Woodburn

BpoolFred34

BpoolFred34

Well-known member
I'm sorry, I'm not a boo boy but he is crap. Did nothing all game and when Keshi replaced him we looked so much better.
 
Some young players look good in the reserves of big teams but struggle with the physicality of competitive football. I don’t think that’s his problem...and he was played where I think he ought to be played today. So it’s difficult to conclude anything other than either he is a player of average ability or he isn’t all that interested in playing for us or in league one and wants to get back to the gilded cage of Liverpool FC.
 
clappers said:
Some young players look good in the reserves of big teams but struggle with the physicality of competitive football. I don’t think that’s his problem...and he was played where I think he ought to be played today. So it’s difficult to conclude anything other than either he is a player of average ability or he isn’t all that interested in playing for us or in league one and wants to get back to the gilded cage of Liverpool FC.
Click to expand...
Like most players, he needs a consistent run of games. We really shouldn't judge until he has. It's a recurring theme.
 
voyeur said:
Like most players, he needs a consistent run of games. We really shouldn't judge until he has. It's a recurring theme.
Click to expand...
It’s quite easy to say that to excuse a performance like today. You are of course right, but you’d still expect to see short flashes of ability. Not really seen anything at all so far.
 
I don’t know if it’s the injury / fitness / Covid / new team & set-up, but I was expecting a lot better and I’d hoped for more benefits from NC’s Liverpool connections.
 
As said you just dont know with young players some adapt quickly & better than others. Some find it hard to come to terms with LG1 and it may take a run of games.

He obviously has quality or he wouldnt be a full international with a number of appearances.
He has not played enough to be judged.
 
Some on here always need a scapegoat, Woodburn is a good footballer who is not match fit yet
 
poolfc2011 said:
He seems to like a calculated fall like Jordan Thompson, but is no better or worse in terms of actual or potential effectiveness in this set up. We could be talking about him, Anderson, Kemp, Lubala, Sarkic or Ward here really, from what I've seen so far. False 9/10/floaty-types that are neither here nor there in the main. There's only really Hamilton and Kaikai, Madine and Yates where you know exactly what they are and what they bring to the team as an attacking threat, and they're not perfect either.

I think we'll only know whether there's a future to it with Woodburn if the loan is extended. And if Critchley actually commits to giving him a run of games to justify this. He's the guy who should know him the best, you would think. But he seems recticent to commit to his importance to the starting eleven so far. So he just seems to be another body for rotation. And he's usually a first sub off candidate when he does start. Like the old Delfouneso role. But it doesn't seem to be a fitness thing.
Click to expand...
Except that the progress is plain to see.
 
Woodburn hasn't done much, he's not really had many opportunities to do so. The question is - do we keep a lad on loan who has similar attributes to a lot of our players we've already got or let him go back and try and get someone who we arguably need more. I don't really see where he fits in in either a 442 or a 433 and tbh, Bez has played really quite well in his last two starts in the tinpot cup and I'd rather give him, Anderson, or Dan Kemp a go if there's a space in the forward line that Sullay, Jerry, Madine, or CJ can't fill.

I'm sure with a run of games and investment in him, he'd be fine, but I don't see how we can give him that.
 
I think if you're bringing in a late loan as the next attempt to try to make the front five of your 4-1-2-3 high press work, which they still were, then it was clear that the coach was looking for instant impact and grabbing at what was available. Someone he knows who can maybe do something that nobody else tried so far can. But for one reason or another it hasn't happened yet, and Critchley hasn't been in a rush to force the issue since the change of plan after the window closed, and getting an electric shock off the red card count.

Woodburn needs a moment where he lashes one in from 20 yards -the new/old KDH. But then so does everyone else in this strained set up, and I don't see much specific commitment to trying to make it happen with this lad really now. It is what it is and if it was going to happen it would have done already I think. Doesn't matter how we see it in that regard, if there's no extra investment in him then that's how it is. Just a body for rotation.

I don't see that he starts against Oxford yesterday if he isn't cup tied against Fleetwood in midweek. One or the other as his next turn. Further on in the pecking order than other punts in Lubala and Sarkic, but around the same as Anderson and Kemp. Just bodies apart from the non-negotiables of Maxwell, Ekpiteta, Dougall and Hamilton if they're fit. Watch how it gets changed again on Tuesday.
 
