Woodburn

gjr69 said:
It's not an amazing duo when they play together but each one on their own is totally ineffective.
Click to expand...
Not totally ineffective but less so for sure. I think we need to work toward something that is more productive than the 442 with them up top though. It's sneaking us some wins but we need to progress to something better surely? I'm not convinced we would have won yesterday with that formation. Maybe, maybe not. We never look confident in front of goal whoever is playing and whatever formation. I'd like to see us try Garbutt on the left to see if Y&M could capitalise on better crossing.
 
voyeur said:
Yes I don't disagree, but at the same time we were as effective up front yesterday as we have been with M and Y, arguably. I don't honestly see this fantastic strike duo that others appear to be watching. I think it's exaggerated. If we had played Keshi instead of Woodburn yesterday it might have made the difference. We did Pompey over in that manner. It's not a black and white debate.
Click to expand...
We weren't effective though. CJ had efforts from distance. The only chance we created in the box was Sullay's slip.

We went back to crosses with no one there.

The difference with Pompey was midfielders getting beyond the ball making it a two at points. That didn't happen very much at all.

Also, it has to be said, Yates barely had a sniff against Portsmouth (aside from his dummy) and didn't touch the ball on Saturday. Madine had his least influential game on Saturday in ages.

We don't look bad as a team playing 433 but neither of our strikers suit it and given the key question is

"How do we get more goals"

I'm not sure why the answer is 433 when clearly, we don't have the fulcrum required.

I'm not against it, I want to see us flexible, altering formation etc. I just don't get what it offers us in a situation like yesterday where we need a goal to win.

I'd happily play it for periods of games or for tough away games, especially with Keshi pushing on behind Madine but I honestly don't get why some want to play it so much.
 
td53 said:
We weren't effective though. CJ had efforts from distance. The only chance we created in the box was Sullay's slip.

We went back to crosses with no one there.

The difference with Pompey was midfielders getting beyond the ball making it a two at points. That didn't happen very much at all.

Also, it has to be said, Yates barely had a sniff against Portsmouth (aside from his dummy) and didn't touch the ball on Saturday. Madine had his least influential game on Saturday in ages.

We don't look bad as a team playing 433 but neither of our strikers suit it and given the key question is

"How do we get more goals"

I'm not sure why the answer is 433 when clearly, we don't have the fulcrum required.

I'm not against it, I want to see us flexible, altering formation etc. I just don't get what it offers us in a situation like yesterday where we need a goal to win.

I'd happily play it for periods of games or for tough away games, especially with Keshi pushing on behind Madine but I honestly don't get why some want to play it so much.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but I don't really understand why people think 442 is much better. Our performances to me seem to be at a pretty consistent level. Regardless of what we put out. The results depend mainly in whether one attempt goes in. It's a bit more splitting hairs than people seem to believe, in my opinion.
 
voyeur said:
Maybe because you then become predictable, and the key players get knackered playing twice a week? Maybe, maybe not. But the simple obvious thing doesn't always work consistently over a period of time.
Click to expand...
Who's played twice in a week he rested nearly most the squad Tuesday and sorry if you can't play twice as a young fit man you shouldn't be a professional in the first place.
You as a team may become predictable but isn't that better for the players who know the system and when subs are made its like for like in space of 8 days we've played three different ways!
 
voyeur said:
Not totally ineffective but less so for sure. I think we need to work toward something that is more productive than the 442 with them up top though. It's sneaking us some wins but we need to progress to something better surely? I'm not convinced we would have won yesterday with that formation. Maybe, maybe not. We never look confident in front of goal whoever is playing and whatever formation. I'd like to see us try Garbutt on the left to see if Y&M could capitalise on better crossing.
Click to expand...
I am never going to knock Husband for effort and commitment and you can't be any better than your best,but some people were saying he had a good game yesterday. He was ok but I think you are right, decent crosses from the left would add another dimension to our game and Garbutt is more likely to provide them.
 
