duncanjwitham

We had a pacey option down the centre (Osula), and we never really used him, because he couldn't do anything else that a modern striker needs to do. He was quick, and he could dribble and finish, and that was about it.
We mainly are playing 1 up front, and even when we play Collins and McGoldrick together, they're far from a traditional front 2.  So any striker we bring in has to be able to play as a lone striker, which means they have to be able to do at least a few out of: being a physical presence up front, occupying defenders, holding the ball up, linking the play, winning headers etc.  Otherwise you're basically toothless up front and your entire system doesn't work.  There's a reason why small, quick strikers (think Michael Owen, Jermaine Defoe types) barely exist in modern football (as regular starters anyway) - they can't play up front on their own, and if you play a front 2, you get outnumbered somewhere else. 
So if we want a pacey option, we're looking at Ivan Toney types - big, strong, physical and quick at the same time.  And good luck finding one of those for free in January.  Any player that's big, strong and quick and can score goals is going to be playing regular football somewhere already.
And for what it's worth, we have bags of pace in the team already - 4 quick wingers, and the likes of Knight and Sibley breaking from deeper.  What we need is craft in the final third (i.e. someone to actually play passes or create opportunities for those guys).  We only really have McGoldrick, plus Bird and Hourihane from deeper.  A striker that can either hold the ball up, or drop off and play passes, would make a much bigger difference than another guy that can run quickly.

We had a pacey option down the centre (Osula), and we never really used him, because he couldn't do anything else that a modern striker needs to do. He was quick, and he could dribble and finish, and that was about it.
We mainly are playing 1 up front, and even when we play Collins and McGoldrick together, they're far from a traditional front 2.  So any striker we bring in has to be able to play as a lone striker, which means they have to be able to do at least a few out of: being a physical presence up front, occupying defenders, holding the ball up, linking the play, winning headers etc.  Otherwise you're basically toothless up front and your entire system doesn't work.  There's a reason why small, quick strikers (think Michael Owen, Jermaine Defoe types) barely exist in modern football (as regular starters anyway) - they can't play up front on their own, and if you play a front 2, you get outnumbered somewhere else. 
So if we want a pacey option, we're looking at Ivan Toney types - big, strong, physical and quick at the same time.  And good luck finding one of those for free in January.  Any player that's big, strong and quick and can score goals is going to be playing regular football somewhere already.
And for what it's worth, we have bags of pace in the team already - 4 quick wingers, and the likes of Knight and Sibley breaking from deeper.  What we need is craft in the final third (i.e. someone to actually play passes or create opportunities for those guys).  We only really have McGoldrick, plus Bird and Hourihane from deeper.  A striker that can either hold the ball up, or drop off and play passes, would make a much bigger difference than another guy that can run quickly.

We had a pacey option down the centre (Osula), and we never really used him, because he couldn't do anything else that a modern striker needs to do. He was quick, and he could dribble and finish, and that was about it.
We mainly are playing 1 up front, and even when we play Collins and McGoldrick together, they're far from a traditional front 2.  So any striker we bring in has to be able to play as a lone striker, which means they have to be able to do at least a few out of: being a physical presence up front, occupying defenders, holding the ball up, linking the play, winning headers etc.  Otherwise you're basically toothless up front and your entire system doesn't work.  There's a reason why small, quick strikers (think Michael Owen, Jermaine Defoe types) barely exist in modern football (as regular starters anyway) - they can't play up front on their own, and if you play a front 2, you get outnumbered somewhere else. 
So if we want a pacey option, we're looking at Ivan Toney types - big, strong, physical and quick at the same time.  And good luck finding one of those for free in January.  Any player that's big, strong and quick and can score goals is going to be playing regular football somewhere already.
And for what it's worth, we have bags of pace in the team already - 4 quick wingers, and the likes of Knight and Sibley breaking from deeper.  What we need is craft in the final third (i.e. someone to actually play passes or create opportunities for those guys).  We only really have McGoldrick, plus Bird and Hourihane from deeper.  A striker that can either hold the ball up, or drop off and play passes, would make a much bigger difference than another guy that can run quickly.

We had a pacey option down the centre (Osula), and we never really used him, because he couldn't do anything else that a modern striker needs to do. He was quick, and he could dribble and finish, and that was about it.
We mainly are playing 1 up front, and even when we play Collins and McGoldrick together, they're far from a traditional front 2.  So any striker we bring in has to be able to play as a lone striker, which means they have to be able to do at least a few out of: being a physical presence up front, occupying defenders, holding the ball up, linking the play, winning headers etc.  Otherwise you're basically toothless up front and your entire system doesn't work.  There's a reason why small, quick strikers (think Michael Owen, Jermaine Defoe types) barely exist in modern football (as regular starters anyway) - they can't play up front on their own, and if you play a front 2, you get outnumbered somewhere else. 
So if we want a pacey option, we're looking at Ivan Toney types - big, strong, physical and quick at the same time.  And good luck finding one of those for free in January.  Any player that's big, strong and quick and can score goals is going to be playing regular football somewhere already.
And for what it's worth, we have bags of pace in the team already - 4 quick wingers, and the likes of Knight and Sibley breaking from deeper.  What we need is craft in the final third (i.e. someone to actually play passes or create opportunities for those guys).  We only really have McGoldrick, plus Bird and Hourihane from deeper.  A striker that can either hold the ball up, or drop off and play passes, would make a much bigger difference than another guy that can run quickly.

