O'Grady

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

L

Lightsoot

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
653
Reaction score
2,103
Perhaps the only positive from today. Thought big Chris was excellent. Good hold up play, strength, chased lost causes, unselfish and a cool finish for his goal.

Think he and McNulty would be a good pairing, if Clough ever decides to play them together from the start.

Scougall was also generally brighter than he has been but still some way from showing last season's initial promise.
 

Thought O'Grady played well too. Very assured first touch and held the ball well... Not by backing into his defender as we've become accustomed in the last 5-10 years, but by moving and dropping off to receive the ball and stealing a few yards (and seconds) off his marker. Very refreshing to see the give and go from him. Could be the striker that we need.

Took his goal well though I'm guessing he was 5 yards offside
 
Agree O'Grady was the one positive today. His hold up play is excellent and it was a good finish for his goal. I think he needs to get in the box more though.

Disagree about Scougall. I thought he was very poor again. He looks a shadow the player we saw last season.

Overall very disappointing yet again. The game could have gone ether way at the end. Not good enough.
 
Worth going today if just for Ogradys performance I reckon a fully fit Mcnulty with him up top will make a decent partnership.
What is worrying is the little amount of chances we are creating despite having the lions share of posestion
 
Lightsoot said:
Perhaps the only positive from today. Thought big Chris was excellent. Good hold up play, strength, chased lost causes, unselfish and a cool finish for his goal.

Think he and McNulty would be a good pairing, if Clough ever decides to play them together from the start.

Scougall was also generally brighter than he has been but still some way from showing last season's initial promise.
Click to expand...

Agree totally about COG - although he was at least 1 yard offside, perhaps 2 - still great finish which is all you can ask.

Not convinced about Scoogs - busy but unproductive, but my main gripe is Scoogs and Baxter should NEVER play in midfield together. When we went to 4-4-2 in the second half we just over run in midfield by a very average (AGAIN) away team. For all the exponents of us playing 4-4-2 - just forget it, we don't have the players - UNLESS it's Reed and Flo, but that isn't going to happen.

UTB
 
Aye, O'Grady was very good, put a real shift in but was clever with it, and on top of that very cool for his goal.

I thought Scougall was very poor yet again though. He looks like he's a kid playing with his much older brother and his mates. He got ragdolled for their equaliser.
 
Guesty said:
Aye, O'Grady was very good, put a real shift in but was clever with it, and on top of that very cool for his goal.

I thought Scougall was very poor yet again though. He looks like he's a kid playing with his much older brother and his mates. He got ragdolled for their equaliser.
Click to expand...
yep, all the pace is a smokescreen, because the only delivery is sideways to a winger. I don't know if that's hos or he managers fault, but given that's what they s do it must be Clough.

UTB
 
boo radley said:
Notice how O'Grady ran the channels well. He was fantastic in all areas. The channel running, that is what McNulty has only just started to do.
Scougall poor again. We'd have won today had Flynn not had to go off.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, it has been mentioned before but why didn't we put Sgt Bash at right back and young Harry at CB, seemed very bizarre. It's all a bit frustrating at the moment but I'm sure those of you that went to the Soton game saw a number of walking wounded by the end of it, and thus the changes today. Clough gets a lot of stick for tinkering with the line ups but, I can't help feeling a lot of it is forced on him by the constant knocks and injuries our lads seem to pick up.
 
crucialkneeligaman said:
Totally agree, it has been mentioned before but why didn't we put Sgt Bash at right back and young Harry at CB, seemed very bizarre. It's all a bit frustrating at the moment but I'm sure those of you that went to the Soton game saw a number of walking wounded by the end of it, and thus the changes today. Clough gets a lot of stick for tinkering with the line ups but, I can't help feeling a lot of it is forced on him by the constant knocks and injuries our lads seem to pick up.
Click to expand...
Yes it had me wondering too why he put McGahey at RB, the lad looked totally lost there and it made a complete mess of the right side in both attack and defence. The dropped points go down to Clough if you ask me, even with the ineffective Baxter and Scougall in midfield we still should have been too much for a poor Walsall team.
 

metalblade said:
Yes it had me wondering too why he put McGahey at RB, the lad looked totally lost there and it made a complete mess of the right side in both attack and defence. The dropped points go down to Clough if you ask me, even with the ineffective Baxter and Scougall in midfield we still should have been too much for a poor Walsall team.
Click to expand...