Grumpy_no_more said:
I don't know about the call, but I'm sure Critchley worries that if he doesn't play him, he won't get any more from Liverpool.
Click to expand...
On the flip side he could tell liverpool the games he has played in he hasn't shown much for me to play him regularly.
Would Klopp persist with someone if they were a passenger?
 
voyeur said:
Fair enough but I don't really understand why people think 442 is much better. Our performances to me seem to be at a pretty consistent level. Regardless of what we put out. The results depend mainly in whether one attempt goes in. It's a bit more splitting hairs than people seem to believe, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Yes and no - Our turning of the corner coincides directly with playing in a way that suits the strikers we've got.

Can you see it working long term with either Jerry or Madine up front alone?

I can't.

I think formations are over rated and people like to play out the sort of analysis you get on telly after each game and find reasons for what is essentially a lot of chaos that a manager is trying desperately to influence but it's an ongoing trend - the only goal I can recall from a striker when we're playing thus is Madine's effort on his arse against Ipswich when Yates played wide.

I can cite a lot more goals with the pair of them playing.
 
Really surprised Liverpool gave him a 5 year deal. I do not know if he thought he had made it with all the hype early in his career. He will never break into Liverpool first team but if he knuckles down he could be a good player elsewhere As others have said he was playing far too deep to be effective, but he is probably trying to make something happen.
He is not a replacement for Yates as he is more of an attacking midfielder of which we already have plenty.
 
gjr69 said:
I am never going to knock Husband for effort and commitment and you can't be any better than your best,but some people were saying he had a good game yesterday. He was ok but I think you are right, decent crosses from the left would add another dimension to our game and Garbutt is more likely to provide them.
Click to expand...
I would try them both in a 442. Replace KK with Garbutt and let him push forward. I said this weeks ago tbh.
 
Wizzerboy said:
On the flip side he could tell liverpool the games he has played in he hasn't shown much for me to play him regularly.
Would Klopp persist with someone if they were a passenger?
Click to expand...
Woodburn is never going to make a match day
voyeur said:
I would try them both in a 442. Replace KK with Garbutt and let him push forward. I said this weeks ago tbh.
Click to expand...
Could be worth a go, Kaikai hasn't really been at it. I would love to have seen Garbutt in the situation Husband found himself in when he was just outside the penalty area with the keeper stranded, think it might have had a better outcome.
 
Last edited:
td53 said:
Yes and no - Our turning of the corner coincides directly with playing in a way that suits the strikers we've got.

Can you see it working long term with either Jerry or Madine up front alone?

I can't.

I think formations are over rated and people like to play out the sort of analysis you get on telly after each game and find reasons for what is essentially a lot of chaos that a manager is trying desperately to influence but it's an ongoing trend - the only goal I can recall from a striker when we're playing thus is Madine's effort on his arse against Ipswich when Yates played wide.

I can cite a lot more goals with the pair of them playing.
Click to expand...
Our turning the corner wasn't as clear cut as that in my opinion.

I can't see Y or M playing up front in the middle of a 3 no. But I don't think the future is Y&M in a pair either. I could be wrong. But NC seems to be working towards a different system than that, and they are not prolific enough to stick with it in my opinion.
 
I wonder where his heads at. As a Liverpool youngster he obvioucly has talent. He probably thought after a loan period at Oxford last year he would be ready to break into the first team, and indeed he has made at least one appearance. So when Jurgen put his arm around him and told him he wanted him to go out on loan again, he may well have been less than happy, and sulked as a result.

Pure speculation on my part, but it would explain his performances to date.
 
gjr69 said:
Could be worth a go, Kaikai hasn't really been at it. I would love to have seen Garbutt in the situation Husband found himself in when he was just outside the penalty are with the keeper stranded, think it might have had a better outcome.
Click to expand...

Was surprised when Garbutt wasnt picked to start. Hopefully saving him for Tuesday.
 
