by facaldaqui » 30 Oct 2009 21:31
by winchester_royal » 30 Oct 2009 21:36
facaldaqui Yes, Winchester, it's true that Kitson and Little were fairly useless when they came back. My point is: what makes anyone think Rasiak and McAnuff would have been any less useless? Both then and now, the lack of goals was a team issue--except that on Monday at long last chances were being created.
by Terminal Boardom » 30 Oct 2009 21:39
winchester_royalfacaldaqui Yes, Winchester, it's true that Kitson and Little were fairly useless when they came back. My point is: what makes anyone think Rasiak and McAnuff would have been any less useless? Both then and now, the lack of goals was a team issue--except that on Monday at long last chances were being created.
Rasiak would have offered something different, his 8 goals in 11 games for Watford in the back end of last season shows he may well have added much needed goals.
McAnuff has already shown in his short time here that he's a better option than Kebe. They may well have given us that extra 1 point needed.
by facaldaqui » 30 Oct 2009 21:52
by Terminal Boardom » 30 Oct 2009 22:20
facaldaqui To be fair to McAnuff, he did have a great shot that was close, after sweeping forward himself. OK, it was then followed immediately by a lamentable shot from an easier chance, but I'm not writing him off yet. He does some things well, just not often enough.
by Terminal Boardom » 30 Oct 2009 22:30
Ideal And the manager.
by AthleticoSpizz » 30 Oct 2009 22:35
toe'd the lineTerminal BoardomIdeal And the manager.
I disagree totally. Just WHAT has the manager done well?
by winchester_royal » 30 Oct 2009 22:38
Terminal BoardomIdeal And the manager.
I disagree totally. Just WHAT has the manager done well?
by AthleticoSpizz » 30 Oct 2009 23:37
'part from PR and toe'ing the aforementioned company line.IdealTerminal BoardomIdeal And the manager.
I disagree totally. Just WHAT has the manager done well?
Well, I just wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
But you have a valid point, he doesn't really seem to do anything right.
by Chuckle Brother » 31 Oct 2009 07:27
winchester_royal1871 Royal Wouldn't that be Shane ROFLOLong TB?
There aren't 2 L's in Long 1871.
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 31 Oct 2009 08:14
winchester_royalfacaldaqui Yes, Winchester, it's true that Kitson and Little were fairly useless when they came back. My point is: what makes anyone think Rasiak and McAnuff would have been any less useless? Both then and now, the lack of goals was a team issue--except that on Monday at long last chances were being created.
Rasiak would have offered something different, his 8 goals in 11 games for Watford in the back end of last season shows he may well have added much needed goals.
McAnuff has already shown in his short time here that he's a better option than Kebe. They may well have given us that extra 1 point needed.
by The Knitting Circle » 31 Oct 2009 17:09
by Ian Royal » 31 Oct 2009 17:45
winchester_royal
McAnuff has already shown in his short time here that he's a better option than Kebe. They may well have given us that extra 1 point needed.
by winchester_royal » 31 Oct 2009 17:53
Ian Royalwinchester_royal
McAnuff has already shown in his short time here that he's a better option than Kebe. They may well have given us that extra 1 point needed.
Don't think I agree with that. They are both hit and miss. McAnuff is more in control of his play but drifts out of games much more IMO.
by Ian Royal » 31 Oct 2009 18:20
winchester_royalIan Royalwinchester_royal
McAnuff has already shown in his short time here that he's a better option than Kebe. They may well have given us that extra 1 point needed.
Don't think I agree with that. They are both hit and miss. McAnuff is more in control of his play but drifts out of games much more IMO.
From what we have seen so far, McAnuff is a 1 in 2 player. Far more consistent than Kebe, and offers a fairly regular outlet on the wing.
by winchester_royal » 31 Oct 2009 18:22
Ian Royal But this is pretty much the first time he's turned up second half. Yes he's more consistently good from the start, but as I said, he goes missing more regularly in games.
by Ian Royal » 31 Oct 2009 18:32
winchester_royalIan Royal But this is pretty much the first time he's turned up second half. Yes he's more consistently good from the start, but as I said, he goes missing more regularly in games.
Better, IMO, than being naff for the whole game.
Users browsing this forum: Mr Angry and 301 guests