Kevin Davies

Too many variables to make a straightforward case either way. It could be argued:
* BKD is hungrier now he isn't automatically selected so we should treat him mean to keep him keen
* Ngog made Alonso's goal (still trying to get over Alonso scoring) and when we have other players around him he has the touch to be useful
* If we're playing 442 we still haven't tried all the permutations up front and we don't know the best combo as yet
* I we play 451 or 4141 the 1 has to be Ngog for his work rate in chasing lost causes - although Sordell might be able to do that
...it goes on.
But I think it comes down to something far simpler. Basically we have phases of the game when OC is willing to commit extra bodies forward. When we have midfielders joining the attack we look threatening and whichever strikers are on the park will have a chance of scoring. At the same time, this approach is our Achilles heel. We don't have the pace or quality at the back to deal with counterattacks. Yesterday for instance, having scraped through the first half without conceding (and having everyone behind the ball) we opened up for the first 20 minutes of the second half and looked the likelier to score - and sure enough the first time Wolves had some decent possession they walked through us and scored. We need holding/screening midfielders to protect our weak defence - which means we can't commit too many players forward (without risk) and that's what gives us our dilemma with the strikers who need lots of support. So OC has a simple choice to make: play 1 up front and be more secure at the back but offer little threat or commit players. Whoever is selected as striker has no choice but to work their nuts off in the hope that they'll get support and that will be the case until either we find a scoring partnership to justify a 442 or we get a skilled and pacy back 4 that doesn't need shielding.
Wigan seem to have found a way around this problem by playing 3 CBs and going narrow when the wingbacks - who have licence to attack - are upfield. Effectively its a 532 when they don't have possession and a 343 or 334 when they do depending on how many midfielders are also pushed on. Perhaps we should try it?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:lol just face it nat, you're just looking for something to moan about.

if we win 3-0 you want it to be 4-0.

I agree about improving the team but in a relegation scrap with limited games, chopping and changing a winning team is just silly IMO.

and guess what if he did change the team and we lost, you'd be the first on here whining that he did.

We have won the games despite Ngog, not because of him. We paid £4m for this mug to hit the bar when it was easier to score. I'm all for giving players a chance, but I bet Sordell would have 8 goals if he'd been given the game time that Ngog has.

rubbish I'm afraid, Ngog has played a big part in our wins, his tireless work chasing balls and his good hold up play (not his natural game) have been very important.

everything else is a what if.

wanderlust wrote:
* Ngog made Alonso's goal (still trying to get over Alonso scoring) and when we have other players around him he has the touch to be useful

Ngog created Alonso's goal because he missed a sitter himself. It's time to stop making excuses for this overpaid ponce and admit Liverpool sold us a 'Carroll'.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

rubbish I'm afraid, Ngog has played a big part in our wins, his tireless work chasing balls and his good hold up play (not his natural game) have been very important.

everything else is a what if.

I could run around for 90 minutes putting in lots of effort, and I'm guessing so could Sordell. But he's likely to chip in with a few goals (as am I).

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

rubbish I'm afraid, Ngog has played a big part in our wins, his tireless work chasing balls and his good hold up play (not his natural game) have been very important.

everything else is a what if.

I could run around for 90 minutes putting in lots of effort, and I'm guessing so could Sordell. But he's likely to chip in with a few goals (as am I).

Maybe, but it's a what if, he might be absolutely crap, which you would be the first to point out after 3 minutes and his first missed sitter.

At the moment the team is winning and Ngog is a part of it. Unless he starts to hurt us, thats the way it should stay.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Maybe, but it's a what if, he might be absolutely crap, which you would be the first to point out after 3 minutes and his first missed sitter.

At the moment the team is winning and Ngog is a part of it. Unless he starts to hurt us, thats the way it should stay.

You really are Mr Cautious. Do you iron your underpants?

It's called common sense. (not ironing my pants before you say that)

I take it you do iron your underpants.

Why would you want to know that?

I agree with a lot of wanderlust's comments but would be reluctant to go with 3 CBs if one of them was Knight. Ream/Wheater/Ricketts might work but I can't really see Coyle taking this kind of gamble.

If we play 442 against Fulham I would prefer to start with Sordell and Ngog and have both Klasnic and Davies on the bench as both of them seem to be impact subs rather than 90 minute players unfortunately.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Why would you want to know that?

There are two types of people in the world:

1) Those that iron their underpants/knickers

2) Those that throw caution to the wind and don't

I'm just interested to know which camp you fall into.

It sort of depends how lazy I'm being when i get my laundry dry.

I have mine starched and pressed. Mmmm, I love 'em !

You've got to love warm underpants.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
* Ngog made Alonso's goal (still trying to get over Alonso scoring) and when we have other players around him he has the touch to be useful

Ngog created Alonso's goal because he missed a sitter himself. It's time to stop making excuses for this overpaid ponce and admit Liverpool sold us a 'Carroll'.

It could be argued was the context.

I don't see why anybody should iron their underpants. There is no benefit. You want your underpants and contents to be rebellious and free.

With regards to Kevin Davies, he's going to have to do a lot more off the bench to justify a start I am afraid. It's all well and good looking at Ngog's scoring record, but if you compare it to Kevin Davies' scoring record over the course of his tenure as a first teamer, the ratio of goals to games will not be much different, and Davies took the penalties for years.

Up until around 18 months ago anyone suggesting Davies should be dropped because he doesn't score enough goals would actually have been laughed at.

Unfortunately Ngog does a similar job but he doesn't have the same service Davies got in his prime and he doesn't have the same calibre of players feeding off his scraps, so he is less effective at the moment.

Although we do need goals and results over the next 10 games, the good news is that Ngog is just turned 23, so if we do go down and have to sell, he has a decent resale value, unlike your typical Allardyce or Megson signing up front. Same with Sordell.

largehat wrote:

With regards to Kevin Davies, he's going to have to do a lot more off the bench to justify a start I am afraid. It's all well and good looking at Ngog's scoring record, but if you compare it to Kevin Davies' scoring record over the course of his tenure as a first teamer, the ratio of goals to games will not be much different, and Davies took the penalties for years.

So we should just ignore current form? Davies is on fire by his standards, 2 in 2. If Sordell had the same record there would be a Downing Street petition to make sure he played.

You can't count half an hour of football spaced across 2 appearances as good form after such a terrible run in the first half of the season. If he wants to earn his place on form, stick him in the reserves and see how he gets on. He's not an option over 90 minutes for me. This is just my personal opinion. No flames, please.

largehat wrote:You can't count half an hour of football spaced across 2 appearances as good form after such a terrible run in the first half of the season.

Of course you can. He was dropped, trained hard and now is back to his best. 2 in 2 proves that.

How can you seriously think he is back to his best after two late sub appearances? At his best, he bullied every centre half in the country and was unplayable.

His first goal was a tap-in which he shinned in from close range, and did you see the attempted challenge by Roger Johnson for his second goal? Wolves' defence had collapsed. He's not been playing enough for either first team or reserves, he might not even be match fit, never mind back to his best.

Think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, Natara.