Scougall

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

coaxingstar71 said:
The same NA that thought Dean Hammond was just what we needed to improve the team?
Click to expand...


I'd say he did improve the team in the sense that we were even worse when he wasn't in it. But he didn't bring enough given the likely cost to the club.
 



1danewhitehouse fair does sorry about that didn't realise that thought I had seen him score a couple more times than that at fleetwood. The point I was trying to make is I still don't think he is a bad player and don't see why he can't be used effectively as a sub.

He rushes the defence and makes them make mistakes in my opinion and he seems to fit in with wilders system of high pressure.

He had a couple of decent chances at the weekend and ran at defenders given half the chance, I admit he probably isn't good enough to start but I can't see why he can't be used as an impact sub.
 
1danewhitehouse said:
I'd say he did improve the team in the sense that we were even worse when he wasn't in it. But he didn't bring enough given the likely cost to the club.
Click to expand...

At times I thought the same but the number of times he got caught on the ball far outweighed his overall nuisance value IMO. My point was about holding up NA's judgment as something to measure against is bordering on the ridiculous.

I've been quite vocal (?) on this thread, not because I really think Scougall is a fantastic player because I realise he has limitations but it's the constant ill thought out criticisms of individual players when really we should be saying 'we've won 4 on the trot, aren't the team doing well'. You won't find many occasions where I criticise individual players because I realise there's more variables to it than what we witness on a Saturday afternoon. In the case of Scougall, no he didn't have a perfect game but he was lively and involved when he came on for Lafferty. I'm not actually Sharp's biggest fan and he's had some criticism so far this season, not from me because despite his limitations, he works hard for the team and despite not being in great form, has still scored 4 league goals and I don't think he deserves any criticism for that. When a player is being criticised, we then focus on all the (perceived) mistakes they make and choose to ignore what they did well. Is it any surprise that fans have coveniently forgot the great ball Duffy played to Sharp and then the great control and shielding by Sharp before playing in Freeman in the lead up to the goal - no, because it doesn't suit fans' agenda to highlight things players did well when they want to criticise them for what they think they're not doing well - same with Scougall - he didn't make that pass, he fell over, well, he did make some good runs, he made some interceptions and he won some freekicks in their half.

I'm rambling now, but I can guarantee you that when Clarke comes back, he'll be next for the moaners.
 
coaxingstar71 said:
At times I thought the same but the number of times he got caught on the ball far outweighed his overall nuisance value IMO. My point was about holding up NA's judgment as something to measure against is bordering on the ridiculous.

I've been quite vocal (?) on this thread, not because I really think Scougall is a fantastic player because I realise he has limitations but it's the constant ill thought out criticisms of individual players when really we should be saying 'we've won 4 on the trot, aren't the team doing well'. You won't find many occasions where I criticise individual players because I realise there's more variables to it than what we witness on a Saturday afternoon. In the case of Scougall, no he didn't have a perfect game but he was lively and involved when he came on for Lafferty. I'm not actually Sharp's biggest fan and he's had some criticism so far this season, not from me because despite his limitations, he works hard for the team and despite not being in great form, has still scored 4 league goals and I don't think he deserves any criticism for that. When a player is being criticised, we then focus on all the (perceived) mistakes they make and choose to ignore what they did well. Is it any surprise that fans have coveniently forgot the great ball Duffy played to Sharp and then the great control and shielding by Sharp before playing in Freeman in the lead up to the goal - no, because it doesn't suit fans' agenda to highlight things players did well when they want to criticise them for what they think they're not doing well - same with Scougall - he didn't make that pass, he fell over, well, he did make some good runs, he made some interceptions and he won some freekicks in their half.

I'm rambling now, but I can guarantee you that when Clarke comes back, he'll be next for the moaners.
Click to expand...
Interesting why you pick out Clarke as your next potential "scapegoat".

Why not Lavery when we see a bit more of him ?
Harry Chapman ?
John Fleck ?

Just curious !

UTB
 
coaxingstar71 said:
At times I thought the same but the number of times he got caught on the ball far outweighed his overall nuisance value IMO. My point was about holding up NA's judgment as something to measure against is bordering on the ridiculous.