There were actually a lot better f crosses into th box yesterday, some really good ones but not enough players in th box to give he defenders problems, I can’t remember seeing Woodburn in the box for any of them. That’s by we missed Yates. 433 doesn’t work as our main tarctic bless we get players in the box. It would have been better to have had Kaikai playing off Madine, he is far more of a threat than Woodburn but it still shows here we need to strengthen in January. A fully fit Joe Nuttall with his head sorted would be perfect.
 
NAPMer said:
I wonder if Critch feels a responsibility to play him and arguably this was the game he could have shone. Doubt he'll make that mistake again when it could cost us points.
Click to expand...
I'd like to think you're right but I have my doubts about whether Critchley will be of the same mind.
 
voyeur said:
Fair enough but I don't really understand why people think 442 is much better. Our performances to me seem to be at a pretty consistent level. Regardless of what we put out. The results depend mainly in whether one attempt goes in. It's a bit more splitting hairs than people seem to believe, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of what you and some of the others have said on this thread.

The reason I advocate 442 and bemoan 433 is the results. It’s simple for me we’ve won in 442 and only scraped a handful of draws in 433.

Similar to our discussions the other day and comments made by TD we need to drop it for the time being get results under our belt and in a couple more transfer windows perhaps we have the correct players for that formation or a mixture of the two.
 
clappers said:
It was a mistake to allow the coupling of Critchley with an inexperienced assistant in the first place. I’m not too fussed about the recruitment side of it as the salary cap mandates a decent number of average players on average wages, a few cheap make weights and a few on top wages. We’ve brought in a mix. From what we’ve seen the loans haven’t been much cop but the loan players seem to have been played in the misfiring 433 set up rather than the results delivering 442

I agree with your assessment of Critch wanting the Liverpool way and Calderwood wanting something a bit more sensible. But as Critch calls the shots it’s down to him to take the praise or the flack, but our more sensitive fans seem to want to insulate him from any and all criticisms.
Click to expand...
Feel like you say things like this every week but then when things began to improve you only wanted to praise Calderwood?
 
Woodburn has shown MUCH less than Yates, Anderson, Kemp and even Lubala who play a similar position. Wouldn’t be in the 18 for me until he starts impacting games - his selection yesterday was a huge surprise.
 
Last edited:
voyeur said:
Yes fair comment. I would have brought Yates and Keshi on for KK and Woody a bit sooner. And left Ward and Madine on. I suspect we may revert to Yates/Madine for the Hull game. The coaches have no doubt mapped out the games ahead and worked out how to rotate players to suit those games. It didn't quite come off yesterday. Nearly did. I'm happy to let NC and CC make the decisions cos I feel we are doing well, and they are doing well,and have all sorts of things to consider that fans don't. They just have to solve the onion bag riddle, and personally I think that will involve some experimentation rather than sticking with Yates and Madine all the time. Especially during a run of 8 games in 24 days.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying Voy, and they are valid arguments, but I thought that Oxford were there for the taking and although they have improved of late, they were still in the bottom 4. Yates and Madine aren't breaking scoring records but when they play together we seem to do better and that's why I would have started them both against Oxford.
Experimentation is fine but we also need points if we intend to do anything this season, we may have already dropped too many. Woodburn could have had a cameo role after we were 4 up 😉
 
Yarmouth Seasider said:
I get what you are saying Voy, and they are valid arguments, but I thought that Oxford were there for the taking and although they have improved of late, they were still in the bottom 4. Yates and Madine aren't breaking scoring records but when they play together we seem to do better and that's why I would have started them both against Oxford.
Experimentation is fine but we also need points if we intend to do anything this season, we may have already dropped too many. Woodburn could have had a cameo role after we were 4 up 😉
Click to expand...
That's a perfectly valid viewpoint but I think these arguments are marginal ones, not clear and obvious ones. NC is doing a great job after a barren first four games with just one win, and he has a lot of considerations and factors to balance. It's very easy to watch on a screen with no involvement in training or anything and state simple things like Madine and Yates should start every game. And get angry if they don't. And think we know more than a group of pros who spend 6 days a week with the squad. If we were struggling it would be different, criticism and opinions are fine but less valid if things are going well, as they are.
 
