Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: GazLaz on February 14, 2025, 05:24:39 pm
-
We signed a striker to play on the wing, he’s generally looked like a fish out of water apart from the good goal he scored when he ran in behind centrally.
Is there any chance that Grant will try him centrally? His physicality, mobility and pace may be what we need in that position.
-
Unless Joe and Billy are injured I can’t see it Gaz, Grant seems very predictable, unless we are chasing a game then who knows !
-
Weren't there any specialist wide players available?
Round pegs and all that.
-
I have to admit I’m rather puzzled about Street.
I put my doubts aside when he did well to take that goal, but apart from that I haven’t seen much from him.
He does look more like a central striker to me than a winger, so I remain a little uncertain about him and his role.
Confused of North Yorkshire.
-
He's there for a plan b route one largely isn't he, just like mccammon was under SOD. It's clearly an attempt to get around the teams that sit back where we've struggled this season.
-
I liked our shape v Palace in the 1st half we basically went 442 but with Moly more central. IMO Street and Ironside up top together would be too much for a lot of teams in L2. Moly does his best work out wide so keep him there.
Street looks handy in size and pace and we know Joe will take most things with his back to goal. So surely it’s worth a go.
We seem to always only want 1 up top which I guess is so we have numbers in midfield but in L2 teams aren’t good enough to really take advantage of the spare man. Better we just be a handful up top and play forward a bit quicker imo.
-
He's there for a plan b route one largely isn't he, just like mccammon was under SOD. It's clearly an attempt to get around the teams that sit back where we've struggled this season.
That’s a good shout bfyp.
He’s clearly capable of winning balls put to him in the air & if he took up that wide McCammon role then there’s balls to be headed onto forward players directly from TSL’s kicking accuracy.
It’s another/different formation for Grant to consider using.
-
I liked our shape v Palace in the 1st half we basically went 442 but with Moly more central. IMO Street and Ironside up top together would be too much for a lot of teams in L2. Moly does his best work out wide so keep him there.
Street looks handy in size and pace and we know Joe will take most things with his back to goal. So surely it’s worth a go.
We seem to always only want 1 up top which I guess is so we have numbers in midfield but in L2 teams aren’t good enough to really take advantage of the spare man. Better we just be a handful up top and play forward a bit quicker imo.
I said the same to our old boy as we came out but to me they were pushing that high it was like 4 2 4
Really liked it and IMO it would work in this league where midfield is constantly bypassed
-
Bringing in Ennis and Street to play out of position at left wing and letting go of Hurst was a strange one.
-
It's Ennis who i don't see has added anything to our starting 11. Better than Yeboah for sure but not better than Gibson
-
Hurst in his first game for QP provided a complete contrast to the gerrup’em debut from Street .He floated around following the ball like a voyeur but showed little intent of fighting to get it .
-
We signed a striker to play on the wing, he’s generally looked like a fish out of water apart from the good goal he scored when he ran in behind centrally.
Is there any chance that Grant will try him centrally? His physicality, mobility and pace may be what we need in that position.
Think he could do some damage centrally, very raw but looks a handful
-
We signed a striker to play on the wing, he’s generally looked like a fish out of water apart from the good goal he scored when he ran in behind centrally.
Is there any chance that Grant will try him centrally? His physicality, mobility and pace may be what we need in that position.
Think he could do some damage centrally, very raw but looks a handful
Yeah, my question was a bite of a passive aggressive rhetorical one. I really meant “what the f**k are you thinking playing him wide when he’s obviously more suited centrally and probably exactly what we are missing.”
-
We need to ditch playing down both wings and get bodies more central, moles has been at his best when playing more central down the channels.
Consistently we are being overrun in midfield with the opposition coming straight through us.
-
Gaz I get where you're coming from , just find it bizarre that it's been stated he'd never played as a winger or wide forward but yet we had to do some kind of presentation to Lincolns head/director of football? Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure that's what I've read previously?!
-
Just shows what can happen when you actually put the ball in the box instead of fannying about outside it.
-
We need to ditch playing down both wings and get bodies more central, moles has been at his best when playing more central down the channels.
Consistently we are being overrun in midfield with the opposition coming straight through us.
I find it bizarre playing a no 10 in Clifton who's got limited footballing ability and then playing Crew as a holding midfielder who seems our most likely player capable of unlocking a defence.
-
It's simple. If Joe and Billy aren't doing it......then Street deserves a shot in the starting 11 up front.
Personally I think our formation is our downfall. We should try 2 up from.
-
We need to ditch playing down both wings and get bodies more central, moles has been at his best when playing more central down the channels.
Consistently we are being overrun in midfield with the opposition coming straight through us.
I find it bizarre playing a no 10 in Clifton who's got limited footballing ability and then playing Crew as a holding midfielder who seems our most likely player capable of unlocking a defence.