I've been quite vocal (?) on this thread, not because I really think Scougall is a fantastic player because I realise he has limitations but it's the constant ill thought out criticisms of individual players when really we should be saying 'we've won 4 on the trot, aren't the team doing well'. You won't find many occasions where I criticise individual players because I realise there's more variables to it than what we witness on a Saturday afternoon. In the case of Scougall, no he didn't have a perfect game but he was lively and involved when he came on for Lafferty. I'm not actually Sharp's biggest fan and he's had some criticism so far this season, not from me because despite his limitations, he works hard for the team and despite not being in great form, has still scored 4 league goals and I don't think he deserves any criticism for that. When a player is being criticised, we then focus on all the (perceived) mistakes they make and choose to ignore what they did well. Is it any surprise that fans have coveniently forgot the great ball Duffy played to Sharp and then the great control and shielding by Sharp before playing in Freeman in the lead up to the goal - no, because it doesn't suit fans' agenda to highlight things players did well when they want to criticise them for what they think they're not doing well - same with Scougall - he didn't make that pass, he fell over, well, he did make some good runs, he made some interceptions and he won some freekicks in their half.

I'm rambling now, but I can guarantee you that when Clarke comes back, he'll be next for the moaners.
Click to expand...

I don't think this thread has actually been about making scapegoats. The main reason for discussing Scougall's limitations is because I feel it could have cost the team a victory on Saturday, and he isnt up to the improving standards of the rest of the team.

We should always be looking to improve, and for me that starts with looking at our weaknesses, and for me Scougall is one of those.

I would never boo or slag him off in an offensive way but I think we should be able to discuss weaknesses in players without that automatically meaning they are scapegoats.
 
HeCanDoMagic said:
I don't think this thread has actually been about making scapegoats. The main reason for discussing Scougall's limitations is because I feel it could have cost the team a victory on Saturday, and he isnt up to the improving standards of the rest of the team.

We should always be looking to improve, and for me that starts with looking at our weaknesses, and for me Scougall is one of those.

I would never boo or slag him off in an offensive way but I think we should be able to discuss weaknesses in players without that automatically meaning they are scapegoats.
Click to expand...
It's never ending though. We'll never have a side containing 11 players of equal ability so there will always be a 'weak link'.
 
BushBlade said:
It's never ending though. We'll never have a side containing 11 players of equal ability so there will always be a 'weak link'.
Click to expand...

Point taken BB, but if Man Utd struggle to find a first eleven then we shouldn't see ourselves as an exception. It happens at all clubs, and relatively speaking we're not doing too bad at the moment.
 
Rodley said:
His movement off the ball is very intelligent. He tries to pass forward, plays with his head up and has a good attitude.
Click to expand...
are you talking about Done or Scougall ? Hopefully the latter
 
Coutts - shit to just above average. This jump has just meant that now people are over-estimating his contributions.

Scougall - Small, weak player without the necessary ability to compensate.
 
HeCanDoMagic said:
Yeah exactly, always room to improve and thats what we should be striving to do.
Click to expand...
That's down to CW and KM though, not us. The inevitable outcome of us constantly looking for the weakest link is that we constantly criticise players.

There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism but unfortunately a lot of it isn't constructive, nor is it balanced.

(Not you btw).
 



Nearly 8 pages and still no Scougall Vs Peterborough video highlights package from Bergen. Very disappointing.
 
HeCanDoMagic said:
I don't think this thread has actually been about making scapegoats. The main reason for discussing Scougall's limitations is because I feel it could have cost the team a victory on Saturday, and he isnt up to the improving standards of the rest of the team.

We should always be looking to improve, and for me that starts with looking at our weaknesses, and for me Scougall is one of those.

I would never boo or slag him off in an offensive way but I think we should be able to discuss weaknesses in players without that automatically meaning they are scapegoats.
Click to expand...

As opposed to 'looking for weaknesses'?

I'll have to agree to disagree with you about the possibility of Scougall costing the team a victory because I didn't see that at all, but accept that we're not all going to have the same view on players.
 
coaxingstar71 said:
At times I thought the same but the number of times he got caught on the ball far outweighed his overall nuisance value IMO. My point was about holding up NA's judgment as something to measure against is bordering on the ridiculous.