I feel a bit better about it today, but still think we would have three points in the bag with more presence up front in the form of Madine and Yates, with perhaps Woodburn if we must playing instead of Kaks. Mistakes made, there are always going to be criticisms and things we can do better.

Anyone care to predict a starting line up and formation for them next game?
 
clappers said:
I feel a bit better about it today, but still think we would have three points in the bag with more presence up front in the form of Madine and Yates, with perhaps Woodburn if we must playing instead of Kaks. Mistakes made, there are always going to be criticisms and things we can do better.

Anyone care to predict a starting line up and formation for them next game?
Click to expand...
The 'mistake' is only an opinion though. Not a fact.
 
I would say, without being bleedin' obvious, it's a man's game and Woodburn is still a 'boy'. Needs bulking up, becoming more aware of the game around him and just needs to grow. You can see the potential but I think Critch has gone with his heart not his head on this one.

Ironic thing is he's the same age as Dan Kemp who seems much more capable.
 
HatfulofHollow said:
I would say, without being bleedin' obvious, it's a man's game and Woodburn is still a 'boy'. Needs bulking up, becoming more aware of the game around him and just needs to grow. You can see the potential but I think Critch has gone with his heart not his head on this one.

Ironic thing is he's the same age as Dan Kemp who seems much more capable.
Click to expand...
There are some very good players who haven't 'bulked up'. You do need body strength obviously. Critch knows him inside out so will appreciate what he can do. We may also have got him relatively cheap, wages wise. I'm not sure there's a huge difference between Woodburn and Kemp in terms of ability but Kemp is full of enthusiasm and it's more clear how he fits into our system.
 
I could see him heading back to Liverpool in January unless Saturday was the start of an extended run in matchday squads.

Ultimately I wouldn't think it would be the greatest loss, not a critique of his ability but I believe we have enough players in his position to not warrant it hurting us. Keeping Ballard and signing another striker is of much bigger importance IMO than keeping Woodburn.
 
Made a note to watch him all game and his contribution was nearly zero. He didn’t go forward enough ,seem to dodge the scoring positions. I was screaming for him to be subbed after the first half. Madine didn’t take too kindly to being subbed either, straight down the tunnel. !! Just another observation of a poor day at the office. Onwards and upwards
 
Chesterbfc said:
Made a note to watch him all game and his contribution was nearly zero. He didn’t go forward enough ,seem to dodge the scoring positions. I was screaming for him to be subbed after the first half. Madine didn’t take too kindly to being subbed either, straight down the tunnel. !! Just another observation of a poor day at the office. Onwards and upwards
Click to expand...
Woodburn with a scoring record of 2 goals in 40 appearances wouldn't appear to be much of a threat to the opposition.
 
I thought CJ Hamilton was crap at first but he really changes games - changed my views. He has had game time and liberty to play.
 
Anyone else think we should give the lad back to Liverpool before we break him. The last two games have shown he is not up to League One football - ironically, he may turn out to be a cracking player but is not what we need at this moment as can neither make an impact starting or coming on as a sub.
 
Nuttalls Mint Toes said:
Anyone else think we should give the lad back to Liverpool before we break him. The last two games have shown he is not up to League One football - ironically, he may turn out to be a cracking player but is not what we need at this moment as can neither make an impact starting or coming on as a sub.
Click to expand...
Does nothing for me. Let him go back and free up a loan place
 
Nuttalls Mint Toes said:
Anyone else think we should give the lad back to Liverpool before we break him. The last two games have shown he is not up to League One football - ironically, he may turn out to be a cracking player but is not what we need at this moment as can neither make an impact starting or coming on as a sub.
Click to expand...

I don't think he adds anything, or is a point of difference, to the current crop of midfield players from what I have seen - so I agree.
 
Yep looks completely lost to me. Appears to have no idea when the ball comes to him and generally leathers it out of play or dives on the floor. He’s obviously got potential but our level maybe not right for him. Would be interesting if he went to a Middlesbrough etc and started banging them in left right and centre
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top