Yes metalblade, like I say it is frustrating and was hoping for more after the fabulous display against Southampton. We should still have had enough to have beaten Walsall, who incidentally looked a decent enough side to me. Injuries are costing us though.
 
metalblade said:
Yes it had me wondering too why he put McGahey at RB, the lad looked totally lost there and it made a complete mess of the right side in both attack and defence.
Click to expand...

It's a weird one. Given his insistence on playing McCarthy over Basham in that position, I was surprised (but delighted) that Clough didn't start McCarthy. When Flynn went off, Basham to right-back and McCarthy on was surely the obvious move. The only encouraging sign from that is perhaps NC wants to now give Basham-McEveley a run in the side together.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
It's a weird one. Given his insistence on playing McCarthy over Basham in that position, I was surprised (but delighted) that Clough didn't start McCarthy. When Flynn went off, Basham to right-back and McCarthy on was surely the obvious move. The only encouraging sign from that is perhaps NC wants to now give Basham-McEveley a run in the side together.
Click to expand...

yep, that would have been the "obvious" to us all - Bash to RB and McCarthy on, but Clough doesn't do the obvious. Quite strange really.

UTB
 
crucialkneeligaman said:
We should still have had enough to have beaten Walsall, who incidentally looked a decent enough side to me. Injuries are costing us though.
Click to expand...

Can't agree. I thought Walsall were incredibly poor. In the first half, when they attacked, it was easy for us to dispossess them and their defence was shambolic. However our traditional failure to close a game out led to them growing in confidence.

And as this thread is about COG, he had a chance in the first half every bit as good as the one Walsall scored from, but fluffed it.
 
grafikhaus said:
Can't agree. I thought Walsall were incredibly poor. In the first half, when they attacked, it was easy for us to dispossess them and their defence was shambolic. However our traditional failure to close a game out led to them growing in confidence.

And as this thread is about COG, he had a chance in the first half every bit as good as the one Walsall scored from, but fluffed it.
Click to expand...

Sorry I have just had a senior moment. Division one, division two. As the porter said to George Best, where did it all go wrong.

So I would appreciate your views, if, and when the descending , out of control relegations could have been prevented?
 
SwissBlade said:
4-4-2 and 4-3-3 later on.

When we scored, Walsall had just started to push on with 4-3-3
Click to expand...
We were 4-4-2? When? Who was the second striker, seriously?

UTB
 
Last edited:
grafikhaus said:
Can't agree. I thought Walsall were incredibly poor. In the first half, when they attacked, it was easy for us to dispossess them and their defence was shambolic. However our traditional failure to close a game out led to them growing in confidence.

And as this thread is about COG, he had a chance in the first half every bit as good as the one Walsall scored from, but fluffed it.
Click to expand...

yep - Walsall were poor - so were we - not a game for the purist. We were poor in midfield, Walsall were poor at the back, we just didn't have a midfield that could exploit it.

COG actually had 2 headers in the fist half - both the sort of crosses that centre forwards dream about - perhaps COG can't head a ball which takes timing.

I used to play up front and it is a very difficult skill to master - one that I sort of half mastered when the ball came in from the right, but could never ever master it when it came from the left. Some people have a go at Andy Carroll but his ability in the air is quite unique in football these days. I have been fortunate that I have played with a small number of players who have been on professional books but weren't good enough and dropped into local football - what struck me more than anything was the "timing" they had - it seems so natural, but to run of the mill park footballers it is difficult to master and perhaps to some pros too.

Not having a go at COG btw - thought he played very well in a poor team performance. As for his strength on the ball - well it's exceptional and he is no slouch when running the corners.

UTB
 
While agreeing that COG looks like the kind of front runner we desperately need I don't think McNulty is his ideal partner, although like the rest of Nigel's signings they are both good with the ball at their feet neither one can head a ball with any great accuracy ..
It's one of the skills that seems to be sadly lacking from the Continental style of play that can be devastating in the box especially at this level,
For that reason out of the strikers we have I think Higdon or dare I say even Porter would be more effective ...
 
alcoblade said:
We were 4-4-2? When? Who was the second striker, seriously?

UTB
Click to expand...
First half we had Baxter supporting O'Grady, later in the second half we played 2/3. CoG, Adams (he switched through the Middle) and Murphy supporting on the right.

Did you watch the game at all ;)
 

alcoblade said:
But seriously, if anyone considers that a 4-4-2 then we don't have to look hard to find out why we score the same number of goals as the relegation bound teams.

UTB
Click to expand...
I didn't say that 4-4-2 was positive as I personally think it's inflexible for the players we have and the way we play. But I was pointing out that was one of the systems we played yesterday because you said we didn't play 2 up top...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom