New Hero Required: Is Duffy's time over?

[Champagneblade]

He did some lovely stuff for the opening goal vs Rotherham.

He went completely missing in the big game vs Leeds yesterday.

Does that tell the tale in itself?

He's a great player to bring on in sharp bursts but his time as a starter is coming under increased scrutiny.

Did well against a relegation threatened team, but no showed vs a rival for promotion.

Already we are taking into account his longevity in games by him almost always being the first player subbed off. He's failed to turn up for games vs the bigger teams as well.

He's been a very enjoyable player to watch but my own opinion is that he should be looked upon as a genuine game changer from the bench, maybe a spark for the last 30 minutes, but for us to kick on, he may need to be a very good plan B or in game game changer, and give way to a younger man.

That not so younger man may be McGoldrick for the month of December and it may be a Maddison or AN Other, in January if backed properly. It is a shame that it probably is not a Woodburn by the looks of it (shame though it was, as these two sharing the role seemed ideal on paper) and should have been ready made.

Back to Duffy, is his time as a starter almost done? Could he be an impact sub for the next couple of years? It would be shame to lose him completely but Father Time waits for no man, even the Bounce Slayer!

 

[Houston_Blade]

Back to Duffy, is his time as a starter almost done? Could he be an impact sub for the next couple of years? It would be shame to lose him completely but Father Time waits for no man, even the Bounce Slayer!

In short "no". He's still got a lot to offer, everyone has bad games. Writing someone off after one of them is a little bit knee-jerk to say the least.

 

[Rob86]

I think so yes, as is natural as a player ages. He should be the one coming off the bench or being used to rest a player against the ‘lesser’ teams. He’s still got it, but against the more athletic teams he just isn’t quick enough for what he does. The same could also be said for Billy. It was quite evident yesterday that they had players in and around the box who could shift the ball quickly and whilst we defended it well, there were times it got a bit nervy.

That’s my opinion anyway and it is not just based on yesterday.

 

[DronnieBlade]

Nope.

UTB

 

[Speedracer]

No.

 

[JohnDenver]

Leeds were on him like a pack of hyenas. Fair play to them. Won’t be like that every week.

 

[Stretch]

Every now and again he has a poor showing. Sometimes it's because he just isn't at the races, other times because opponents target and nullify him.

He's still our key play though as far as I am concerned, but we do need another option for his position.

 

[FriethBlade]

Absolute rubbish...Duffys only 'weakness' is being our main man and the only one with the sublime ability to unlock defences frequently. As a result the opposition target him relentlessly.

What Duffy needs is another player or two to take up the slack. Fleck for instance needs to step up more and we need reinforcements to take a bit of the pressure off him. Then if the opposition overload.on him we have others to unlock their defences.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

No.

 

[Danny_Blade]

More often than not I would bring the Bounce Killer on from the bench in future. I think it would also mean that he could expend more energy and intensity knowing he's coming on for the last 20-30 minutes of a match, meaning the more intensely he can play will obviously benefit the team. Whereas when he starts he has to conserve some of this over the course of the 60-70 minutes before being subbed off.

Until the JTW opens in a months time either start McG or Woodburn. Surely Woodburn can't be that bad to the extent that he would be a severe detriment to the team. I know he's been underwhelming whenever he's played but at the same time he can only improve if given game time.

 

[originaltrueblade]

No

 

[SwissBlade]

He did some lovely stuff for the opening goal vs Rotherham.

He went completely missing in the big game vs Leeds yesterday.

Does that tell the tale in itself?

He's a great player to bring on in sharp bursts but his time as a starter is coming under increased scrutiny.

Did well against a relegation threatened team, but no showed vs a rival for promotion.

Already we are taking into account his longevity in games by him almost always being the first player subbed off. He's failed to turn up for games vs the bigger teams as well.

He's been a very enjoyable player to watch but my own opinion is that he should be looked upon as a genuine game changer from the bench, maybe a spark for the last 30 minutes, but for us to kick on, he may need to be a very good plan B or in game game changer, and give way to a younger man.

