Barney RuMble

mrsblue said:

Being on loan has IMO got everything to do with it.

Woodrow was never ever going to join the club yet received unbelievable treatment in his copious time on the pitch likewise Barnard.

Now if either player were/did score for fun I would be the first on here praising them from the rooftops.

Click to expand...

Why does being on loan matter ?
Surely if they've been brought to the club for a season or a month , they have every right to be selected on merit with the contracted players.
No point in having loanees if that's not the case.
If you're saying that Loza , Barnard and Woodrow aren't as good as Corr and Eastwood ( the current one not the old one ) , then that becomes a matter of opinion.
I actually think all 3 are potentially better than the other two right now , although Corr does also give us something different and played a big part in our great run earlier.

dannypav said:

Why does being on loan matter ?
Surely if they've been brought to the club for a season or a month , they have every right to be selected on merit with the contracted players.
No point in having loanees if that's not the case.
If you're saying that Loza , Barnard and Woodrow aren't as good as Corr and Eastwood ( the current one not the old one ) , then that becomes a matter of opinion.
I actually think all 3 are potentially better than the other two right now , although Corr does also give us something different and played a big part in our great run earlier.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point,

They do have every right to be selected on MERIT,Woodrow made 25 appearances..Did he deserve 25 games?...Barnard has made 13 appearances does he deserve 13 games?

What I am saying is probably what many think is that Barnard and Eastwood are done!Corr in a two will add something with Loza from the off.

mrsblue said:

Exactly my point,

They do have every right to be selected on MERIT,Woodrow made 25 appearances..Did he deserve 25 games?...Barnard has made 13 appearances does he deserve 13 games?

What I am saying is probably what many think is that Barnard and Eastwood are done!Corr in a two will add something with Loza from the off.

Click to expand...

You're like a dog with a bone about Woodrow! Can't you give it a rest??? We all know you didn't rate him!!! :facepalm:

OldBlueLady said:

You're like a dog with a bone about Woodrow! Can't you give it a rest??? We all know you didn't rate him!!! :facepalm:

Click to expand...

Never mind eh!

Oh yeah your favourite Cauley was binned on Saturday,Make of that what you will!.


You bothered to reply yet failed to look at the content.

mrsblue said:

Never mind eh!

Oh yeah your favourite Cauley was binned on Saturday,Make of that what you will!.


You bothered to reply yet failed to look at the content.

Click to expand...

What are you on about, what content?! Cauley has never been "my" favourite, but I felt he deserved a far fairer crack of the whip than what you gave him.

mrsblue said:

Exactly my point,

They do have every right to be selected on MERIT,Woodrow made 25 appearances..Did he deserve 25 games?...Barnard has made 13 appearances does he deserve 13 games?

What I am saying is probably what many think is that Barnard and Eastwood are done!Corr in a two will add something with Loza from the off.

Click to expand...

Based on merit Loza hasnt done anything in 3 games, whereas Eastwood and Corr have scored in that time (having spent far less minutes on the pitch)

Does that mean we should play Eastwood/Corr up front ?

Jam_Man said:

So why is one better than the other?

Why should we have to adapt tactics to the two players who are performing worse than the other two ?

Why cant we look to make the most of Loza's pace and get a few more crosses in for Corr to attack?

Click to expand...

Because we're massively predictable when we either lump it the big man or lump it in front of the quick lad. Both can be very effective but both are fairly easy to nullify if the opposition has done their homework.

I think onceknownasrab raises a fairly good point. The midfield have it easy when Loza or Corr are in the side. They get the ball and they just knock it forward. If we don't create chances and don't score goals then no one blames them. Lee Barnard and today's Freddy Eastwood require decent service to supply chances.

Beefy said:

Because we're massively predictable when we either lump it the big man or lump it in front of the quick lad. Both can be very effective but both are fairly easy to nullify if the opposition has done their homework.

I think onceknownasrab raises a fairly good point. The midfield have it easy when Loza or Corr are in the side. They get the ball and they just knock it forward. If we don't create chances and don't score goals then no one blames them. Lee Barnard and today's Freddy Eastwood require decent service to supply chances.

Click to expand...

Surely with Eastwood and Barnard up front together we would be even more predicatable if all we can do is play it to their feet.

We are predicable if thats the only tactic we deploy with Corr and Loza but we certainly didnt play like that on Saturday. There was still plenty of passing in the first halfand if anything the fact is we didnt try to make use of Loza's pace at all which was extremely frustrating on Saturday. When Corr came on there was a more direct approach, but thats understandable chasing the game late on.

I certainly dont want to see us playing long ball but with Loza and Corr on the pitch you have the option to play direct at certain points, but yes you could find that with those options midfielders do just send the ball towards them when things arent going well. I dont think we did that on Saturday though until late on.

I cant see how having to play to Eastwood or Barnards feet is any less predictable.

