Jump to content

Dropping Waghorn from Centre Forward


Recommended Posts

I don't make too much of a habit of second guessing the decisions of our manager, but can anyone else see the logic behind dropping Waghorn from the centre forward position after our routine win against Hull?

When we're playing with confidence, as we have at some points in the season, playing Marriott as a lone striker is brilliant as he will constantly make runs and the rest of the team can hold possession and open up space for him.

When we're out of form, as we have been for a while now, playing Waggy up top is surely the way to go. He isn't the best at holding up the play, but he's certainly the best we have and he will give players the legitimate option of going long when no one is showing for a pass.

I have faith in Frank to come good. Like Clement and McClaren (to a certain extent), he is used to working with a better standard of player and doesn't seem to adjust his style when key elements are missing or unavailable. Remember when Thorne got injured and McClaren tried to play a whole season shoehorning other players into the deep lying playmaker role? Or when Clement essentially tried to make us Ancelotti's Real Madrid, holding possession and waiting for Cristiano Ronaldo - or Tom Ince in his system - to pop up with a wonder strike or two to make the points safe?

Without Mount, we have a dearth of quality in the central midfield positions. Expecting the midfield and the team to be able to perform in the same way without him shows a bit of a lack of experience for me. 

It is his first season in charge and hopefully he will learn and stop the rot with a few wins in our run of home games. I think moving Waghorn central and sacrificing Marriott whilst Mount is unavailable could help.

But what do I know? I'd love Marriott to bang three tomorrow and make me look a plonker.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 19
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, EulogyForEvolution said:

I don't make too much of a habit of second guessing the decisions of our manager, but can anyone else see the logic behind dropping Waghorn from the centre forward position after our routine win against Hull?

When we're playing with confidence, as we have at some points in the season, playing Marriott as a lone striker is brilliant as he will constantly make runs and the rest of the team can hold possession and open up space for him.

When we're out of form, as we have been for a while now, playing Waggy up top is surely the way to go. He isn't the best at holding up the play, but he's certainly the best we have and he will give players the legitimate option of going long when no one is showing for a pass.

I have faith in Frank to come good. Like Clement and McClaren (to a certain extent), he is used to working with a better standard of player and doesn't seem to adjust his style when key elements are missing or unavailable. Remember when Thorne got injured and McClaren tried to play a whole season shoehorning other players into the deep lying playmaker role? Or when Clement essentially tried to make us Ancelotti's Real Madrid, holding possession and waiting for Cristiano Ronaldo - or Tom Ince in his system - to pop up with a wonder strike or two to make the points safe?

Without Mount, we have a dearth of quality in the central midfield positions. Expecting the midfield and the team to be able to perform in the same way without him shows a bit of a lack of experience for me. 

It is his first season in charge and hopefully he will learn and stop the rot with a few wins in our run of home games. I think moving Waghorn central and sacrificing Marriott whilst Mount is unavailable could help.

But what do I know? I'd love Marriott to bang three tomorrow and make me look a plonker.
 

I may be wrong but last time we beat Hull I seem to remember Josefzoon having a good game and his reward for it was being dropped. 

Waghorn surprised me, Derby fans had just started winging Waghorn, Derbys number 9, Waghorn had started scoring and Marriott should have been made to play his way back in until Wags form dipped.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree. Poor decision and harsh on Waghorn. Marriott hasn't really shown anything to justify walking back into the team, and I was disappointed with him against Forest and Villa as he seemed to run away from the midfield when they had the ball, making a pass neigh on impossible much of the time.

Earlier in the season when he was dropping in to receive, he looked so much better, as did we as a team as it provided a link that's all but disappeared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a symptom of the mess the squad is in.  All of our central midfielders are better in a 3 - Huddlestone is too immobile to play in a 2, Johnson isn't disciplined enough, Bryson/Mount/Wilson/Holmes etc all need cover in behind to let them do their jobs and make forward runs and so on.  That makes it difficult to play 2 up front as you can't play a flat 442.  And we don't really have the players to play a back 3 in a 352 either - we only really have 2 senior centre halves, plus the untried Ambrose, or we play Wisdom or Bogle out of position.  So we're stuck with one up front, and that either means playing Marriott as a lone striker and shunting Waghorn out wide (or dropping him), or leaving out your top goal-scoring striker.

With the squad we have, whatever way you approach the team, you'll either have to drop a player that really should be playing, or hamstring some other part of the team to fit him in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

With the squad we have, whatever way you approach the team, you'll either have to drop a player that really should be playing, or hamstring some other part of the team to fit him in. 

