Wake up people

[TravellingBlue]

Says we played 4 - 3 - 3 ?

It might have been 4 3 3 but Screech was hugging the left hand side and I think it was Zilit? the right hand side - it looked fine for the first 25 minutes, indeed both Grant and Pato should have scored in that time with balls in from the wings but as the match went on it got gradually worse!

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Ah yes, because if we learnt anything from the last few years it's signing forward is the solution to every problem. Particularly big forwards.

Conceding goals because your centre-half combination is poor? Sign another forward!

Not scoring any goals because no-one in central midfield can pass a ball? Sign another forward!

No-one can put in a good cross? Sign another forward!

The reason is usually because a true goalscorer is vital to promotion or safety.
Without Eastwood we would not have got promotion and not have won the league. Without Barney we went from mid table safety to second from bottom and relegation.

Tilly and Brush were very hit and miss with strikers as we know, but they certainly knew the importance of a regular goalscorer.

 

[Beefy]

Eastwood was a one off. He wasn't a goalscorer - he was just a brilliant footballer playing way below his level. We're not going to see a player like that again any time soon.

Plenty of teams get promoted without a 20 goal striker and plenty of teams don't get promoted despite having one. You talk about Lee Barnard (an undoubtedly good goalscorer) but in his time here we had both Hooper and MacDonald in the squad too, who may have gone on to score as many, or more, goals if given that same chance in that same system.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Eastwood was a one off. He wasn't a goalscorer - he was just a brilliant footballer playing way below his level. We're not going to see a player like that again any time soon.

Plenty of teams get promoted without a 20 goal striker and plenty of teams don't get promoted despite having one. You talk about Lee Barnard (an undoubtedly good goalscorer) but in his time here we had both Hooper and MacDonald in the squad too, who may have gone on to score as many, or more, goals if given that same chance in that same system.

How can you say Eastwood wasn't a goalscorer?. It wasn't the system either, as most of his goals he created for himself, and came from around the edge of the penalty box.
Hooper and MacDonald are great finishers inside the box. The club's they moved too sussed this out immediately, and got the best from them. We played them too deep, expecting them to do a Freddy. They hardly ventured into the penalty box when playing for Southend, so they struggled to score.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Eastwood was a one off. He wasn't a goalscorer - he was just a brilliant footballer playing way below his level. We're not going to see a player like that again any time soon.

Really? He's hardly set the world alight at Wolves & Coventry and his very brief International career.

 

[Grayson]

Really? He's hardly set the world alight at Wolves & Coventry and his very brief International career.

4 goals in 10 games for a pile of **** like Wales is pretty good, to be fair. I remember watching him on debut in a friendly away to Bulgaria and he scored a goal just like he used to score for us in a 1-0 win.

 

[Beefy]

How can you say Eastwood wasn't a goalscorer?. It wasn't the system either, as most of his goals he created for himself, and came from around the edge of the penalty box.

You've just explained what I mean by saying that he wasn't a goalscorer. He scored goals because he'd get the ball and make a goal happen rather than because he was adept at finding space in the box and getting on the end of things. He was a brilliant player playing at least two divisions below his ability.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Really? He's hardly set the world alight at Wolves & Coventry and his very brief International career.

Coventry are clueless. They have converted him into a midfielder. As he isn't doing the graft of a midfielder, and never will, he is now labeled as very lazy and a non-trier.
As such, he is not a regular in the starting line up.
It needs someone to put him back as a main striker to resurrect his career. He doesn't have to work so hard up front and he would soon start knocking them in again, as he is a terrific striker.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Who got the Coventry job after Coleman's dismissal anyway? Remind me...

 

[Beefy]

Coventry are clueless. They have converted him into a midfielder. As he isn't doing the graft of a midfielder, and never will, he is now labeled as very lazy and a non-trier.
As such, he is not a regular in the starting line up.
It needs someone to put him back as a main striker to resurrect his career. He doesn't have to work so hard up front and he would soon start knocking them in again, as he is a terrific striker.

I think he'll be the main man at Coventry this season. He's the senior striker on the books and Boothroyd singled him out when he took the job as someone that he is looking forward to working with. He's scored a couple in preseason too.

I don't think he's been labelled as 'lazy' there. Quite the opposite. From keeping tabs on their papers and speaking to a few of their fans it sounds like he's quite popular because of his work for the team.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The reason is usually because a true goalscorer is vital to promotion or safety.
Without Eastwood we would not have got promotion and not have won the league. Without Barney we went from mid table safety to second from bottom and relegation.