Last edited:
poolfc2011 said:
Watch how it gets changed again on Tuesday.
Click to expand...
It needs to bloody change. I’m sorry but if the coach is picking a team that absolutely no supporter from a fan base of 10,000 would have picked, and you play out a nil nil at home to a team that’s effectively come to defend, and only manage four shots on or around target, and one of those was from an individual moment of inspired action as opposed to team play, something is seriously wrong and needs addressing. It isn’t great management. And is majorly pissing off Yorke and Cole in the process, I would have thought.

I do think Critchley is displaying a bit of hurt pride in keeping going back to something that is less effective than we know we can be....”look at this dad....I can do this....honestly...I know I fell off last time but just you watch this time it will be amazing!!!”
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Yeah one of those where you're itching to see it work but it just doesn't. I think when you bring a loan in you want to see that they're a clear step up on who you have on a contract in their position from the off. Their sheer force of personality and ability puts them in the starting eleven over and above what you have. We've not had that with our loans so far really. Ballard looks the closest, but I can also see why he's been stop-start in his development, before here. Maybe cares more than his body can actually cope with.
 
One thing i did not like with Woodburn today he had beat his player and was going into space down the left wing but he left his foot in and took the free kick. Apart from that looked lightweight and should of been hooked earlier.
 
It's a tough one. I'm not actually sure what Woodburn's best position is. Critch has coached him for long enough so surely he does and he played him quite deep yesterday. If that's where he sees him then IMO he's a luxury we can afford to let go. What we need in January are the 2 most prolific goal-scorers from Liverpool's academy.
 
Insider said:
It's a tough one. I'm not actually sure what Woodburn's best position is. Critch has coached him for long enough so surely he does and he played him quite deep yesterday. If that's where he sees him then IMO he's a luxury we can afford to let go. What we need in January are the 2 most prolific goal-scorers from Liverpool's academy.
Click to expand...
They don't have a prolific striker from what I can see. 3 in 10 from two players in u23 league this year.
 
poolfc2011 said:
Yeah one of those where you're itching to see it work but it just doesn't. I think when you bring a loan in you want to see that they're a clear step up on who you have on a contract in their position from the off. Their sheer force of personality and ability puts them in the starting eleven over and above what you have. We've not had that with our loans so far really. Ballard looks the closest, but I can also see why he's been stop-start in his development, before here. Maybe cares more than his body can actually cope with.
Click to expand...
I'd like to think that the loans we get now would be more like KDH and Ballard and not like the old days when we were getting random bodies in just to put a team out.
If we are going to get them in they should be providing unaffordable quality for the division we are in.
Why demotivate and demoralise our permanent players to play somebody else's man that probably won't be hanging around and is no better than what we have.
Quality not quantity, we are doing things properly these days, getting the loans right is the key to our success.
 
In fact, to add to that, the top scorers for them this year are a centre half and a midfielder. They had no one last year anywhere near the top of the scoring charts.

The leader this year is a Derby player, last year it was two Wet Spam players (Dan Kemp was fifth) and no Liverpool player anywhere near the top.
 
Critchley must have received a call from Liverpool ordering to play him. Can’t think another reason why he started ahead of Anderson.
 
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.
 
I have a mate who's an Oxford fan, I asked him about Woodburn when we signed him, he said, he lacks confidence and is injury prone, we (Oxford) didn't seem to know where to play him. Perhaps we have the same problem, whatever, in my opinion he shouldn't be starting instead of Yates, Madine or even Anderson.

Our two main men are Yates and Madine, develop that pairing and stick with it, they are our players and should be the first names on the team sheet.
 
Yarmouth Seasider said:
I have a mate who's an Oxford fan, I asked him about Woodburn when we signed him, he said, he lacks confidence and is injury prone, we (Oxford) didn't seem to know where to play him. Perhaps we have the same problem, whatever, in my opinion he shouldn't be starting instead of Yates, Madine or even Anderson.

Our two main men are Yates and Madine, develop that pairing and stick with it, they are our players and should be the first names on the team sheet.
Click to expand...
I would agree if they scored more regularly. We need to find a way to score more regularly.
 
voyeur said:
I would agree if they scored more regularly. We need to find a way to score more regularly.
Click to expand...
In the games where both have played, they've done relatively well.

In the games where they've played alone both have struggled.

I don't blame Critch for *trying* Woodburn, I was frustrated that he didn't go to what has been easily the most convincing method of attacking (playing Yates next to Madine) for half an hour or so in a game we were drawing and getting a fair amount of balls into the box with no real end product.
 
