Rasputin[quote="My Blue Heaven]
We all saw what happened to our game once juke came on. The press stopped and we looked worse[/quote]
This. Hogan ain't good enough, but Jutkiewicz is far far worse.[/quote]
It did look really disjointed when Juke came on, like they hadn’t practiced playing in that formation.
Still Stansfield up to can press and would more often finish chances like last night’s that Hogan fluffed again.
TyphoontechieIf we can agree on a couple of premises;
Scott Hogan is in the team to press, get into space and finish off team moves.
He is not in the team to spot a pass, beat three players and be a focal point.
The questions are then;
Is he good enough at what he is there for? At times, yes
Is he good enough, often enough? No
Is it fair to lambast him for not magically turning into Dennis Bergkamp? No
Is there anyone in our team that is better at what he is there for, without weakening the rest of the team? No
Should we support him while he is wearing our shirt, whilst also hoping we sign an improvement? Absolutely yes
Will you ever stop people on the internet being over the top? I doubt it
FWIW I think the keeper made it very, very difficult to score that chance last night, if he'd snuck it past him we would have been saying what an incredible finish it was and hoping for more of the same
Nobody better at what he does in the team? Did you not watch stansfield upfront with Miyoshi as the 10. He was better in every single department.
This is where you say but then we wouldn’t have Stansfield in attacking midfield. To me that’s fine because whoever replaces him will not weaken the team more than Hogan does as the number 9.
Having Anderson, Miyoshi and Bacuna/Burke behind him last night I guarantee we would have looked better.
RasputinMy Blue HeavenWe all saw what happened to our game once juke came on. The press stopped and we looked worse
This. Hogan ain't good enough, but Jutkiewicz is far far worse.
Juke’s fine if we’re planning on hoofing it. Hogan is fine if we’re several goals ahead and need to close out a game.
Otherwise, it has to be Stansfield up front with one of our creative players in behind him.
If we had a clinical striker we would be 5 or 6 points better off..we don't make many clear cut chances but when they are put on a plate then you'd expect some to be dispatched by your forward. Hogan will never be a clinical finisher so,Mr John 'DvB' Useless, drop him play Stansfield in his proper position and have some cojones and make some proper decisions rather being " happy" at not conceding to one of the worst teams in the division just so you can fulfill your criteria of being,and I quote "hard to beat ".
Icm2023TyphoontechieIf we can agree on a couple of premises;
Scott Hogan is in the team to press, get into space and finish off team moves.
He is not in the team to spot a pass, beat three players and be a focal point.
The questions are then;
Is he good enough at what he is there for? At times, yes
Is he good enough, often enough? No
Is it fair to lambast him for not magically turning into Dennis Bergkamp? No
Is there anyone in our team that is better at what he is there for, without weakening the rest of the team? No
Should we support him while he is wearing our shirt, whilst also hoping we sign an improvement? Absolutely yes
Will you ever stop people on the internet being over the top? I doubt it
FWIW I think the keeper made it very, very difficult to score that chance last night, if he'd snuck it past him we would have been saying what an incredible finish it was and hoping for more of the same
Nobody better at what he does in the team? Did you not watch stansfield upfront with Miyoshi as the 10. He was better in every single department.
This is where you say but then we wouldn’t have Stansfield in attacking midfield. To me that’s fine because whoever replaces him will not weaken the team more than Hogan does as the number 9.
Having Anderson, Miyoshi and Bacuna/Burke behind him last night I guarantee we would have looked better.
I’m not quite getting people saying ‘it’s pointless’ to discuss this. Of course it isn’t, it’s a live issue. I think most of the people on here are saying on the evidence of what we have seen, the team would be better if Stansfield played up front and we considered the best options in midfield that we have. We’re supporters who discuss such things on a message board but this is such an emotional subject that it’s apparently ‘hysterical’ to do so. Hogan has scored goals in short bursts of games which have really help the team. Most of the rest of the time he’s been pretty poor and frustrating. He looked rather dejected when he came off yesterday because I believe he knows he had failed to make a significant contribution.
Rasputin[quote="My Blue Heaven]
We all saw what happened to our game once juke came on. The press stopped and we looked worse[/quote]
This. Hogan ain't good enough, but Jutkiewicz is far far worse.[/quote]
Nonsense.
Check this years stats.
Juke - 7 games played. 2 goals.
Hogan - 9 games played. 2 goals.
Juke has played significantly less time too.
Spot on. Any criticism, no matter how poor the performance is hysterical. Really bonkers this board at times.
At this point though, criticism of a crap player for being crap is a bit pointless. The criticism should be aimed at those responsible for playing said crap player.
Im hoping John 'DvB' Useless left him out against Preston hoping he’d get a reaction and having realised that idea failed miserably, Hogan will be a backup going forward.
TyphoontechieIf we can agree on a couple of premises;
Scott Hogan is in the team to press, get into space and finish off team moves.
He is not in the team to spot a pass, beat three players and be a focal point.
The questions are then;
Is he good enough at what he is there for? At times, yes
Is he good enough, often enough? No
Is it fair to lambast him for not magically turning into Dennis Bergkamp? No
Is there anyone in our team that is better at what he is there for, without weakening the rest of the team? No
Should we support him while he is wearing our shirt, whilst also hoping we sign an improvement? Absolutely yes
Will you ever stop people on the internet being over the top? I doubt it
FWIW I think the keeper made it very, very difficult to score that chance last night, if he'd snuck it past him we would have been saying what an incredible finish it was and hoping for more of the same
Good post. FWIW I still think the main problem is not the strikers themselves, albeit that we could undoubtedly do with better, but that we don’t actually create enough chances for them. Both Hogan and Juke. We maybe playing slightly better football (well keeping possession) and have some good looking technical players but we aren’t massively effective. Hogan had one decent chance last night.
Rasputin[quote="My Blue Heaven]
We all saw what happened to our game once juke came on. The press stopped and we looked worse[/quote]
This. Hogan ain't good enough, but Jutkiewicz is far far worse.[/quote]
He is not far far worse. He’s not the best but we need to play to his strengths. And I don’t mean hitting long balls to him. Because I agree that doesn’t work.
TyphoontechieIf we can agree on a couple of premises;
Scott Hogan is in the team to press, get into space and finish off team moves.
He is not in the team to spot a pass, beat three players and be a focal point.
The questions are then;
Is he good enough at what he is there for? At times, yes
Is he good enough, often enough? No
Is it fair to lambast him for not magically turning into Dennis Bergkamp? No
Is there anyone in our team that is better at what he is there for, without weakening the rest of the team? No
Should we support him while he is wearing our shirt, whilst also hoping we sign an improvement? Absolutely yes
Will you ever stop people on the internet being over the top? I doubt it
FWIW I think the keeper made it very, very difficult to score that chance last night, if he'd snuck it past him we would have been saying what an incredible finish it was and hoping for more of the same
Good post. FWIW I still think the main problem is not the strikers themselves, albeit that we could undoubtedly do with better, but that we don’t actually create enough chances for them. Both Hogan and Juke. We maybe playing slightly better football (well keeping possession) and have some good looking technical players but we aren’t massively effective. Hogan had one decent chance last night.
I watched a good chunk of the Norwich game earlier. Whitaker missed at least one sitter but scored three. Had more chances than poor Scott gets in half a dozen games.
“Poor Scott” LOL
Stansfield plays the 9 role at Preston, has 36 touches and 5 shots
Hogan plays 20 minutes at Preston and 70 at QPR and has 11 touches and 1 shot across those 90 minutes
Anyone trying to kid themselves this is a supply issue is just deluding themselves