I've been quite vocal (?) on this thread, not because I really think Scougall is a fantastic player because I realise he has limitations but it's the constant ill thought out criticisms of individual players when really we should be saying 'we've won 4 on the trot, aren't the team doing well'. You won't find many occasions where I criticise individual players because I realise there's more variables to it than what we witness on a Saturday afternoon. In the case of Scougall, no he didn't have a perfect game but he was lively and involved when he came on for Lafferty. I'm not actually Sharp's biggest fan and he's had some criticism so far this season, not from me because despite his limitations, he works hard for the team and despite not being in great form, has still scored 4 league goals and I don't think he deserves any criticism for that. When a player is being criticised, we then focus on all the (perceived) mistakes they make and choose to ignore what they did well. Is it any surprise that fans have coveniently forgot the great ball Duffy played to Sharp and then the great control and shielding by Sharp before playing in Freeman in the lead up to the goal - no, because it doesn't suit fans' agenda to highlight things players did well when they want to criticise them for what they think they're not doing well - same with Scougall - he didn't make that pass, he fell over, well, he did make some good runs, he made some interceptions and he won some freekicks in their half.

I'm rambling now, but I can guarantee you that when Clarke comes back, he'll be next for the moaners.
Click to expand...


I agree. Some posters seem to only be able to see the bad in players. There are also a few who can only see the good.


EEL for one. He’s a favourite right now and I’ve seen people saying he’s good on the ball. I disagree. I think the early signs are that he’s a very good defender but limited on the ball. That’ll do for me in our current circumstances but it demonstrates my point that people often feel the need to go overboard either way.


It feels like for some it has to be all or nothing. A player is fantastic or shit when in reality, they are almost always somewhere in between. I’ve also commented on the things Scougall did well on Saturday. Showing for the ball, being willing to run forward with the ball, anticipating a lot of 2nd balls to keep us on the front foot, had a decent effort well saved and chasing opposition players down when they were in possession. Similarly, he did some poor things; shanking a shot miles over when well placed, shanking a cross into the kop when well placed, mis-controlling once or twice with his first touch to lose possession. A mixed bag but overall, I thought introducing him improved us. No issues with him being on the bench as an option to vary our play.


What I do wonder though is who we will name on the bench Saturday if both Clarke and Lavery are sidelined? It leaves us short up front with no cover for Sharp/Done. I guess maybe Brooks will get on there and Scougall would play off a front man if we lose a forward during the game. It’s an area where we’ve gone from having an embarrassment of riches to looking rather thin on the ground in the space of a few days (Adams, DCL, McNulty, Wright and even Sammon all gone either on loan or permanent).
 
DronnieBlade said:
Interesting why you pick out Clarke as your next potential "scapegoat".

Why not Lavery when we see a bit more of him ?
Harry Chapman ?
John Fleck ?

Just curious !

UTB
Click to expand...


I suspect it’s because Clarke is a player of a certain type who is likely to divide opinion. We’re not the most patient set with our big, target man type forwards. His nonchalant posture might also make him some enemies in the crowd. Plus he may also be feeling the heat having not scored in his first few games and having the pig connection. Plus his age and the length of contract he has will annoy some.
 
I enjoy seeing Stephan playing for United. He is one of the few players that we have that makes me sit up with expectation that he will make something happen in a similar way that JCR did previously. Not necessarily a world beater but certainly entertaining to watch someone who frightens the death out of the opposition. He has so much energy and passion for our cause that seems to be infectious that seems to rub off on our other players when they see the positive reaction from the fans. He is a real nuisance to the opposition. I gave him the nickname of the "Neuclar Wasp" to my grandson.
 
1danewhitehouse said:
I agree. Some posters seem to only be able to see the bad in players. There are also a few who can only see the good.


EEL for one. He’s a favourite right now and I’ve seen people saying he’s good on the ball. I disagree. I think the early signs are that he’s a very good defender but limited on the ball. That’ll do for me in our current circumstances but it demonstrates my point that people often feel the need to go overboard either way.


It feels like for some it has to be all or nothing. A player is fantastic or shit when in reality, they are almost always somewhere in between. I’ve also commented on the things Scougall did well on Saturday. Showing for the ball, being willing to run forward with the ball, anticipating a lot of 2nd balls to keep us on the front foot, had a decent effort well saved and chasing opposition players down when they were in possession. Similarly, he did some poor things; shanking a shot miles over when well placed, shanking a cross into the kop when well placed, mis-controlling once or twice with his first touch to lose possession. A mixed bag but overall, I thought introducing him improved us. No issues with him being on the bench as an option to vary our play.


What I do wonder though is who we will name on the bench Saturday if both Clarke and Lavery are sidelined? It leaves us short up front with no cover for Sharp/Done. I guess maybe Brooks will get on there and Scougall would play off a front man if we lose a forward during the game. It’s an area where we’ve gone from having an embarrassment of riches to looking rather thin on the ground in the space of a few days (Adams, DCL, McNulty, Wright and even Sammon all gone either on loan or permanent).
Click to expand...

