BRISTOL86 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Could have done without this to be honest. Waggy doesn't offer much at all going forward but his work rate and discipline will be missed. Surely now we have to change the system? Not sure why SC doesn't rate Moloney what so ever though? He's not great defensively but rarely gets skinned. I find his biggest problem is positionally but surely he's not that bad that he can't at least step in and do a job? Not sure loans are the answer again to be honest.... Really? He's reasonably pacey, full of energy and has a good cross on him, though I'm hopeful this means time for Burns to start and starting to play a sensible formation if Brendan "the forgotten man" Moloney is allowed to play again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor10 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Really? He's reasonably pacey, full of energy and has a good cross on him, though I'm hopeful this means time for Burns to start and starting to play a sensible formation if Brendan "the forgotten man" Moloney is allowed to play again. It would appear Moloney isn't allowed to play. I can't fault Waggy for his work rate, desire or discipline but he doesn't get behind defenders enough or stretch defences. 4 goals is alright but could do better and he rarely weighs in with many assists. That said we have missed him in recent weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carey 6 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 He's directly contributed to the most amount of goals besides JET (21) and Baldock (19) Wagstaff has 4 goals and 3 assists Links up well with JET it would seem also as everyone of his goals have been assisted by him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor10 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 He's directly contributed to the most amount of goals besides JET (21) and Baldock (19) Wagstaff has 4 goals and 3 assists Links up well with JET it would seem also as everyone of his goals have been assisted by him Exactly, 4 goals and 3 assists is not enough to be honest and shows how reliant we have been on JET and Baldock. Not just Waggy though, the midfield need to weigh in with a lot more goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillies Downs Leeds Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think Maloney's problem is that he is a weak defender, I have no problem with him going forward but he just seems to get bullied, needs to put on a few pounds Agree with this 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carey 6 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Exactly, 4 goals and 3 assists is not enough to be honest and shows how reliant we have been on JET and Baldock. Not just Waggy though, the midfield need to weigh in with a lot more goals. Depends, he's been a wing back most games which in the main is a defensive position, not too bad. It is worrying however about the rest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor10 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Depends, he's been a wing back most games which in the main is a defensive position, not too bad. It is worrying however about the rest True. To be fair to him though I thought he was pretty average for us out wide but since he has played at wing back he has come into his own. He's been vital really to the wing back system working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldlandReddies Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Will deffo miss him as he has been my player of the season so far but it will mean that Wes will have more game time and with Kelly and Pearson back shortly maybe SC will find his best midfield by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lack of Action Man Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Fair enough; I still think you're being overly critical, and that Wagstaff has looked worst more by association than contribution since his arrival. The age he is I think he's got the potential to be a very decent player for us once (if..?) we stabilise and get a more balanced, settled team. I'd agree that his best performances have not come playing wing back, and looks weaker there, but then he's not a wing back by trade, so again not sure you're being entirely fair in your assessment. Maloney has also not been great in the same role, which I feel says more about the limits of using that system with our personnel, rather than him. But that said, it's a game of opinions, and respect yours fully. I think we will miss him. I would add that he's scored 5 not four, though agree the bigger problem is that only him and Elliott have been pulling their weight in that regards (outside JET and Baldock, of course). It's nice to be able to debate things on here without someone saying I'm a tool or words to that effect Wagstaff is by no means a bad player, I just don't believe him being injured will weaken us massively - people on here are acting as if losing him is sending us down... when really it isn't at all. Losing Cunningham (who is nearly back to the player he used to be) or Baldock (limited alternatives) would really change our season. I'll agree with you that his age is massively in his favour - at 23 he too is a very mouldable player, I just don't agree with some of the hype surrounding him. Hes the equivalent in league 1 this season as Pearson was to us last season in the Championship. An average player, not going to ever dazzle your opponents or control a match but occasionally will chip in with a good performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 It's nice to be able to debate things on here without someone saying I'm a tool or words to that effect Wagstaff is by no means a bad player, I just don't believe him being injured will weaken us massively - people on here are acting as if losing him is sending us down... when really it isn't at all. Losing Cunningham (who is nearly back to the player he used to be) or Baldock (limited alternatives) would really change our season. I'll agree with you that his age is massively in his favour - at 23 he too is a very mouldable player, I just don't agree with some of the hype surrounding him. Hes the equivalent in league 1 this season as Pearson was to us last season in