Hughes. Close thread.

The way I see it, Martin can do most of the stuff Collins currently does well for us (being a physical presence up front, occupying defenders etc), and most of the stuff McGoldrick currently does well for us (dropping off the front, finding space, linking the play up etc).  If he's within our wage budget, and if he's still reasonably fit (by his own standards), then I think it's an absolute no-brainer to get him back.  I think the most likely thing to stop us getting promoted this season is McGoldrick being unavailable for large periods (through injury/lack of fitness/whatever), and Chris Martin potentially solves that problem in one fell swoop.

The key to our recent success has been the wingers and CMs getting into goal scoring positions. McGoldrick's link up play has been vital in bringing those players in to play. There haven't actually been that many goals scored due to the pace of one of our CFs.
There aren't many CFs who do the linking of play better than Martin, who would prove to be a useful backup to McGoldrick. The McClaren side wasn't actually too dissimilar to what Warne is trying to implement (although there is a a difference in the range of passing). When you have wingers and AMs buzzing around a CF, it doesn't matter if the CF can run the 100m in 10 seconds or 10 minutes.
3rd choice CFs rarely are the complete package. They'll be missing at least 1 of the following: pace, finishing, link up play. Missing the link up play will be the most detrimental to the team in the event of McGoldrick being out for any significant length of time.

The way I see it, Martin can do most of the stuff Collins currently does well for us (being a physical presence up front, occupying defenders etc), and most of the stuff McGoldrick currently does well for us (dropping off the front, finding space, linking the play up etc).  If he's within our wage budget, and if he's still reasonably fit (by his own standards), then I think it's an absolute no-brainer to get him back.  I think the most likely thing to stop us getting promoted this season is McGoldrick being unavailable for large periods (through injury/lack of fitness/whatever), and Chris Martin potentially solves that problem in one fell swoop.

The way I see it, Martin can do most of the stuff Collins currently does well for us (being a physical presence up front, occupying defenders etc), and most of the stuff McGoldrick currently does well for us (dropping off the front, finding space, linking the play up etc).  If he's within our wage budget, and if he's still reasonably fit (by his own standards), then I think it's an absolute no-brainer to get him back.  I think the most likely thing to stop us getting promoted this season is McGoldrick being unavailable for large periods (through injury/lack of fitness/whatever), and Chris Martin potentially solves that problem in one fell swoop.

The way I see it, Martin can do most of the stuff Collins currently does well for us (being a physical presence up front, occupying defenders etc), and most of the stuff McGoldrick currently does well for us (dropping off the front, finding space, linking the play up etc).  If he's within our wage budget, and if he's still reasonably fit (by his own standards), then I think it's an absolute no-brainer to get him back.  I think the most likely thing to stop us getting promoted this season is McGoldrick being unavailable for large periods (through injury/lack of fitness/whatever), and Chris Martin potentially solves that problem in one fell swoop.

First half, Curtis looked like a guy that hadn’t started a game since October. Second half, he looked like he had 45 minutes of football under his belt. If he starts on Tuesday, I reckon he’ll look like a player with 90 minutes of football in the tank. Hope that helps everyone ?.

What actually is Warne-ball though? The way we played today was very different to how we’ve played for the last month or so. It was much more like how we played when Warne first came in - very direct, balls being played over the top at every opportunity etc.  There was very little effort to actually construct anything in terms of football moves (ironically our goals being 2 notable exceptions…) From a football-purists point of view, it was a pretty poor watch tbh.
The last month or so, it’s been more like Warne’s own version of Rosenior-ball - playing out from the back, through the thirds etc, but doing everything a lot more aggressively (pressing, passing etc).  
If the plan is to play like we have been doing recently, with the odd diversion into long balls for specific games (which to be fair, is what I think today probably was, given how radical the shift in styes was) then OK. If the last month has been a temporary blip and we’re intending to play like today for the rest of the season, then I’m less happy with it.

First half, Curtis looked like a guy that hadn’t started a game since October. Second half, he looked like he had 45 minutes of football under his belt. If he starts on Tuesday, I reckon he’ll look like a player with 90 minutes of football in the tank. Hope that helps everyone ?.

First half, Curtis looked like a guy that hadn’t started a game since October. Second half, he looked like he had 45 minutes of football under his belt. If he starts on Tuesday, I reckon he’ll look like a player with 90 minutes of football in the tank. Hope that helps everyone ?.

