joshthomson Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 No pittman is awful!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon atyeo is my dad Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Pitman is a poor mans berbatov, contributes to fudge all then then scores the odd goal! It's like playing with 10 men for 89 min 52 seconds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_Jim Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Maybe we should start playing 5 up front and seeing if we can win games 8-7, seeing as we don't seem any closer to signing a fudging centre back!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Do The Dziekanowski Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Maybe we should start playing 5 up front and seeing if we can win games 8-7, seeing as we don't seem any closer to signing a fudging centre back!! Like that but not sure heaton would be happy with it. How about 5-0-5 and sell all our midfielders and put adomah centre half he should adapt there pretty well after time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcofisher Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 I know that they are different types of players but I would much rather have Pitman in the squad than Stead, Taylor is a much better Stead to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_Jim Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 I know that they are different types of players but I would much rather have Pitman in the squad than Stead, Taylor is a much better Stead to me My old man says and I quote 'that Taylor is sh*t, nowhere near good enough for this level'. I've only seen Taylor play once this season and that was at Watford, I thought he was decent, but didn't do anything to stand out. Could people tell me, is my dad talking rubbish (once he's made his mind up on a player he usually sticks to it - for Taylor read Stead, he thinks he's rubbish too) or Taylor not really as good as some on here say? I'm not having a dig at Taylor, I'm just interested as I've hardly seen the guy play and I find it strange that my old man thinks he's rubbish when so many on here seem to rate him. Having said that, me and the old man have disagreed on many City players over the years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Unfortionately we are far from good enough as a football team to accommodate a gifted goalscorer like Pitman. We have been on the backfoot since being promoted and need players with a good work rate just to keep us above the water line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 No need for someone clinical on a silver plate. Not likely to be served. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 "Apart from the [correction supplied by me] four goals he was awful". That is hilarious! Against Exeter. Reserves. The point (which you have evidently missed) was that we have goals in the team, we don't need more goals, if Pitman is to get a look in he needs to show he offers more, and your man in the quote says he didn't on this evidence. Against Exeter. Reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC Jordan Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Against Exeter. Reserves. The point (which you have evidently missed) was that we have goals in the team, we don't need more goals, if Pitman is to get a look in he needs to show he offers more, and your man in the quote says he didn't on this evidence. Against Exeter. Reserves. He did more than Stead and Woolford who have been regular first teamers this year. Pitman can only score against what's put in front of him, and he's scored four goals. Not that he needs to prove himself in the Championship anyway, he already has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 We haven't scored many goals away from home, I think it's 4 in 5 games, we need someone to be able to take a chance and score for we don't seem to put away our chances when away from home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Against Exeter. Reserves. The point (which you have evidently missed) was that we have goals in the team, we don't need more goals, if Pitman is to get a look in he needs to show he offers more, and your man in the quote says he didn't on this evidence. Against Exeter. Reserves. 2 people I work with officiated the game, and said apart from his 3 goals he was awful. Link-play non-existant. But I guess he is there to put the ball in the back of the net and that's what he did Strikers who only score a measly 4 goals in a game should be thoroughly ashamed for not contributing a lot more to the teams' performance. Totally unacceptable overall display from Pitman. We could have got a 0-0 draw if he'd chased around outside the box a bit more. Four goals means nothing - let the lazy blighter rot in the reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Strikers who only score a measly 4 goals in a game should be thoroughly ashamed for not contributing a lot more to the teams' performance. Totally unacceptable overall display from Pitman. We could have got a 0-0 draw if he'd chased around outside the box a bit more. Four goals means nothing - let the lazy blighter rot in the reserves. Peter Styvar once scored a reserve hat trick for us, that says it all in my eyes. Keep up. The quality of reserve football is dross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 My old man says and I quote 'that Taylor is sh*t, nowhere near good enough for this level'. I've only seen Taylor play once this season and that was at Watford, I thought he was decent, but didn't do anything to stand out. Could people tell me, is my dad talking rubbish (once he's made his mind up on a player he usually sticks to it - for Taylor read Stead, he thinks he's rubbish too) or Taylor not really as good as some on here say? I'm not having a dig at Taylor, I'm just interested as I've hardly seen the guy play and I find it strange that my old man thinks he's rubbish when so many on here seem to rate him. Having said that, me and the old man have disagreed on many City players over the years... Taylor is adept at battling with defenders in the air, holding the ball up, and bringing others in to the game. He runs about quite a bit. He can't score goals - if he can then he's simply not capable of getting in to goalscoring positions to prove it. He's a useful player to have in