McGoldrick

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


BiggerBladeThanThou said:
It what world is a striker okayed to not score a single goal in a season? World's gone fucking mad.
Click to expand...

Cerberus Blade said:
It's a bit like saying, "I don't care if the keeper never makes another save". If you are playing a guy as a striker, I'm sorry to be so old-fashioned about this, but you expect him to score goals. If he isn't doing that, due to being out of form or just incapable, then you replace him with someone who is. It's too important a position to fill it with someone who can't hit a barn door. That doesn't mean the player has to be dropped, but they need to be utilised in a position that makes better use of their abilities. The reason why McGoldrick gets in the team is because he makes a fabulous contribution to it, across the park. The reason he gets in the team as a striker is? I honestly don't know, but it doesn't say much for the others who are behind him in terms of selection. That's why I think this is going to be an area that we look to strengthen in Jan as a priority.
Click to expand...

Seriously, if McGoldrick finished the season as 1st choice, and didn't score s single goal, but we finished comfortably in the top 10, thanks, in part, to his contribution elsewhere; what would be the problem?
 
Kanye said:
Seriously, if McGoldrick finished the season as 1st choice, and didn't score s single goal, but we finished comfortably in the top 10, thanks, in part, to his contribution elsewhere; what would be the problem?
Click to expand...

I understand that argument, and the short answer is, there wouldn't be a problem. But, there would be a lost opportunity. This is my view - and it pretty much sums up how I see things currently. I honestly believe, without even the slightest exaggeration, that if we had got 2 clinical strikers on the pitch in all the games we've played up till now, we'd be a minimum of 10 points better off. Minimum.

We've drawn 7 out of 16 games so far. We've been very unlucky in some of the games where we've lost too - like Liverpool and Leicester - where we should have taken at least a point. But we just aren't clinical enough in front of goal. Leaving individual players out of it for a moment, surely anyone can see that? If we could bring about even a small increase in our ability to convert chances into goals, we'd be substantially better off in terms of points and league position.

It's good that goals come from all areas of the team, but ultimately a team depends on its strikers for scoring goals. That is their main job, after all. I know they all go through barren periods, when nothing seems to go right for them, but at some point a decision has to be taken as to whether we continue to keep them in the team, or drop them to make way for someone else. In McGoldrick's case his main contribution to the team is linking up play, all over the park, which he is superb at. But he's just not composed in front of goal and we just cannot afford that kind of profligacy at this level. It could be the difference between staying up and going down. It's really that critical.

I'd be amazed if Wilder isn't seeing and thinking the same thing. We may find out in Jan. But I expect we will be looking to sign another striker and that McGoldrick will be deployed more as a play-maker than an out and out striker - and that will suit him and us much better imo.
 
Cerberus Blade said:
I understand that argument, and the short answer is, there wouldn't be a problem. But, there would be a lost opportunity. This is my view - and it pretty much sums up how I see things currently. I honestly believe, without even the slightest exaggeration, that if we had got 2 clinical strikers on the pitch in all the games we've played up till now, we'd be a minimum of 10 points better off. Minimum.

We've drawn 7 out of 16 games so far. We've been very unlucky in some of the games where we've lost too - like Liverpool and Leicester - where we should have taken at least a point. But we just aren't clinical enough in front of goal. Leaving individual players out of it for a moment, surely anyone can see that? If we could bring about even a small increase in our ability to convert chances into goals, we'd be substantially better off in terms of points and league position.

It's good that goals come from all areas of the team, but ultimately a team depends on its strikers for scoring goals. That is their main job, after all. I know they all go through barren periods, when nothing seems to go right for them, but at some point a decision has to be taken as to whether we continue to keep them in the team, or drop them to make way for someone else. In McGoldrick's case his main contribution to the team is linking up play, all over the park, which he is superb at. But he's just not composed in front of goal and we just cannot afford that kind of profligacy at this level. It could be the difference between staying up and going down. It's really that critical.

I'd be amazed if Wilder isn't seeing and thinking the same thing. We may find out in Jan. But I expect we will be looking to sign another striker and that McGoldrick will be deployed more as a play-maker than an out and out striker - and that will suit him and us much better imo.
Click to expand...
I might agree with your supposition, provided that McGoldrick wasn’t dropped to make way for one of your clinical strikers. Since day one in the PL he has been the glue holding the CWAK plan for the PL together. Solid as a defence has been, it has also relied on Didzy being in the right place at the right time. Be that link play between midfield and strikers, finding opportunities for himself, or helping out by coming deeper to help defence of link with others. That kind of reading the game can’t easily be taught.
Has he missed chances? Yes. Would we be better playing two full on strikers? Who knows. It’s an opinion that’s all. I think, so far Wilder has got it about right.
 
Plenty of strikers who do nothing but a bit of hold up,play and get in the box to score. Plenty of other players missing sitters Liverpool at it again last weekend. Didsy will score the easy ones like at Tottenham but those other strikers will never be able to compare with his skilful intelligent play outside the box. He's going to get some close in goals soon andI wouldn't swap him. Needs coaching on his shooting, possibly more mental than technique.
 