We have several players who play the same role as Woodburn, so he is a luxury and one we need to let go in January to free up a space.
We are crying out for a striker who can play as or off a centre forward. The only two players we have other than Madine and Yates, is Joe Nuttall who is still out injured, and in my opinion, Bez Luballa. He certainly has the strength to play off of Madine and he isn’t afraid to have a shot. He’s a bit rough around the edges, but there’s something there that excites me when he plays.

If we can get someone in during the transfer window then that will improve us, a loan is fine but a player who we can sign would be better.
 
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...
There's another 91 clubs and shed loads more players. We're never going to get Curtis Jones or one of their kids who is actually seriously *any good* as Klopp prefers to keep the top talent at Anfield mostly and the ones he does let out won't be coming here to get clobbered on shit pitched in our league if he really rates them.
 
That's the only problem with loaning players from clubs higher up the pyramid they expect them to play or why would they let them go in the first place certainly not to keep the bench warm.

As others have posted I wouldn't have a clue what his best position is and where he fits in send him back and ask Liverpool for a striker. 😁
 
poolseasider said:
That's the only problem with loaning players from clubs higher up the pyramid they expect them to play or why would they let them go in the first place certainly not to keep the bench warm.

As others have posted I wouldn't have a clue what his best position is and where he fits in send him back and ask Liverpool for a striker. 😁
Click to expand...

They haven't got any! Seriously, there isn't a wonderkid striker at Liverpool.
 
Madine looked totally peed off very early on and rightly so, he had no one to play the ball off to. Woodburn was way too deep and totally ineffective in a match we should have played two up top and really gone for it against a team that were never going to put us under pressure. The Madine, Yates partnership has proved a winner why on earth change it especially at home.
 
td53 said:
In the games where both have played, they've done relatively well.

In the games where they've played alone both have struggled.

I don't blame Critch for *trying* Woodburn, I was frustrated that he didn't go to what has been easily the most convincing method of attacking (playing Yates next to Madine) for half an hour or so in a game we were drawing and getting a fair amount of balls into the box with no real end product.
Click to expand...
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.
 
onlyonepool said:
Madine looked totally peed off very early on and rightly so, he had no one to play the ball off to. Woodburn was way too deep and totally ineffective in a match we should have played two up top and really gone for it against a team that were never going to put us under pressure. The Madine, Yates partnership has proved a winner why on earth change it especially at home.
Click to expand...
Because our head coach sometimes is too clever for his own good and thinks changing formation every game is going to work why not stick with the 4-4-2 that turned around our season.
 
poolseasider said:
Because our head coach sometimes is too clever for his own good and thinks changing formation every game is going to work why not stick with the 4-4-2 that turned around our season.
Click to expand...
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.
 
When it was obvious that their best centre half was injured before finally coming off to be replaced by a veteran lacking mobility, why didn't we put Yates on to play with Madine straight away?
That is the sort of question I would like to be put to a manager after a game but most sports media people go so easy on them the post match interview is almost a pointless exercise.
 
It's not changing it I object to, it's then having changed it, and it's palpably not working, why you don't then give them 30 mins is baffling.

I don't like the way if we lose or don't win, the manager gets crucified by hindsight. All managers from Herbert Chapman to Klopp and everyone in between will get the starting line up wrong on occasion.

What I genuinely don't get is why, now we have five subs especially, you don't give them a go up front together at some point.

It's not like Yates doesn't have the ability to come deep if you're worried about changing the shape too much and letting Oxford in.

I'm very much behind Critch, he can do many things I can't do and is clearly improving players. I think I should do his subs for him though.

The offer is there.
 
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...

It probably will, but I think it involves 2 up front. CJ could go down the middle but not on his own. See also Bez...

I just don't see it knitting in a 3 in games we've got to make the play against a well organised defence.

Perhaps if we had a hypothetical a.n.other who was Gary and Jerry in one but I'm not sure they're likely to be twiddling their thumbs waiting for a midtable league one side to call.

You need presence, mobility, vision, finishing and skill to play centre of a three. We've got all that but it's spread across 2 players...
 
Pressure from liverpool to play him more?
Or will be recalled?
We have many better, so would let him go, so we can play our best team & 442!
 
td53 said:
It probably will, but I think it involves 2 up front. CJ could go down the middle but not on his own. See also Bez...

I just don't see it knitting in a 3 in games we've got to make the play against a well organised defence.

Perhaps if we had a hypothetical a.n.other who was Gary and Jerry in one but I'm not sure they're likely to be twiddling their thumbs waiting for a midtable league one side to call.

You need presence, mobility, vision, finishing and skill to play centre of a three. We've got all that but it's spread across 2 players...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
It's not an amazing duo when they play together but each one on their own is totally ineffective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top