Guest leetrundlesrightfoot Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 1st half tonight, one of the few players who could come out with any credit, 1 mis placed pass between albert and skuse, apart from that linked up well, offered width, had a few 1/2 chances and delivered a few decent balls- im not for 1 minute claiming he was MOM but he wasnt our worst. 2nd half, gets moved to left back (WHY?????, bryan should of started there if del wasnt confident in foster) and although he is not a left back, tried to bring the ball out of defense, wasnt as good, but certainly wasnt our worst (nyatanga/fontaine were both far worse) its easy to blame him, but was he really the reason we lost? NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisBCFC Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Cannot for the life of my understand dels decision. Woolford looked sharp and confident in the first half, had our best chance and was the only player seemingly get into dangerous positions. But why move an attacking left midfielder do LB? You wouldn't move Stead to CM, or Adomah to RB? An INCREDIBLY STRANGE decision. This guy is a Confidence player, we all know that....so why move a player, who has been scoring and creating in pre-season to a position that is completely alien to him? A great way to ruin a players confidence Del. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenric Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 a bad player with a wonderful lifestyle and a privaledge job. No confidence from him or for him, agree playing him out of position doesn't help but even in position he is wasteful of the ball, overhits passes, has a poor choice of pass, no pace, no ability to beat a man. Simply a really bad buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leetrundlesrightfoot Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Cannot for the life of my understand dels decision. Woolford looked sharp and confident in the first half, had our best chance and was the only player seemingly get into dangerous positions. But why move an attacking left midfielder do LB? You wouldn't move Stead to CM, or Adomah to RB? An INCREDIBLY STRANGE decision. This guy is a Confidence player, we all know that....so why move a player, who has been scoring and creating in pre-season to a position that is completely alien to him? A great way to ruin a players confidence Del. compleatly agree- for me woolford needs a run of 5/6 games in his posistion of left wing, being moved to left back made him the scapegoat. when deep down nyatanga/fontaine were woeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leetrundlesrightfoot Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 a bad player with a wonderful lifestyle and a privaledge job. No confidence from him or for him, agree playing him out of position doesn't help but even in position he is wasteful of the ball, overhits passes, has a poor choice of pass, no pace, no ability to beat a man. Simply a really bad buy. did you go tonight out of interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 1st half tonight, one of the few players who could come out with any credit, 1 mis placed pass between albert and skuse, apart from that linked up well, offered width, had a few 1/2 chances and delivered a few decent balls- im not for 1 minute claiming he was MOM but he wasnt our worst. 2nd half, gets moved to left back (WHY?????, bryan should of started there if del wasnt confident in foster) and although he is not a left back, tried to bring the ball out of defense, wasnt as good, but certainly wasnt our worst (nyatanga/fontaine were both far worse) its easy to blame him, but was he really the reason we lost? NO. I agree that he played ok in the 1st half and that he should never have been moved to LB. I can only assume Del's decision was based on the fact he knew he was missing Skuse in the centre of midfield as Pearson was completely anonymous in there. However, he did have J Wilson, Edwards and Bryan on the bench, so I'd question why Woolford wasn't left on at LM, Skuse moved to CM and Pearson subbed for one of those 3 to play at the back. If Nyatanga and Woolford are part of our back 4 we have no hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenric Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 did you go tonight out of interest? Yep, sat through the miserable event from start to finish. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leetrundlesrightfoot Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Yep, sat through the miserable event from start to finish. Why? just because 1st half woolford was far from poor, and did little wrong- football is all about opinions tho- was just interested thats all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenric Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Agree with you, well, i agree that we disagree and it is all about opinions. :-) I would love nothing more than woolford to turn into a great, but he has been here too long. Whilst i will admit he has never had a long spell in the team, he has never really done enough to justify one either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickolas Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 The only positive with Woolford is hes cut his hair so he no longer looks like a gypo!! Unfortunately he doesnt look like a footballer either!! I'll admit he was ok first half and hindered by being moved 2nd half, BUT he is not good enough!!! But also, hes not the only one that isnt good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Red85 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Really do not know what anyone sees in Woolford.......some players seem to be ok with just turning up and getting paid to do so. But to be fair it was a shocking performance by all tonight with maybe the exception of Skuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted August 15, 2012 Admin Share Posted August 15, 2012 The move was all about getting Skuse back into central midfield Assume the theory was to crowd the midfield and get back into the game that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myol'man Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 The move was all about getting Skuse back into central midfield Assume the theory was to crowd the midfield and get back into the game that way That worked then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brent Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 The amount of times Woolford was getting stick last night when he wasn't even at fault was unbelievable. Some people are desperate for him to fail so they can say "told you so". He looked our biggest threat first half, he has looked sharp in pre-season too. I can see why Del put him at left back though - Skuse and Morris should've sorted the midfield - shame it didn't pay off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Woolford was a hit and a miss last night. He looked sharp and ran at the Gills defence when he got the chance. He got into the opposition box frequently and missed a great chance to put City one up. He bombed up and down the left side, got tackles in and put in a full shift. That said, he gave the ball away several times, but then so did all the City players. His pass selection radar was also a bit wonky but so was everyone else's in a City shirt. Overall he was slightly better than most of the City team. Only Skuse and Bolasie looked as decent as he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.