If they played the same amount of games, McBurnie would score more goals than Didzy, but we would lose more games. In my opinion Didzy is integral to how we play. I also think once he gets one, the goals will come for him.
 
BiggerBladeThanThou said:
It what world is a striker okayed to not score a single goal in a season? World's gone fucking mad.
Click to expand...

In what world do Sheff Utd have four superb seasons in a row, sit 8th in the Premier League, play exciting pinging overlapping super sexy football and go eight top flight away games unbeaten?

In a world with McGoldrick in the team, that's where. Mad indeed.
 
Love him, fabulous player, worth the entry money alone. We’ve got an established successful first 11 and people are suggesting we should disrupt it !
 
My point all the way through this godforsaken thread is that he's not been clinical enough in front of goal. Which he hasn't been. If he had been then I am confident, as said in another post further up, we'd be 6+ further in front. I am not discounting his talent in other areas but his woeful finishing form isn't, in the long run, good for us. At the moment, Mousset is pulling his weight and some other from deep are sparing McGoldrick's blushes. Long may it continue sure but i'd rather we had a striker doing the business than having to rely on others.
 
BiggerBladeThanThou said:
At the moment, Mousset is pulling his weight and some other from deep are sparing McGoldrick's blushes. Long may it continue sure but i'd rather we had a striker doing the business than having to rely on others.
Click to expand...

McGoldrick is pulling his weight, he hasn't got any blushes to spare, he is doing the business, he doesn't rely on others, he is immense.
 

Look what happened when both McGoldrick and Mousset were dropped against Newcastle.

He’s integral to the system and shape we play. His goals will come.
 
Given the contribution McGoldrick makes to our success this season, and how vital he is to us, it's incomprehensible to see how so many "fans" on this forum would prefer to see him replaced. You do have to wonder if there's some other agenda here that can't be mentioned?
 
Jord_Blade said:
Look what happened when both McGoldrick and Mousset were dropped against Newcastle.

He’s integral to the system and shape we play. His goals will come.
Click to expand...

I agree, he is integral when we are playing the flat 3 in midfield. If we play Freeman as a link up man between the midfield and say Moose and McBurnie, I think it could work, but until we see it we don't know.

We have a decent enough squad that should McGoldrick get injured, we would cope fine and we might even look a better side.
 
Cerberus Blade said:
if we had got 2 clinical strikers on the pitch in all the games we've played up till now, we'd be a minimum of 10 points better off. Minimum.
Click to expand...

If we had Messi and Ronaldo up top and they didn't bother pressing the defenders we'd leave the other players exposed so I'm no so certain.
 
Blend-it-like-Harris said:
Given the contribution McGoldrick makes to our success this season, and how vital he is to us, it's incomprehensible to see how so many "fans" on this forum would prefer to see him replaced. You do have to wonder if there's some other agenda here that can't be mentioned?
Click to expand...

Get fucked.
 
Blend-it-like-Harris said:
Given the contribution McGoldrick makes to our success this season, and how vital he is to us, it's incomprehensible to see how so many "fans" on this forum would prefer to see him replaced. You do have to wonder if there's some other agenda here that can't be mentioned?
Click to expand...

why don’t you state plainly what you think this other agenda is and we will see what people think.
 
Blend-it-like-Harris said:
Given the contribution McGoldrick makes to our success this season, and how vital he is to us, it's incomprehensible to see how so many "fans" on this forum would prefer to see him replaced. You do have to wonder if there's some other agenda here that can't be mentioned?
Click to expand...
Is it large beards? McBurnie, K Freeman and now McGoldrick. No excessive hirsutes in SUFC starting eleven.

Or do you think he is a scab? That includes Freeman too I guess.
 
Last edited:
Goals from our left and right wing backs who have apparently stayed after training to improve their shooting. Didz come on man a bit of target practice wont go amiss. Having said that if Didz continues not to be able hit a barn door and we cant afford a player like Didz who can score. Stay up get more money find one who can and invest.
 
Marcus Tullius Cicero said:
Goals from our left and right wing backs who have apparently stayed after training to improve their shooting. Didz come on man a bit of target practice wont go amiss. Having said that if Didz continues not to be able hit a barn door and we cant afford a player like Didz who can score. Stay up get more money find one who can and invest.
Click to expand...

He started doing extra shooting practice and injured himself doing it.

He doesn't need practice anyway, he needs a psychologist, needs to relax in front of goal, we've all seen him caramelise the onion bag, but the pressure of doing it in the Prem is getting to him.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gin&Juice
Which station? Wembley Park tube or Wembley Stadium on the Chiltern line.
Replies
1
Views
371
Grey Blade
Grey Blade
just united
Season in review
Replies
1
Views
451
United Aren't Back.
U
P
How history could have been
Replies
8
Views
424
Nick Jansky
Nick Jansky
Jon Bon II
Would you swap a sandwich for a sausage roll?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
The Crab
The Crab
R
Destined to go up
Replies
23
Views
2K
robbiez666
R

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