That not so younger man may be McGoldrick for the month of December and it may be a Maddison or AN Other, in January if backed properly. It is a shame that it probably is not a Woodburn by the looks of it (shame though it was, as these two sharing the role seemed ideal on paper) and should have been ready made.

Back to Duffy, is his time as a starter almost done? Could he be an impact sub for the next couple of years? It would be shame to lose him completely but Father Time waits for no man, even the Bounce Slayer!

He went missing a number of times in the League one promotion season, especially later in games. I questioned whether he would be good enough for the Championship unless he found something else. He stepped right up and proved me wrong and that beyond doubt he was good enough.

Roll forward a season and he's been sensational at times this season.

However, he will be also getting singled out, can't comment on yesterday as i didn't see the game. But at times this season he's been unplayable.

He does need managing though and its beyond time for other players to be stepping up and playing their part in that position.

McG, Woodburn and Johnson all having a crack there, with only McG having any success, so far, albeit playing the role in his own style.

Duffy will be a major player for the remainder of this season and most probably beyond

 

[jt64]

Leeds were on him like a pack of hyenas. Fair play to them. Won’t be like that every week.

It's a copycat league though, other managers will see what works and utilise it. Of course, it's then on Chris to use what that does elsewhere on the pitch to our advantage - if Duffy is enough of a threat to occupy two men for large portions of the game it leaves someone spare somewhere

 

[INTERUNITED]

Yes, after one bad game he definitely needs dropping. In fact I'd give him a free transfer.

 

[Dark muffy]

So after 2 and a half years of being pretty much exceptional and being the instigator in everything that is good about our play he is not allowed to have a below par average game! Unbelievable.
Iv serious doubts we will ever replace Duffy when it is time for him to pack up, he is the most intelligent, skillful player I think I've seen in a united shirt. It's a pleasure to watch him. Its not time to replace him or even think about it yet, I've got every faith he will be back to his very best next week given the chance.

 

[I should coco]

Dear Agana Aunt

I'm torn as to whether the OP is a massive over reaction to a loss, or just a wanker post.

Can you please help?

 

[Champagneblade]

Why are you suggesting this is a knee jerk reaction to one loss? He's had a number of games this year where the game has passed him by.

I'm a Duffy fan, but to not recognise he is fading and to make plans for that would be naive. First off, he's seen as a 60 minute option. Then in a fair few games, he's not been able to asset himself. He'll be 34 in October. His name is Mark Duffy, not Peter Pan!

 

[Kevincarterversion2.0]

Of course Duffy still has something to offer. He was outstanding against the Pigs and has been a match winner at times for us in the last few years. He got marked out of the game against Leeds - which occasionally happens.

That's not to say we dont need a replacement for him - for when he is injured, rested or more long term, given his age.

Getting a replacement I would guess depends on those toss-pot owners sorting out the mess behind the scenes.

 

[itsinyerblood]

Let's see how Duffy performs between now and the rest of the season, uh?

Before a rush of blood to the head turns generally sane and thoughtful posters into knee-jerk drama queens, let's see how Duffy, as well as our manager, react to the accusations that it's time to put Duffy out to pasture. Wilder's role in this is crucial, and if Duffy is being heavily marked then this is surely a strategic point to exploit.

 

[dc_blade]

Why are you suggesting this is a knee jerk reaction to one loss? He's had a number of games this year where the game has passed him by.

I'm a Duffy fan, but to not recognise he is fading and to make plans for that would be naive. First off, he's seen as a 60 minute option. Then in a fair few games, he's not been able to asset himself. He'll be 34 in October. His name is Mark Duffy, not Peter Pan!

Stats aren't everything, but WhoScored gives him an average rating of 6.98 for the season, making him our fourth highest rated player. Just to pull one other number from that site, he has the second most key passes behind Norwood. Still making a huge contribution.