Clifton was always best at left midfield for us getting up and down , chipping in with goals and generally not always getting involved in too much build up play as when he was used centrally his lack of technical ability was mostly badly exposed ; I don't think i ever saw him play behind a striker since he was a kid so it must be a relatively new position for him.
-
Street scored with his shoulder today admittedly but they all count.
-
Not seen any replays GL, but from my view behind goal, he headed the ball.
-
He had a good game today when he came on. Lots of determination, upset their defenders quite a bit, won a few headers and showed a lot of fight to try and get us back in it.
-
Street played well today and apart from Bailey was the only one at it today.
-
It's simple. If Joe and Billy aren't doing it......then Street deserves a shot in the starting 11 up front.
Personally I think our formation is our downfall. We should try 2 up from.
I would play Street alongside Ironside.
-
I disagree that he has looked like a fish out of water. I think in general he’s done well. I’d like to see him up top before Joe and billy tbh. I’m not sure we go up without moly playing unbelievable well or a change of formation.
If we don’t go up our team could look very different next season
-
I thought Street did well today and offered more than Ironside. Street has pace to worry defenders, and he tries to find space rather than grapple with defenders as Ironside tends to do.
There needs to be a variety of ways we attack teams, both wide and central. What we saw in the first 15 mins was acceptable and should have been a platform to build and keep doing the basic things well. Collectively though, we stopped, we got slack, the gaps got bigger and we gift away the initiative far too easily. We don't seem to be able to recognise it and do something about it.
There appears to be little communication on the pitch, players not supporting each other, running away from the ball, rather than taking responsibility to want it, as if it's a bomb about to detonate. Mistakes just then compound.
It's hard to blame individuals because everyone contributed to the decline in performance level after those first 15 minutes.
At least McCann said it as it was but the big question, again, is how he gets the players to respond and grab the opportunity to achieve something.
-
I thought Street did well today and offered more than Ironside. Street has pace to worry defenders, and he tries to find space rather than grapple with defenders as Ironside tends to do.
There needs to be a variety of ways we attack teams, both wide and central. What we saw in the first 15 mins was acceptable and should have been a platform to build and keep doing the basic things well. Collectively though, we stopped, we got slack, the gaps got bigger and we gift away the initiative far too easily. We don't seem to be able to recognise it and do something about it.
There appears to be little communication on the pitch, players not supporting each other, running away from the ball, rather than taking responsibility to want it, as if it's a bomb about to detonate. Mistakes just then compound.
It's hard to blame individuals because everyone contributed to the decline in performance level after those first 15 minutes.
At least McCann said it as it was but the big question, again, is how he gets the players to respond and grab the opportunity to achieve something.
Really missing a vocal leader out on that pitch, we just don't have enough animal in the side to win games like this.
just what is it with a great many manager today, why are they so afraid to have an experienced old head who knows his mind and will speak up?
Its almost like they feel intimidated to have a senior player who's vocal and opinionated and will rally the side.
How would they deal with a Corporal Jones type leader ?
-
Not seen any replays GL, but from my view behind goal, he headed the ball.
Definitely looked to me that he headed it. Just watch the replay.
-
I thought Street did well today and offered more than Ironside. Street has pace to worry defenders, and he tries to find space rather than grapple with defenders as Ironside tends to do.
There needs to be a variety of ways we attack teams, both wide and central. What we saw in the first 15 mins was acceptable and should have been a platform to build and keep doing the basic things well. Collectively though, we stopped, we got slack, the gaps got bigger and we gift away the initiative far too easily. We don't seem to be able to recognise it and do something about it.
There appears to be little communication on the pitch, players not supporting each other, running away from the ball, rather than taking responsibility to want it, as if it's a bomb about to detonate. Mistakes just then compound.
It's hard to blame individuals because everyone contributed to the decline in performance level after those first 15 minutes.
At least McCann said it as it was but the big question, again, is how he gets the players to respond and grab the opportunity to achieve something.
Really missing a vocal leader out on that pitch, we just don't have enough animal in the side to win games like this.
just what is it with a great many manager today, why are they so afraid to have an experienced old head who knows his mind and will speak up?
Its almost like they feel intimidated to have a senior player who's vocal and opinionated and will rally the side.
How would they deal with a Corporal Jones type leader ?
We are missing Woods leadership that's for sure, talks players around him through the game. Like you say a quality that we're definitely missing at present and almost understated.
-
The left side of our attack is not good enough we have no balance
In the run last season Maxwell was a very good overlapping defender but due to injuries this season he’s just not the same player. Our left side came to life when we had Adelakun infront of Maxwell. Neither Hurst who was second string last season and hasn’t improved or Gibson have shown the consistency we need. Grant has got to get the left side right or we won’t achieve promotion again this season
-
It's simple. If Joe and Billy aren't doing it......then Street deserves a shot in the starting 11 up front.