the team but as he's a striker his lack of goals is a huge minus point. I think he's over rated by the many on here who enthuse about him, forgetting that if we are to play Taylor regularly we are really depending on his strike partner to hit 30 to make up for his lack of goals. Your Dad is wrong to say Taylor is s***, but your evaluation that he doesn't stand out is a fair one. The record books will show that however they played a striker like Baldock or Pitman who scores has done his job. As for Taylor, when he's not on top form he has little to offer because he's very unlikely to score - Baldock and Pitman are in a different class in that respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tall King Blox Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 but as he's a striker his lack of goals is a huge minus point. Snuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Keep up. The quality of reserve football is dross. If you say so. Either way, Pitman's obviously far too good for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 The issue being that Taylor is yet to have a bad game for us, he's not afraid to drop deep to get the ball and try and make things happen. Baldock, a suitable strike partner for him, is a thinking man's Brett Pitman, he has more to his all round game, is faster and has a better first touch which helps him if we resort to playing long ball and hoping he'll pick up the pieces, which we've done more than once this season. It's patronising to say that to judge a striker solely on goal return (or as some seem to on here assume that because someone is labelled a striker means scoring is their main role in the team) is ignorant but it is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 I'm Brett's biggest fan, but which of the forwards does he deserve to be in front of? Baldock is clearly a better player than Pitman so that is non starter. Taylor has been a revelation this season and although he needs to work on his game in front of goal I see him as a key player in our team at the moment. Also an ideal partner for Baldock. Stead, similarly to Taylor he isn't ever going to be the goal threat that Pitman is, but his all round game and ability to partner Baldock sees him higher in the pecking order. Davies, I'll be honest I wouldn't have signed him as even without him we have four capable strikers at this level. But he does look a talented player and his versatility and simple fact that he is a new signing will see him receive more chances in the team than Brett. For Brett to have anything near a chance in the first team it needs Baldock to get injured. The other three strikers all bring more to the team and will be better partners for Baldock who is quite obviously our best striker.However in any game that Davies and Baldock start up front Pitman should be on the bench (as he was against Millwall) as he would offer a much better option to score a goal off the bench with time running out than either Stead or Taylor. On a slight tangent I know some on here felt the need last season to start unsubstantiated rumours about Brett sulking or not trying in training when out of the team, but last week Jody Morris tweeted that he was staying behind after training with Baldock and Pitman to work on his finishing. Lets be honest at the moment Brett is probably the senior pro at the club with the least chance of starting a game. If there was any problem with his attitude I don't think he would be staying behind after training working on his game! Interesting post, br, with some good points, but I have to question the highlighted sections above. Why is 'Baldock clearly better than Pitman', and why is 'Baldock obviously our best striker'.? He might well prove to be but Baldock has never played a full season at this level, and his highest ever scoring season was 14 goals for MK Dons in the lower leagues. Pitman scored 13 Championship goals for City 2 seasons ago - let's see Baldock at least top that before we crown him the new king of Ashton Gate. Has Baldock even played a full game for City yet? Baldock's certainly not seen by Del as a must start player and when he does start him he is not averse to substituting him so obviously doesn't see him as a player likely to snatch a vital late goal after an ineffective game - of which he's had a few. What about Davies - isn't he just as likely to prove himself City's top striker? I like the look of Baldock, he looks like he's got goals in him but lack of form as well as injury could open the door to Pitman. There's absolutely nothing proved by Baldock yet, and unusually for you I think you go overboard a bit here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcnick Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 I think the problem for Brett is that he has never been given a lengthy spell in the first team. He is the type of player who needs a four or five games to get match sharpness. The times that he has been given a half decent spell he has come good after match sharpness has been reached only to be dropped again. There was a very long run of games when Nicky Maynard was being picked without scoring or even looking like scoring and that was the time when it was desperately unfair on BP to leave him out. I think given a whole season last season he would have scored 20 goals. If he is given a long run fans have to except that there will be games when he is anonymous and looks 'lazy' that just goes with the territory with predatory strikers and often they are just looking to find space and take up good positions. The trade off is plenty of goals. Now we are not short of goals and it's difficult to see how he can get in the team. I saw a light-hearted reference to Chris Sutton on the latest 'we need a centre half' thread. With the bonanza of quality strikers at the club are there any strikers who could 'do a Chris Sutton' and quickly convert into a quality centre half - Stead, & Taylor? They read the game well and have aerial ability. Can't do any worse than what we have and would contribute at set-pieces. I like the idea of having Pitman, Baldock, Davies, Stead and Taylor all in the same team! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearded_red Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Interesting post, br, with some good points, but I have to question the highlighted sections above. Why is 'Baldock clearly better than Pitman', and why is 'Baldock obviously our best striker'.? He might well prove to be but Baldock has never played a full season at this level, and his highest ever scoring season was 14 goals for MK Dons in the lower leagues. Pitman scored 13 Championship goals for City 2 seasons ago - let's see Baldock at least top that before we crown him the new king of Ashton Gate. Has Baldock even played a full game for City yet? Baldock's certainly not seen by Del as a must start player and when he does start him he is not averse to substituting him so obviously doesn't see him as a player likely to snatch a vital late goal after an ineffective game - of which he's had a few. What about Davies - isn't he just as likely to prove himself City's top striker? I like the look of Baldock, he looks like he's got goals in him but lack of form as well as injury could open the door to Pitman. There's absolutely nothing proved by Baldock yet, and unusually for you I think you go overboard a bit here. I accept I may have gone slightly over the top and I may have got slightly carried away by suggesting he is 'obviously our best striker'. I rate Baldock extremely highly though and do truly believe that the only thing holding him back from being a successful Premier League player in the future in the current fascination with playing one up front which obviously doesn't suit his game. He makes extremly intelligent runs (as does Brett), he has pace to burn, his finishing is excellent and some of his link up play at times (usually with Albert) has been breathtaking. As you say McInnes hasn't been afraid of not starting him or subbing him which I am pleased to see. I must admit a couple of times he has been subbed I have been baffled as it has came at times when we need a goal and he is obviously one of our best hopes of scoring one. However it is refreshing that McInnes looks as if he is going to treat Baldock as just another member of the squad which is good to see compared to the preferential treatment some past big money signings have received. I, like you am a big fan of Brett and I certainly wouldn't want anybody thinking that I don't rate him. In fact I would be over the moon if he somehow manages to convince the manager to give him a run in the team and he come in and sores for fun. I just feel, although as you say he does need to a bit more to prove it, that Baldock is going to be an extremely good player for us and that makes Brett's already tough job of getting in the team under this manager almost impossible. I truly wish we were a good enough side that we were able to play Baldock and Pitman up front together, but the sad reality is that we're not and we need at least one of Taylor and Stead in the team. In fact our best displays this seasons have come when they have both played! As for Davies as I said in my original post, I wouldn't have signed him as Pitman, Baldock, Stead and Taylor would have been plenty good enough in my opinion. However he does appear to be a talented player, but as many Derby fans suggested when we signed him, how do we best utilise him? Can he be the partner that gets the best our of Baldock (and Brett)? Is he actually better next to a big guy? Is he someone who prefers dropping off and playing in the hole? Is he best in a wide role? I've been to every game so far this season so I have seen all of Davies' short City career and I wouldn't be able to give you a sure answer on what is his preferred role in the team. I guess we will find out over time... When the, in my opinion inevitable, does happen and Brett moves on to another club I will be just as disappointed as you will be and there is no doubt in my mind that we have wasted a talented player. I have no doubt that if he manages to find a club that play the type of football that gets the best out of him (something we haven't been able to do) he will score a hell of a lot of goals after he has left us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Would now be a bad time to point out that Jon Stead was involved (scored or assisted) in only one less goal than Brett Pitman in 2010/11, despite playing 161 less minutes? Hardly staggeringly brilliant on Stead's part, but the difference in opinion between their two seasons couldn't be more contrasting in some quarters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Would now be a bad time to point out that Jon Stead was involved (scored or assisted) in only one less goal than Brett Pitman in 2010/11, despite playing 161 less minutes? Hardly staggeringly brilliant on Stead's part, but the difference in opinion between their two seasons couldn't be more contrasting in some quarters. There is never a bad time to present an eloquently composed piece of prose sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westonred Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 At the end of the day we need players who run their socks off for 90 minutes, put in a good shift and help the team out defensively as well as in attack ie Taylor and Stead. Pitman does not offer this,altho a great finisher he is anonymous for large parts of games and will always wait for the ball to come to him rather than chase it down for himself. Sitting near the dugouts in the Williams you can hear McInnes shouting at Pitman all the time trying to gee him up, but he just drifts out of games and doesn't look interested unless someone gives him the ball. What we used to call 'a gifted goal hanger' in our school days too much of a luxury for us i'm affraid Also who can remember Steven Gillespie scoring 7 in a reserve match once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Against Exeter. Reserves. The point (which you have evidently missed) was that we have goals in the team, we don't need more goals, if Pitman is to get a look in he needs to show he offers more, and your man in the quote says he didn't on this evidence. Against Exeter. Reserves. Really? We didn't have many goals in the team against Leicester did we? You may not have noticed, but after our excellent start to the season our goals for total has started to dwindle from 4 to 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 per game. Pitman knows where the back of the net is - and goals win games. Personally, I'd rather have him on the pitch doing little but then knocking a couple in, then Stead who works