Completely 100% agree with you on EEL. He looked decidedly ungainly with the ball at his feet but like you, realise he's not there to be Franz Beckenbauer.
I mostly agree with you Scougall, although I felt he was better than Lafferty, who looked well short of match fitness (again, no criticism, I wouldn't expect him to come straight in and be a world beater).

ARE both Clarke and Lavery sidelined?
 
coaxingstar71 said:
Completely 100% agree with you on EEL. He looked decidedly ungainly with the ball at his feet but like you, realise he's not there to be Franz Beckenbauer.
I mostly agree with you Scougall, although I felt he was better than Lafferty, who looked well short of match fitness (again, no criticism, I wouldn't expect him to come straight in and be a world beater).

ARE both Clarke and Lavery sidelined?
Click to expand...
I thought Wright and O'Connell had the better all round performances at the weekend. O'Connell in particular didn't put a foot wrong even when he had to switch positions

Re Clarke- I'm sure CW said he would be fit for the weekend
 
coaxingstar71 said:
Completely 100% agree with you on EEL. He looked decidedly ungainly with the ball at his feet but like you, realise he's not there to be Franz Beckenbauer.
I mostly agree with you Scougall, although I felt he was better than Lafferty, who looked well short of match fitness (again, no criticism, I wouldn't expect him to come straight in and be a world beater).

ARE both Clarke and Lavery sidelined?
Click to expand...
it's OK we've got Adams, McNulty, Calvert-Lewin, De Girolamo, Sammon...............Oh!
 
1danewhitehouse said:
I agree. Some posters seem to only be able to see the bad in players. There are also a few who can only see the good.


EEL for one. He’s a favourite right now and I’ve seen people saying he’s good on the ball. I disagree. I think the early signs are that he’s a very good defender but limited on the ball. That’ll do for me in our current circumstances but it demonstrates my point that people often feel the need to go overboard either way.


It feels like for some it has to be all or nothing. A player is fantastic or shit when in reality, they are almost always somewhere in between. I’ve also commented on the things Scougall did well on Saturday. Showing for the ball, being willing to run forward with the ball, anticipating a lot of 2nd balls to keep us on the front foot, had a decent effort well saved and chasing opposition players down when they were in possession. Similarly, he did some poor things; shanking a shot miles over when well placed, shanking a cross into the kop when well placed, mis-controlling once or twice with his first touch to lose possession. A mixed bag but overall, I thought introducing him improved us. No issues with him being on the bench as an option to vary our play.


What I do wonder though is who we will name on the bench Saturday if both Clarke and Lavery are sidelined? It leaves us short up front with no cover for Sharp/Done. I guess maybe Brooks will get on there and Scougall would play off a front man if we lose a forward during the game. It’s an area where we’ve gone from having an embarrassment of riches to looking rather thin on the ground in the space of a few days (Adams, DCL, McNulty, Wright and even Sammon all gone either on loan or permanent).
Click to expand...
Depends on how desperate CW is to stick with 352. We could go 4231 or 433 if he thinks it would work against Scunny.
 
corkysbeard said:
Apart from injuries why would CW change a winning team and formation?
Click to expand...
I didn't say he would. 1DW asked what happens if we lose another striker, if Lavery and Clarke are both injured.
 



I like Scougall. He plays in a style I enjoy watching - quick, runs with the ball and he's direct.

However.. I also found myself frustrated slightly at his end product on Saturday. It doesn't get me angry or piss me off because he's still doing other things well. But he does need to work on his decision making and composure. He can pass and he can shoot but he doesn't get it right often enough. Get those things right and he can be an important player.

Size may always hold him back in some respects but going forward he can develop into a big threat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Coolblade
A few observations from the stats (Rothwell)
Replies
7
Views
957
SwissBlade
SwissBlade
Isaw Joeshaw
Player Partnerships
Replies
6
Views
615
Keen Blade
Keen Blade
M
Which new players will step up?
Replies
29
Views
2K
Newbury Blade
Newbury Blade
Coolblade
A few observations from the stats (Frank’s team)
Replies
25
Views
1K
brownblade
brownblade
Maurice Maurice
First game this season...
Replies
1
Views
781
ATL Recs
A

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