Personally I think our formation is our downfall. We should try 2 up from.
Totally agree.
-
It's simple. If Joe and Billy aren't doing it......then Street deserves a shot in the starting 11 up front.
Personally I think our formation is our downfall. We should try 2 up from.
Street has to play, he is fresh with not having played that many minutes this season. Particularly if we're going to play Gibson and 433, because Street's the only one with enough mobility to deal with being more isolated. Gibson wants the ball to feet in wide and deep positions, no good for Ironside.
Ironside was great against MK because he had pace either side of him and wingers who played more like strikers (Ennis, Mols). Just like he was great in the second half of last season with Haks and Mols. He drops deep becuase he's slow but he looks afer the ball very well. People forgetting he got 20 league goals last year too. Although I'm not sure why he's struggling to win headers all of a sudden - fitness?
It's all about getting the right combinations. Another forward option like Street should have been added in the summer instead of Sharp. Ellis Harrison wasn't getting games at MK dons for example. Yes some will say Billy's scored 8 league goals, but I would say at the expense of our total goal output and team cohesion.
-
We signed a striker to play on the wing, he’s generally looked like a fish out of water apart from the good goal he scored when he ran in behind centrally.
Is there any chance that Grant will try him centrally? His physicality, mobility and pace may be what we need in that position.
Maybe Grant read this post. Took 3 minutes to be proven right as well.
-
He looks superb, a real handful but mobile too.
-
We signed a striker to play on the wing, he’s generally looked like a fish out of water apart from the good goal he scored when he ran in behind centrally.
Is there any chance that Grant will try him centrally? His physicality, mobility and pace may be what we need in that position.
Maybe Grant read this post. Took 3 minutes to be proven right as well.
How’s it taken 9 games for him to start him there? Obvious he wasn’t a winger after seeing him for half an hour.
-
We were always going to play more high balls on this pitch so it seems the logical match to try him down the middle.
-
Street - take a bow lad ! That was a proper centre forwards performance !
-
Reminds me a bit of the last striker to wear the 9 shirt for us. Bit rough around the edges and not the most clinical, but gives us something different with his movement and turn of pace.
-
He will be pissed off he didn't get the match ball, should probably have had three tonight.
-
He will be pissed off he didn't get the match ball, should probably have had three tonight.
There’s no probably about it he should have had three goals. His pace made the difference especially on the floor on a better pitch.
-
He will be pissed off he didn't get the match ball, should probably have had three tonight.
There’s no probably about it he should have had three goals. His pace made the difference especially on the floor on a better pitch.
He was really good but without a doubt he should have squared the ball for Gibbo to tap in when he hit the post from that narrow angle.
-
He was very good and gave us a different dimension we haven’t had for some time. However, he should’ve had 4 tonight. Thankfully it didn’t cost us. The signs from him are good.
-
He will be pissed off he didn't get the match ball, should probably have had three tonight.
There’s no probably about it he should have had three goals. His pace made the difference especially on the floor on a better pitch.
He was really good but without a doubt he should have squared the ball for Gibbo to tap in when he hit the post from that narrow angle.
But Gibson should have scored great skill but then puts over the bar
-
He will be pissed off he didn't get the match ball, should probably have had three tonight.
There’s no probably about it he should have had three goals. His pace made the difference especially on the floor on a better pitch.
He was really good but without a doubt he should have squared the ball for Gibbo to tap in when he hit the post from that narrow angle.
But Gibson should have scored great skill but then puts over the bar
Agreed, I was furious when he skied that shot, but it doesn’t change what Street should have done.
-
How the hell wasn’t he getting any game time at Lincoln?! 51 minutes in half a season for them
-
Showed more attacking threat in the first 5 minutes than either sharp or Ironside. I know they both bring different qualities and we'll likely need them all in the run in but he deserves more starts in that position for me
-
He will be pissed off he didn't get the match ball, should probably have had three tonight.
There’s no probably about it he should have had three goals. His pace made the difference especially on the floor on a better pitch.
He was really good but without a doubt he should have squared the ball for Gibbo to tap in when he hit the post from that narrow angle.
Disagree, it wasn't that much of a narrow angle. Should have been a goal.
-
He will be pissed off he didn't get the match ball, should probably have had three tonight.
There’s no probably about it he should have had three goals. His pace made the difference especially on the floor on a better pitch.
Hit their keeper in the face, but he still should have squared it to Gibson.
I guess as a loanee you’re perhaps more likely to increase your kudos by netting another goal rather than playing the ball to a ‘teammate’ you’re never likely to see again come May.
Or is that me being unfair?