hard, runs his socks off but fluffs absolute sitters when they are presented to him. You don't get any points in football for artistic merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Really? We didn't have many goals in the team against Leicester did we? You may not have noticed, but after our excellent start to the season our goals for total has started to dwindle from 4 to 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 per game. Pitman knows where the back of the net is - and goals win games. Personally, I'd rather have him on the pitch doing little but then knocking a couple in, then Stead who works hard, runs his socks off but fluffs absolute sitters when they are presented to him. You don't get any points in football for artistic merit. As I have previously mentioned, Peter Styvar scored a hat trick against Bournemouth reserves for us - reserve football is no great judge of anything. A stat crib sheet someone posted in another thread showed we don't have many shots, but our shots to goals ratio is high. So converting chances isn't the issue, as I've said. Looking more at the last 2 years, Pitman has 20 goals for City from 113 shots. Jon Stead has 16 from 89. Put them through a calculator and you will discover Stead's conversion rate is actually better than Pitman's. Stead also manages to get a higher proportion of his shots on target. To conclude - over the time that both have been at the club, beyond working harder, offering more when we don't have the ball and generally creating more for others than BP, it appears Stead has actually been more clinical than him as well. Well there's a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 The FACT is that if Del thinks BP is good enough, he will play him. At the moment, he thinks he has better options and I totally agree with the manager. BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 As I have previously mentioned, Peter Styvar scored a hat trick against Bournemouth reserves for us - reserve football is no great judge of anything. A stat crib sheet someone posted in another thread showed we don't have many shots, but our shots to goals ratio is high. So converting chances isn't the issue, as I've said. Furthermore, Pitman has 20 goals for City from 113 shots. Jon Stead has 16 from 89. Put them through a calculator and you will discover Stead's conversion rate is actually better than Pitman's. Stead also manages to get a higher proportion of his shots on target. To conclude - beyond working harder, offering more when we don't have the ball and generally creating more for others than BP, it appears Stead is actually more clinical than him as well. Well there's a thing. The trouble with stats, Ron, is they don't necessarily reflect the current picture. This season, I think Stead's starting to look a bit goal-shy and I'd argue that Pitman might be thrown into the mix (for a decent amount of time) to see what he can do. We already rotate four strikers, I don't know of any reason why we can't rotate five. I think Brett would've proved useful in some of the home games I've seen, where a useful cross has come in, only to find none of our players on their far post. The reason Brett gets so many goals, despite his relative lack of pace, is that he positions himself so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 The trouble with stats, Ron, is they don't necessarily reflect the current picture. This season, I think Stead's started to look a bit goal-shy and I'd argue that Pitman might be thrown into the mix (for a decent amount of time) to see what he can do. No they don't, but then neither do goals in reserve games. Brett is championed as a bringer of goals, so judging first team goals by stats gives a fairly clear picture in this case. My point about Stead and Pitman was more to debunk some of the stuff said about him, rather than to clamour for Stead's inclusion. This season Stead has been ok without hitting some of his previous heights, but whether Pitman is the answer is arguable. Taylor does a great job and creates chances, and Davies has looked a big threat in the little time he's played. Why these two at least shouldn't be included seems illogical to me, and Baldock has to be around the starting XI, he's the most threatening striker we've got. A first touch and pace like he has will get us goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearded_red Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Looking more at the last 2 years, Pitman has 20 goals for City from 113 shots. Jon Stead has 16 from 89. Put them through a calculator and you will discover Stead's conversion rate is actually better than Pitman's. Stead also manages to get a higher proportion of his shots on target. Pointless statistic. How many genuine chances have they both had? How many shots have been from outside the box? Pitman takes free kicks... Of the 'on target' shots how many have dribbled through to the keeper and how many have actually made the keeper make a save? There was a stat on here during the endless Maynard arguments that during his his time at City he had managed to have something like four times as many shots as Chopra. Now I'm no fan of Nicky Maynard, but to suggest that we had created four times as many chances for him as Cardiff and Ipswich had for Chopra is obviously ridiculous. Maynard's goals per shots statistic would have looked relatively poor as like Pitman he was happy to shoot from anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Pointless statistic. How many genuine chances have they both had? How many shots have been from outside the box? Pitman takes free kicks... Of the 'on target' shots how many have dribbled through to the keeper and how many have actually made the keeper make a save? It's pointless because you want it to be. Having shots scores goals - if Brett is taking some of our free-kicks and shooting from them those shots still result in missed or scored opportunities. Having genuine chances is a result of being in good positions, not shooting from x yards and wasting possession. Maynard's goals per shots statistic would have looked relatively poor as like Pitman he was happy to shoot from anywhere. Exactly. If those shots are flying in, get our star striker a new contract. Otherwise, why is possession being squandered so pointlessly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.