That said I agreed from the outside we certainly do need to provide better service to whoever is playing up front and the midfield are certainly a major reason for the long run we went on without a win, which I said all along when people just wanted to pin it on the strikers every week.

Trying to create goalscoring opportunities isn't being predictable - it's the nature of football. The point is that the midfielders get the ball and they have the choice of either trying to be creative and creating a chance or playing it to Corr's head or in front of Loza and passing up all responsibility to them. England would have the same issue when Crouch or Heskey were upfront - players see the outball and it becomes an easy option for them.

We were probably unlucky that the Oxford game was on TV. Every other manager in the division saw us whack the ball forward and leave Loza to do the rest. Now they're expecting that play and he's looking a much poorer player accordingly. Not his fault of course but again it is the strikers who take the blame instead of the midfielders.

We never really whacked the ball forward for him on Saturday though, that was the problem. He was always coming deep for it and receiving it to feet in places he couldnt use his pace.

As for creating chances surely with Loza and Corr you can go for the same passes youd pick out Barnard for, plus have options for pace/height on top of that. I dont see how that is predictable.

The midfield could certainly resort to the easy option with them in the side, but to be honest Im not even seeing them do that most of the time.

The issue is definitely with how the team play, full backs as well as midfield. I personally see Loza/Corr as our best option but the midfield isnt providing them with enough chances, it would be even harder to provide a front pairing of Barnard/Eastwood.

Jam_Man said:

Based on merit Loza hasnt done anything in 3 games, whereas Eastwood and Corr have scored in that time (having spent far less minutes on the pitch)

Does that mean we should play Eastwood/Corr up front ?

Click to expand...

What are you on about?

If Loza had arrived here having not played this season and then played 13 games for us scoring once from the spot with his performances being at best average to downright poor then yes I would also ask the question why is he constantly being selected.

Loza IMO has saved the season because his display against Oxford was the spark the team required .

Your other comments I can't be bothered to explain it anymore.

OldBlueLady said:

What are you on about, what content?! Cauley has never been "my" favourite, but I felt he deserved a far fairer crack of the whip than what you gave him.

Click to expand...

Fairer crack of the whip I reckon 25 games here is more than fair,Don't you?

Content,

I was making a comparison on how both players are loans and both have plenty of pitch time whilst both do not score many.

mrsblue said:

What are you on about?

If Loza had arrived here having not played this season and then played 13 games for us scoring once from the spot with his performances being at best average to downright poor then yes I would also ask the question why is he constantly being selected.

Loza IMO has saved the season because his display against Oxford was the spark the team required .

Your other comments I can't be bothered to explain it anymore.

Click to expand...

Saved our season ?! One game!?

You have gone on for months about the length of time other strikers have not scored for, then ignore the same arguments with Loza.

Loza was the spark the team required, but he still has to deliver in subsequent games. Where was the spark against Torquay or Wimbledon?

Or does one performance against Oxford mean we saved and are promoted?!

Jam_Man said:

Loza was the spark the team required, but he still has to deliver in subsequent games. Where was the spark against Torquay or Wimbledon?

Or does one performance against Oxford mean we saved and are promoted?!

Click to expand...

I suggest without Loza our season would now be over.

Loza is not a one man show he needs help from his team mates.

mrsblue said:

I suggest without Loza our season would now be over.

Loza is not a one man show he needs help from his team mates.

Click to expand...

There are two sentences that completely contradict each other.

Loza certainy needs help from his team mates, which is what Ive been saying for months about our team, yet you blamed the strikers every game when they dont score. Then when Loza doesnt score for three games you blame the rest of the team.

Sigh....

Why not start Murphy and Straker, with Corr and Loza upfront, got to try something different, hopefully the chances will come!

Southend Elvis said:

Why not start Murphy and Straker, with Corr and Loza upfront, got to try something different, hopefully the chances will come!

Click to expand...

I thought Murphy and Hurst with Corr and Loza upfront.

Straker lacks the final pass a lot of the time.

Jam_Man said:

There are two sentences that completely contradict each other.

Loza certainy needs help from his team mates, which is what Ive been saying for months about our team, yet you blamed the strikers every game when they dont score. Then when Loza doesnt score for three games you blame the rest of the team.

Sigh....

Click to expand...

Saturday the midfield was ordinary and Phil should tell Loza to stay up the pitch instead of dropping off.

mrsblue said:

I suggest without Loza our season would now be over.

Loza is not a one man show he needs help from his team mates.

Click to expand...

Forgive my rather stark comment , but that is total rubbish !

dannypav said:

Forgive my rather stark comment , but that is total rubbish !

Click to expand...

Do you think Eastwood and Barnard would have done well against Oxford?
Would we have won the penalty?
Name any other striker at the club who is capable of doing what Loza did.

Those 3 points were massive which IMO lifted the team to win another 2 games,Those nine points are pure gold.

Before Loza 13 games without victory,He joins and 3 wins from 4.