He was really good but without a doubt he should have squared the ball for Gibbo to tap in when he hit the post from that narrow angle.
Disagree, it wasn't that much of a narrow angle. Should have been a goal.
-
He will be pissed off he didn't get the match ball, should probably have had three tonight.
There’s no probably about it he should have had three goals. His pace made the difference especially on the floor on a better pitch.
He was really good but without a doubt he should have squared the ball for Gibbo to tap in when he hit the post from that narrow angle.
Disagree, it wasn't that much of a narrow angle. Should have been a goal.
And I disagree with you in that the square ball was the better option.
-
He will be pissed off he didn't get the match ball, should probably have had three tonight.
There’s no probably about it he should have had three goals. His pace made the difference especially on the floor on a better pitch.
He was really good but without a doubt he should have squared the ball for Gibbo to tap in when he hit the post from that narrow angle.
Disagree, it wasn't that much of a narrow angle. Should have been a goal.
And I disagree with you in that the square ball was the better option.
No issues there pal, we don't all have to agree on everything.
For me I want a greedy striker, who wanta goals. Just an opinion.
My point was it wasn't that narrow, for me the question was on his finishing not if he should pass.
-
He will be pissed off he didn't get the match ball, should probably have had three tonight.
There’s no probably about it he should have had three goals. His pace made the difference especially on the floor on a better pitch.
He was really good but without a doubt he should have squared the ball for Gibbo to tap in when he hit the post from that narrow angle.
Disagree, it wasn't that much of a narrow angle. Should have been a goal.
And I disagree with you in that the square ball was the better option.
No issues there pal, we don't all have to agree on everything.
For me I want a greedy striker, who wanta goals. Just an opinion.
My point was it wasn't that narrow, for me the question was on his finishing not if he should pass.
It’s football, not everyone see it the same way.
It’s also a team game and a second goal there finishes the game.
I played up front all my life, and still do, and as much as I like scoring I would have squared that ball every time.
-
He will be pissed off he didn't get the match ball, should probably have had three tonight.
There’s no probably about it he should have had three goals. His pace made the difference especially on the floor on a better pitch.
He was really good but without a doubt he should have squared the ball for Gibbo to tap in when he hit the post from that narrow angle.
Disagree, it wasn't that much of a narrow angle. Should have been a goal.
And I disagree with you in that the square ball was the better option.
No issues there pal, we don't all have to agree on everything.
For me I want a greedy striker, who wanta goals. Just an opinion.
My point was it wasn't that narrow, for me the question was on his finishing not if he should pass.
It’s football, not everyone see it the same way.
It’s also a team game and a second goal there finishes the game.
I played up front all my life, and still do, and as much as I like scoring I would have squared that ball every time.
Yep, no issues with the above mate, it's a team game.
But with my rose tinted glasses of my days of playing I would have scored :lol:
-
Not seen any replays GL, but from my view behind goal, he headed the ball.
Confirmed tonight he scored with his shoulder. They all count. He was a real handful tonight. He’s never going to be clinical but he offers what we have been missing up top with his running in behind.
-
The fact he should have had 3 or 4 goals is refreshing. There's some games the other 2 haven't gave themselves a sniff. First choice now for me
-
I was listening to not the top 20 podcast and they mentioned the fact that Rob Street in his career has never really played for good attacking teams doing well. This could explain his previous poor goal return, hopefully not poor finishing.
I think Grant said he was “probably too good for the league” while some looking for that “statement signing” were underwhelmed. He could be right though, as you don’t get many league 2 strikers with his size, mobility and ability. Can only think of Jatta at Notts who has it all.
-
I was listening to not the top 20 podcast and they mentioned the fact that Rob Street in his career has never really played for good attacking teams doing well. This could explain his previous poor goal return, hopefully not poor finishing.
I think Grant said he was “probably too good for the league” while some looking for that “statement signing” were underwhelmed. He could be right though, as you don’t get many league 2 strikers with his size, mobility and ability. Can only think of Jatta at Notts who has it all.
I didn’t mind the signing at the time as he fitted the profile of player we needed. Then Grant opted to play him wide…
-
I was listening to not the top 20 podcast and they mentioned the fact that Rob Street in his career has never really played for good attacking teams doing well. This could explain his previous poor goal return, hopefully not poor finishing.
I think Grant said he was “probably too good for the league” while some looking for that “statement signing” were underwhelmed. He could be right though, as you don’t get many league 2 strikers with his size, mobility and ability. Can only think of Jatta at Notts who has it all.
I didn’t mind the signing at the time as he fitted the profile of player we needed. Then Grant opted to play him wide…
I agree. Yeah my point was I think people want to sign strikers with proven goal scoring records, but it’s more important to look at the correct profile of centre forward to help the team as a whole.
Gillingham signed players based on how many goals they scored last year and look at them!