Tilly and Brush were very hit and miss with strikers as we know, but they certainly knew the importance of a regular goalscorer.

A good team makes a forward a goalscorer, it's not a goalscoring forward who makes a poor team good.

FWIW, we actually scored more goals and won more games when we were supposedly struggling to find a "goalscorer" to replace Eastwood than when we had Barnard banging them in for fun.

Akinfenwa scored 39 goals in 88 appearances for Northampton. That's not too shabby.

He's signed for Gillingham incidentally. Not quite sure how they've managed that with his wage demands.

It's not bad at all, but his main attribute is his hold up play. He's a big forward, who happens to score at a decent rate.



ps What about Scott Spencer, I thought you lot thought he was the second coming and we had to sign him etc etc

 

[manor15]

Who got the Coventry job after Coleman's dismissal anyway? Remind me...

Aidy Boothroyd from the scum, so that won't be Freddy's style of play either

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Aidy Boothroyd from the scum, so that won't be Freddy's style of play either

I was hoping one of our 6 fingered, webbed-toed friends from up the A12 would find that :net:

 

[Jam_Man]

A good team makes a forward a goalscorer, it's not a goalscoring forward who makes a poor team good.

FWIW, we actually scored more goals and won more games when we were supposedly struggling to find a "goalscorer" to replace Eastwood than when we had Barnard banging them in for fun.



It's not bad at all, but his main attribute is his hold up play. He's a big forward, who happens to score at a decent rate.



ps What about Scott Spencer, I thought you lot thought he was the second coming and we had to sign him etc etc

The thing with Freddy was he didnt need us to create chances for him, most of his goals were out of nothing from 20 yards away so he actually made the team look more successful.

With other strikers they wont score unless the team is playing well enough to create chances, Eastwood would win games we would have lost or drawn by a bit of solo magic.

As for Spencer I think he could be a very good player for us and should be given a good run in the team and not judged just yet.

 

[WESTY_SUFC]

A good team makes a forward a goalscorer

Thats your opinion but i would have a bet that over 90% of managers would strongly disagree.

After watching Barnard last year you should know that taking a goalscorer out of the team causes major problems.

Why are goalscorers paid the most amount of money compared to the rest of the team?

 

[EastStandBlue]

Thats your opinion but i would have a bet that over 90% of managers would strongly disagree.

After watching Barnard last year you should know that taking a goalscorer out of the team causes major problems.

Why are goalscorers paid the most amount of money compared to the rest of the team?

How would you explain Charlie MacDonald and Billy Paynter's distinct lack of goals for us then? Regular, run of the mill lower league strikers are nothing without service. Eastwood could create something for himself out of nothing, but he was a once in a lifetime phenomenon for a club of our stature.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

A good team makes a forward a goalscorer, it's not a goalscoring forward who makes a poor team good.

FWIW, we actually scored more goals and won more games when we were supposedly struggling to find a "goalscorer" to replace Eastwood than when we had Barnard banging them in for fun.

That's because we were scoring from all over the team. We had Gower, Macca ,Bailey ,Barrett ,P.Clarke , Leon Clarke, Hammell and Robson-Kanu all scoring. So yes, a goalscorer wasn't so important.
But last season, we wasn't scoring from all area's. As soon as our only goalscorer went, we was in big trouble. So in that case, a regular goalscorer was vital.

I admit to not seeing any of the friendlies, but have read all the reports on here, and the reports in the papers. I know enough to read into it that the defenders and midfield may struggle for goals. Both wingers will chip in with a few each I think. The current forwards I am not convinced about. So with this current crop of players, and with promotion not now impossible, then I personally think we need a goalscorer.

 

[Beefy]

Thats your opinion but i would have a bet that over 90% of managers would strongly disagree.

After watching Barnard last year you should know that taking a goalscorer out of the team causes major problems.

Why are goalscorers paid the most amount of money compared to the rest of the team?

The removal of Barnard is a massively-overstated reason behind our relegation. I've just checked Soccerbase and the facts bare out my suspecion - prior to his sale we had scored 32 goals in 29 games or 1.10 goals per game. After his sale we scored 22 goals in 21 games or 1.05 goals per game. A drop but not one which should have caused us to fall ten places.

Selling Barnard didn't help but it would rank below several other factors in the post-mortem of our relegation, IMO.

 

[Blueshrimper]

I remember Barnard scoring quite a few match winning goals though. After he left we only seemed to score when we were 2-0 down.

 

[Beefy]

Would that not suggest that the problem was that we were going 2-0 down?