For me Waghorn is scoring, he gets played and Marriots gets the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

For me Waghorn is scoring, he gets played and Marriots gets the bench.

You can make rational arguments for any of the options - Marriott is our top scoring striker, he should be playing etc.  But you can guarantee that if we'd left Marriott on the bench and still not scored, Lampard would be getting lynched on here for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, angieram said:

Marriott is the long term answer but Waghorn could be the short-term one. 

Don't think Lampard is thinking short term though.

The big fee paid for Waghorn, would suggest to me that he was intended as a key signing, not a bit part player. I don't really understand much of the recent team selection strategy if I'm honest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, EulogyForEvolution said:

I don't make too much of a habit of second guessing the decisions of our manager, but can anyone else see the logic behind dropping Waghorn from the centre forward position after our routine win against Hull?
 

The most bizarre selection of them all I think. Finally put a performance in against a good, inform team and then we drop everything straight away. That was the chance to put out a team coming off the back of a very convincing win to put some consistency together. 

The Waghorn performance vs Hull is the best centre forward performance I've seen all year. He gives us something different to Marriott who's been a passenger for the past few games, which has not been his fault. 

It's a bit of a head scratcher for sure. Why did we shell out a huge fee for a player we're not planning on playing as our number one striker? I like Waghorn but along with Malone I'm not sure we needed to spend silly figures for players that aren't first choice. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, EulogyForEvolution said:

I don't make too much of a habit of second guessing the decisions of our manager, but can anyone else see the logic behind dropping Waghorn from the centre forward position after our routine win against Hull?

He played up top against Ipswich in the very next game - And played in a 2 against Milwall with Marriott

I think the reason we paid so much for him is his versatility - He can play, and play well, in any of the front three positions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, VulcanRam said:

Agree. Poor decision and harsh on Waghorn. Marriott hasn't really shown anything to justify walking back into the team, and I was disappointed with him against Forest and Villa as he seemed to run away from the midfield when they had the ball, making a pass neigh on impossible much of the time.

Earlier in the season when he was dropping in to receive, he looked so much better, as did we as a team as it provided a link that's all but disappeared.

He was only average just over 10 passes a game, from memory. 

In comparison Nugent and Waghorn have been about 20 and peak Martin was 40.

I agree that he has shown glimpses of ‘The Martins’ though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriott is the main strike but I would team him with Waghorn.

Only problem is even if we had greatest striker in the world in the team if he has no service or support from the midfield then he is going to look pants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, toddy said:

Marriott is the main strike but I would team him with Waghorn.

Only problem is even if we had greatest striker in the world in the team if he has no service or support from the midfield then he is going to look pants.

how can Marriott be the main striker in a 433?

he doesnt distribute the ball around,doesnt retain the ball or hold it up...hes a brilliant poacher but not the main man in a system set up as ours currently is.

i presume frank brought in waghorn at great cost to do exactly that,but then fails to utilise him in the role...

i fail to see how the rest of the team are meant to interact with the centre forward with any fluency and understanding when two completely different styles of striker are being interchanged.

you could have swapped waghorn for martin and vice versa on game day and the end result would be similar...and maybe Marriott and nugent could do the same, but the way frank does it seems to cause understandable confusion in the ranks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, europia said:

The big fee paid for Waghorn, would suggest to me that he was intended as a key signing, not a bit part player. I don't really understand much of the recent team selection strategy if I'm honest. 

I agree, although it's not just recently; Frank likes to tinker for no apparent reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is the main striker because he is young talented and not peaked. The forward line can be built around him.

Waghorn is short term fit when required.

To be fair to Waghorn he not just a lump he is prepared to play out on the wing too.

As for 4-3-3 why do you think you only need a hold up man in that system?

Far better to have 3 forwards who are interchangeable who are capable of running the channels, basically running anywhere along the lines where it will open up space for the other 2  strikers to receive the ball.

Remember Wanchope and Sturridge with Baiano ?

Probably the last good Derby side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, toddy said:

He is the main striker because he is young talented and not peaked. The forward line can be built around him.

Waghorn is short term fit when required.

To be fair to Waghorn he not just a lump he is prepared to play out on the wing too.

As for 4-3-3 why do you think you only need a hold up man in that system?

Far better to have 3 forwards who are interchangeable who are capable of running the channels, basically running anywhere along the lines where it will open up space for the other 2  strikers to receive the ball.

Remember Wanchope and Sturridge with Baiano ?

Probably the last good Derby side.

Yes,I've seen just how well that works lately....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...