Dragon55544 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 After tonight its clear Dyer shouldnt be played in midfiled!!!! Up front is where he's best and it seems he has a good understanding with Martins. When Dyer moved into midfield he wasnt all that good, He have a great engine but he aint a big tackler and when he does surge forward he leaves a huge gap in midfield. I dont even think he's a RW because he aint that good at crossing. I suppose he could play attacking midfiled sat just behind the striker in a 4-51 but i feel his best position is up front where his pace is best used. He finishing has also improved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheOrder Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Its not that he isn't a midfielder. It was the fact he gave up for the last 35 minutes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Agreed,he has the finishing of a striker,he is far more dangerous as a striker then down the wing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Four goals in eleven league games since he came back from injury. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheOrder Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Four goals in eleven league games since he came back from injury. Could of played the second half though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paulus Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Was just thinking about the exact same! It's really difficult to mark Dyer when he's playing up front or just behind the striker. In midfield he's not as useful, since his creativity or tackling aren't that good, and he plays in less wide area. The sad thing is that Dyer will never get to play in this best position of his once we are past our injury nightmare.. well in the end it's not that sad if our attacking line is Owen-Martins Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Why have Kieron Dyer, what, 27 is he now, and Newcastle United only just realised that up front might be his best position? He's played right back, right wing, central midfield and up front in his career with us, as well as the odd role down the left. He should have identified his best position when he was a bloody teenager and spent his formative years working on finishing and the like. Good player but a waste of greater talent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontownman Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Well thats a bloody convenient relief considering we have only one other option of front with Martins.. Look for a statement saying we were happy enough that the Martins/Dyer partnership would blossom to waste money on someone that wouldnt be any better than what we have got.. Have to agree, bringing in someone just as good but no better than Martins would have really upset me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUFC06 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Against Birmingam he played CM and we were alwful that day One of the reasons i think was because of this His best position is upront because of his pace Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Why have Kieron Dyer, what, 27 is he now, and Newcastle United only just realised that up front might be his best position? He's played right back, right wing, central midfield and up front in his career with us, as well as the odd role down the left. He should have identified his best position when he was a bloody teenager and spent his formative years working on finishing and the like. Good player but a waste of greater talent. Agreed I remember Sven goran erikson using him as a Striker,and he was well known to be more of a striker then a winger when playing for england Someone shouldve told us that.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon55544 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Against Birmingam he played CM and we were alwful that day One of the reasons i think was because of this His best position is upront because of his pace I actually think he makes decent runs aswell, His finishing as improved a lot and he aint to bad linking up with midfield. Everytime this season when Dyer has moved into midfield it hasnt just effected his game but also the teams performance. It would be nice to see an attacking 3 of Dyer,Martins and Owen in a 4-3-3 but tbh i dont think we have the players who'd cope in a 3 man midfield. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooneyToonArmy Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Why have Kieron Dyer, what, 27 is he now, and Newcastle United only just realised that up front might be his best position? Soumess didn't Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontownman Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Will score more goals that bellamy tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jai Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Roeder knows this thank god! thats why he started him upfront..Its all good... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Dyer is now 28, such a waste Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Dyer is a striker, doesn't matter how unfair it is to Sibbers, I want him on the bench for a Dyer/Martins partnership. Actually, I'd even prefer Sibbers to be AM (he played there in City didn't he?) to allow for Martins and Dyer Butt is out for Fulham, yeah? Parker Milner Duff Sibierski Dyer Martins Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tachikoma Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 His best position is the same as Luque's then? (but right sided) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Dyer is a striker, doesn't matter how unfair it is to Sibbers, I want him on the bench for a Dyer/Martins partnership. Actually, I'd even prefer Sibbers to be AM (he played there in City didn't he?) to allow for Martins and Dyer Butt is out for Fulham, yeah? Parker Milner Duff Sibierski Dyer Martins Sibierski shouldn't be in the first 11 at all tbh. Had a nice run where he kept scoring when we first got him but he's plainly not good enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I'd agree his best position is an advanced one. I'd like to see him tried as one of the wider strikers in a 4-3-3 (which I think is what Souness was intending), but failing that I think he's been very good as the withdrawn striker, in a free role in a 4-4-2. He does okay in midfield, but his passing and crossing lets him down a bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellious Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Alot of the good CAM aren`t that good at tackling. Its the linking between attack and midfield with the odd goal that counts. Scholes can`t tackle for shit but it doesn`t make him a striker. He did play well upfront and proved he can score good goals with his head too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 To be honest I was surprised Dyer played the full 90 minutes he was scared to run after pulling his back twice in the first 10 minutes. He did the odd few sprints but I wouldn't be surprised if his missed the Fulham game with the injury. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenny Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 someone mentioned earlier that dyer in midfield was the reason we lost to birmingham, i thought he was our most useful player in that game. We were obviously woeful in that game but i thought that anything positive (however remotely) came through him so i dont think he is that bad in midfield. Also, am i the only one that thinks the ball hit the top of dyers head and got a bit lucky with the finish with his goal yesterday? Did make me laugh as I play up front for my team and its great when shit you dont mean goes in!lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellious Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 someone mentioned earlier that dyer in midfield was the reason we lost to birmingham, i thought he was our most useful player in that game. We were obviously woeful in that game but i thought that anything positive (however remotely) came through him so i dont think he is that bad in midfield. Also, am i the only one that thinks the ball hit the top of dyers head and got a bit lucky with the finish with his goal yesterday? Did make me laugh as I play up front for my team and its great when shit you dont mean goes in!lol That made me laugh, imaging Milner thinking, i`m going to score here but If I can just rebound it in off someones head, looks up, Dyers will do. Seriously though I think he knew what he was doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I agree 100% Dyer needs to play uptop or wide rtight, but uptop with Martins is whewre he is best, playing him in midfield costs us twice because Martisn is not in the gsame as much without Dyer next to him.. 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