What actually is Warne-ball though? The way we played today was very different to how we’ve played for the last month or so. It was much more like how we played when Warne first came in - very direct, balls being played over the top at every opportunity etc.  There was very little effort to actually construct anything in terms of football moves (ironically our goals being 2 notable exceptions…) From a football-purists point of view, it was a pretty poor watch tbh.
The last month or so, it’s been more like Warne’s own version of Rosenior-ball - playing out from the back, through the thirds etc, but doing everything a lot more aggressively (pressing, passing etc).  
If the plan is to play like we have been doing recently, with the odd diversion into long balls for specific games (which to be fair, is what I think today probably was, given how radical the shift in styes was) then OK. If the last month has been a temporary blip and we’re intending to play like today for the rest of the season, then I’m less happy with it.

First half, Curtis looked like a guy that hadn’t started a game since October. Second half, he looked like he had 45 minutes of football under his belt. If he starts on Tuesday, I reckon he’ll look like a player with 90 minutes of football in the tank. Hope that helps everyone ?.

What actually is Warne-ball though? The way we played today was very different to how we’ve played for the last month or so. It was much more like how we played when Warne first came in - very direct, balls being played over the top at every opportunity etc.  There was very little effort to actually construct anything in terms of football moves (ironically our goals being 2 notable exceptions…) From a football-purists point of view, it was a pretty poor watch tbh.
The last month or so, it’s been more like Warne’s own version of Rosenior-ball - playing out from the back, through the thirds etc, but doing everything a lot more aggressively (pressing, passing etc).  
If the plan is to play like we have been doing recently, with the odd diversion into long balls for specific games (which to be fair, is what I think today probably was, given how radical the shift in styes was) then OK. If the last month has been a temporary blip and we’re intending to play like today for the rest of the season, then I’m less happy with it.

First half, Curtis looked like a guy that hadn’t started a game since October. Second half, he looked like he had 45 minutes of football under his belt. If he starts on Tuesday, I reckon he’ll look like a player with 90 minutes of football in the tank. Hope that helps everyone ?.

What actually is Warne-ball though? The way we played today was very different to how we’ve played for the last month or so. It was much more like how we played when Warne first came in - very direct, balls being played over the top at every opportunity etc.  There was very little effort to actually construct anything in terms of football moves (ironically our goals being 2 notable exceptions…) From a football-purists point of view, it was a pretty poor watch tbh.
The last month or so, it’s been more like Warne’s own version of Rosenior-ball - playing out from the back, through the thirds etc, but doing everything a lot more aggressively (pressing, passing etc).  
If the plan is to play like we have been doing recently, with the odd diversion into long balls for specific games (which to be fair, is what I think today probably was, given how radical the shift in styes was) then OK. If the last month has been a temporary blip and we’re intending to play like today for the rest of the season, then I’m less happy with it.

I think it was more than just down to Cashin/Davies - the entire team were doing it.  I suspect it was some attempt to exploit Bolton’s slow backline, and that tallies with starting McGoldrick over Collins up front too - he’s much more effective running in behind than Collins is.

First half, Curtis looked like a guy that hadn’t started a game since October. Second half, he looked like he had 45 minutes of football under his belt. If he starts on Tuesday, I reckon he’ll look like a player with 90 minutes of football in the tank. Hope that helps everyone ?.

First half, Curtis looked like a guy that hadn’t started a game since October. Second half, he looked like he had 45 minutes of football under his belt. If he starts on Tuesday, I reckon he’ll look like a player with 90 minutes of football in the tank. Hope that helps everyone ?.

What actually is Warne-ball though? The way we played today was very different to how we’ve played for the last month or so. It was much more like how we played when Warne first came in - very direct, balls being played over the top at every opportunity etc.  There was very little effort to actually construct anything in terms of football moves (ironically our goals being 2 notable exceptions…) From a football-purists point of view, it was a pretty poor watch tbh.
The last month or so, it’s been more like Warne’s own version of Rosenior-ball - playing out from the back, through the thirds etc, but doing everything a lot more aggressively (pressing, passing etc).  
If the plan is to play like we have been doing recently, with the odd diversion into long balls for specific games (which to be fair, is what I think today probably was, given how radical the shift in styes was) then OK. If the last month has been a temporary blip and we’re intending to play like today for the rest of the season, then I’m less happy with it.

First half, Curtis looked like a guy that hadn’t started a game since October. Second half, he looked like he had 45 minutes of football under his belt. If he starts on Tuesday, I reckon he’ll look like a player with 90 minutes of football in the tank. Hope that helps everyone ?.

First half, Curtis looked like a guy that hadn’t started a game since October. Second half, he looked like he had 45 minutes of football under his belt. If he starts on Tuesday, I reckon he’ll look like a player with 90 minutes of football in the tank. Hope that helps everyone ?.