the Championship. An average player, not going to ever dazzle your opponents or control a match but occasionally will chip in with a good performance. Yes, this is far too civilised; should I break out the curse words to rectify the situation? On the subject of Wagstaff's absence; although it would certainly be hyperbole to suggest his being out is a total disaster, I do think that the fact the rest of our midfield (especially the supposed 'attacking' players) have contributed so little (only five others have scored; three of them youth players, and one in Wynter seems to have gone totally MIA) means that, in context, it is a notable loss, even if he's not one of our more talented players. In Wagstaff's absence I hope Burns is given the chance to build on the confidence his goal against Coventry will have inevitably given him; I posted just before the game about how I felt that was the only piece missing from what his early promise had shown, and if there ever was a time to place trust in a youth player, it is giving them a chance to establish a place after a 'big moment', showing them the rewards of producing effective cameos. Too often we've stunted youth by allowing them enough time to show glimpses of their promise, before placing them gently back on the bench, forcing them to wait for another chance, sometimes which never came. I actually thought after tearing into Watford first time round that we might give Burns his opportunity, but we didn't; hope that isn't the same situation here. Let him loose; we've little to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 It's nice to be able to debate things on here without someone saying I'm a tool or words to that effect Wagstaff is by no means a bad player, I just don't believe him being injured will weaken us massively - people on here are acting as if losing him is sending us down... when really it isn't at all. Losing Cunningham (who is nearly back to the player he used to be) or Baldock (limited alternatives) would really change our season. I'll agree with you that his age is massively in his favour - at 23 he too is a very mouldable player, I just don't agree with some of the hype surrounding him. Hes the equivalent in league 1 this season as Pearson was to us last season in the Championship. An average player, not going to ever dazzle your opponents or control a match but occasionally will chip in with a good performance. I will agree Jim that Waggy has had the odd stinker, particularly under the last manager, but in recent weeks he's looked engaged and effective. Losing him is a blow because few have looked as good at this present time. The lad's never going to set the world alight, but at this level he's handy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 I will agree Jim that Waggy has had the odd stinker, particularly under the last manager, but in recent weeks he's looked engaged and effective. Losing him is a blow because few have looked as good at this present time. The lad's never going to set the world alight, but at this level he's handy. I think he's another of those who, were he better than he is, we'd not have a chance at keeping hold of. As it is, he's not someone I mind us having about the squad, and I think he'll improve too. I also think one thing to his credit is he always seems up for it; we've had a pretty awful season all told, and yet he's not been one who I'd say has let his head drop. Once we've 'levelled' out, (be it at this level or below) and we can get the team stable, and playing with more purpose and logical shape, I think Wagstaff will get the chance to show a little bot more of what he can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lack of Action Man Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Yes, this is far too civilised; should I break out the curse words to rectify the situation? I had a feeling someone would... but no! Some good points raised by yourself and Red-Robbo, particularly on Burns. Essentially, he now has the chance to step up to the plate and stake a claim for that wide position. It's not his natural position you could argue, but showing the right attitude to the manager and demonstrating adaptability will get you into that starting spot. Thing is, he does look like a massive confidence player (understandable at that age) and he also looks like he needs better positional coaching at times, to avoid having to use his running ability to get him out of a problem of his own doing. For those reasons, I wouldn't be suprised (but I personally would be a little dissapointed) if we resorted to another 30+ loan signing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 I had a feeling someone would... but no! Some good points raised by yourself and Red-Robbo, particularly on Burns. Essentially, he now has the chance to step up to the plate and stake a claim for that wide position. It's not his natural position you could argue, but showing the right attitude to the manager and demonstrating adaptability will get you into that starting spot. Thing is, he does look like a massive confidence player (understandable at that age) and he also looks like he needs better positional coaching at times, to avoid having to use his running ability to get him out of a problem of his own doing. For those reasons, I wouldn't be suprised (but I personally would be a little dissapointed) if we resorted to another 30+ loan signing I guess Wade Elliott was a right winger/midfielder once. Problem is, that was when Burns was back in junior school... But, yes; I also feel we might still end up not playing Burns as a regular starter, even though it would be nice for us to go all-out at the opposition like we've been doing in the second half/last third of games ( the period when Burns has been on the pitch) from the outset for once, rather than wait until we're two nil down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red mist Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Square pegs in round holes 4-4-2 for me against Oldham tomorrow.Wade Elliot is the natural choicedue to his experience, use Wes as a replacement if he tires. Team for me Moore Malhoney Flint Fontaine(Osbourne if fit) Cunningham WElliott M Elliott Pack Burns JET Baldock Jet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.