 

[BigBed]

Mcgoldrick is the starter now, Duffy is the main, or he comes on for the last half hour.
2 of Clarke/Sharp/Washington up front.
And, I think I'd give Coutts a run out next time, let Norwood rest, he's brilliant when he's brilliant, but dire when he's not, and Fleck seems to react the same, if Norwood or Fleck are off, that strong midfield unit turns to shit, and our defence and or Mcgoldrick has to shift to help out...
Wilder needs to take a few chances, cos playing the same 11 for the "big games" isn't working to well, it's abit lazy in fairness, the team needs shaking up every now n then.

 

[Topplayersleave]

No, he's not done yet. But one day soon he's just going to wake up and not be able to do it anymore, rather like Dean Hammond, the legs will have gone, and just like with Dean Hammond we'll still be trying to get more games out of him because he'll not have been replaced before that happens

 

[BushBlade]

Why are you suggesting this is a knee jerk reaction to one loss? He's had a number of games this year where the game has passed him by.

I'm a Duffy fan, but to not recognise he is fading and to make plans for that would be naive. First off, he's seen as a 60 minute option. Then in a fair few games, he's not been able to asset himself. He'll be 34 in October. His name is Mark Duffy, not Peter Pan!

If he’s 34 in October, isn’t another way of putting it ‘just turned 33’? Or isn’t that dramatic enough?

 

[Fulwood Blade]

No, Duffy isn't finished by any stretch of the imagination.

His MAIN competition should be McG for the no 10 role.

Our problem is we HAVE to play McG up top and 2 goals from open play isn't enough. No, I don't count penalties either.

We need at least 1 and ideally 2 players up top in the JTW. The rumour of Long and Defoe both coming in would be fantastic, allowing Duffy and McG to fight for the no 10 starting berth.

Against Leeds and many other games recently, we are short up top. Felt really really sorry for Billy running about all over the shop yesterday. Washington did a far better job Tuesday doing that role, not convinced it's Billy's role. We either play him as a finisher or not, but trying to run the channels is just daft for Billy.

UTB

 

[itsinyerblood]

What did we do before Duffy? He came here as someone who was generally considered a square nut in a round hole, that is until Wilder and Knill recognised what they had, so it may well be in future, where we sign someone who had under-performed elsewhere and discover they have talents that need air to breathe. I'm sure many other clubs are seeking the same type of player, so it won't be easy, and we should thank our good luck that we have seen Duffy at his best while wearing the red and white stripes. Super player, can dictate the pace of a game and also make something happen while everyone else was clueless.

 

[Ginger Gnome]

We've been looking to replace Duffy (or at least have a viable alternative) since the promotion season.

Carruthers was woefully inadequate, especially after we came up. Holmes made no impact for whatever reason. Brooks probably wasn't perfect for that exact role, but we never got a chance to find out. Woodburn has been a worse acquisition than last January's signings, and Johnson doesn't appear to be the kind of player that can play centrally. That leaves the option of a flat midfield with little trickery in there, or using McGoldrick there who is still a striker no matter how well he sometimes tracks back.

If we had another dangerous player that needs marking out of the game, it'd open up space for Duffy (having the threat of both Brooks and Duffy in the away derby last season meant both got space), but instead he's an easy target for the opposition and just gets marked out of the game. With Duffy crowded out of the action the other midfielders struggle to find an outlet, simply replacing him with someone else won't alter that.

 

[LSF]

The manager decides when he's 'done'.
Don't think it's quite just yet, but at this level it's looming, but I know nothing in the real world, mine is just a worthless opinion.
We all have our time....

 

[blade67]

bizarre reaction to one of our best players having an off day

 

[sufcboy95]

No he’s not, he’s still along with Norwood our main player IMO. However he isn’t getting any younger and let’s be honest we don’t have anyone who’s anywhere near him to replace him at the minute

 

[BLADES1988]

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......................................................................NO!