity and someone who's going to score regularly or preferably two of each. It'll be scoring goals that'll be our biggest problem next year, followed by winning and retaining the ball in midfield. If our defence isn't good enough it'll be down to the coaching, not the potential of the players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it's undoubted quality and players that can take us up a level. And cause the weakest 3 in the team to have to truly fight and improve to get a game go for it.

 

Who do you reckon are the weakest 3 in our best XI are?

 

Assuming we are looking at our typical 4-4-2 lineup, I would imagine we would be looking to upgrade on Guthrie, Lovenkrands and Simpson.

 

We will need a more dynamic, ball playing DM to replace Guthrie. A higher quality fast striker than Loven, who has more strength and gets more involved in play. Lastly a better right back than Simpson.

 

 

 

That's exactly how I'd set the priorities, although whether Guthrie would be the main casualty in the midfield, I'm not sure.

 

Another CB would be good, but perhaps there aren't many who are significantly better than the ones we have, and available.

 

I'd also agree with the quality rather than quantity strategy, because we need players who can step into the first team, not squad players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we could get three quality players than I'd go for a forward and 2 central midfielders or 2 forwards and 1 central midfielder, assuming nobody leaves.

 

That would be my thinking too. Defending is about organisation, tactics and fitness, you don't need to be Pele to play centre back and our defenders are good enough if they're well coached. We desperately need a quality central midfielder with a bit of creativity and someone who's going to score regularly or preferably two of each. It'll be scoring goals that'll be our biggest problem next year, followed by winning and retaining the ball in midfield. If our defence isn't good enough it'll be down to the coaching, not the potential of the players.

  :yikes: :yikes: :yikes:

 

indi mate, i like you as a poster but there soooooooo much rot in that post.

 

defending is as much a technical skill as attacking. it's like you never saw woodgate in his time here (or enrique for that). the pele bit is a tad silly, like saying you don't need to be beckenbauer to play up front.

 

if you want us to rely on tactics and organisation for defending and individual technique for goals then not only will we be relegated a lot sooner than you think but you'd have ghone down in my estimation as a football section poster.

 

you need to be as organised attacking as defending, look how many times the good teams play blind balls into certain areas , having been drilled to get the ball there and to make the move there (no better example than man utd with beckham blindly getting the ball in the middle knowing that cole or yorke knew where he'd be putting it, then one going near and the other far)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we could get three quality players than I'd go for a forward and 2 central midfielders or 2 forwards and 1 central midfielder, assuming nobody leaves.

 

That would be my thinking too. Defending is about organisation, tactics and fitness, you don't need to be Pele to play centre back and our defenders are good enough if they're well coached. We desperately need a quality central midfielder with a bit of creativity and someone who's going to score regularly or preferably two of each. It'll be scoring goals that'll be our biggest problem next year, followed by winning and retaining the ball in midfield. If our defence isn't good enough it'll be down to the coaching, not the potential of the players.

  :yikes: :yikes: :yikes:

 

indi mate, i like you as a poster but there soooooooo much rot in that post.

 

defending is as much a technical skill as attacking. it's like you never saw woodgate in his time here (or enrique for that). the pele bit is a tad silly, like saying you don't need to be beckenbauer to play up front.

 

if you want us to rely on tactics and organisation for defending and individual technique for goals then not only will we be relegated a lot sooner than you think but you'd have ghone down in my estimation as a football section poster.

 

you need to be as organised attacking as defending, look how many times the good teams play blind balls into certain areas , having been drilled to get the ball there and to make the move there (no better example than man utd with beckham blindly getting the ball in the middle knowing that cole or yorke knew where he'd be putting it, then one going near and the other far)

 

There's a lot of good stuff in that post madras, but I have to agree with indi about the difference in attacking and defending. Defenders can cope much better without much technical ability, and their organisation/fitness/athleticism etc is much more important.

 

Obviously it doesn't work in reverse - attackers also need to be coached and organised. I don't think indi was trying to argue that anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we could get three quality players than I'd go for a forward and 2 central midfielders or 2 forwards and 1 central midfielder, assuming nobody leaves.

 

That would be my thinking too. Defending is about organisation, tactics and fitness, you don't need to be Pele to play centre back and our defenders are good enough if they're well coached. We desperately need a quality central midfielder with a bit of creativity and someone who's going to score regularly or preferably two of each. It'll be scoring goals that'll be our biggest problem next year, followed by winning and retaining the ball in midfield. If our defence isn't good enough it'll be down to the coaching, not the potential of the players.

  :yikes: :yikes: :yikes:

 

indi mate, i like you as a poster but there soooooooo much rot in that post.

 

defending is as much a technical skill as attacking. it's like you never saw woodgate in his time here (or enrique for that). the pele bit is a tad silly, like saying you don't need to be beckenbauer to play up front.

 

if you want us to rely on tactics and organisation for defending and individual technique for goals then not only will we be relegated a lot sooner than you think but you'd have ghone down in my estimation as a football section poster.

 

you need to be as organised attacking as defending, look how many times the good teams play blind balls into certain areas , having been drilled to get the ball there and to make the move there (no better example than man utd with beckham blindly getting the ball in the middle knowing that cole or yorke knew where he'd be putting it, then one going near and the other far)

 

There's a lot of good stuff in that post madras, but I have to agree with indi about the difference in attacking and defending. Defenders can cope much better without much technical ability, and their organisation/fitness/athleticism etc is much more important.

 

Obviously it doesn't work in reverse - attackers also need to be coached and organised. I don't think indi was trying to argue that anyway.

you are confusing the technical abilities needed to do the different jobs. ever heard the phrase "a forwards tackle". the ability to tackle well (or in enriques case get between man and ball) is everybit a skill as passing or shooting and not everyone can do it. the skills are different and some more spectatcular than others but just as vitsl a skill.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...