!james Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Step forward Wes Burns... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 balls. Awful news, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petehinton Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 hopefully this means more playing time for Moloney. Very harsh to be shunned out of the squad. Hope to god this doesn't mean Wade Elliott comes in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lack of Action Man Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not overly dissapointed. Wagstaff is inconsistent. Burns has a lot of potential and I like what he offers when he plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pride of the west Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not good. Hes one of the few 100%ers and he scorea the odd goal. Burns has to start now. Only player we have that allows us to break at pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not overly dissapointed. Wagstaff is inconsistent. Burns has a lot of potential and I like what he offers when he plays. really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Could have been worse, could have been one of our defenders! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 He's one of only a couple to have come out of the last couple of games in credit IMO. Big loss but hopefully that means an end to this 532/352 bollocks and we can revert to a back 4 with Moloney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_Porter Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 This is bad news, its a case of ALL hands to the pumps i think...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Couldn't really see it but any blame attached to the Cov bloke or was it 50/50 tackle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westred1 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Couldn't really see it but any blame attached to the Cov bloke or was it 50/50 tackle? From watching the youtube clip, looks as though Clarke had a bit of a run up to leap for the ball and Waggy was pretty much stood still when he jumped. Just power and strength, nothing malicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lack of Action Man Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 really? Yeah, he's not been anywhere near consistent enough for me to warrant his position week in week out. Granted when he's good, he's an asset but he isn't pacey nor cunning with the ball, he's just a bog standard wide midfielder for this level. In terms of us playing 3-5-2, I think Moloney (sic) has been really unlucky to not get a shot at the wing back spot in all honesty. But if he's not favoured by Cotterill then, I guess thats that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Yeah, he's not been anywhere near consistent enough for me to warrant his position week in week out. Granted when he's good, he's an asset but he isn't pacey nor cunning with the ball, he's just a bog standard wide midfielder for this level. In terms of us playing 3-5-2, I think Moloney (sic) has been really unlucky to not get a shot at the wing back spot in all honesty. But if he's not favoured by Cotterill then, I guess thats that. The trouble with Maloney as a wing back is that he is not great going forward which WB's have to be good at. I exepct we will go back to 4-4-2 with Maloney at RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Could have been worse, could have been one of our defenders! We have defenders?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lack of Action Man Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 The trouble with Maloney as a wing back is that he is not great going forward which WB's have to be good at. I exepct we will go back to 4-4-2 with Maloney at RB. I'd be happy with that. Round pegs for round holes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Very bad news. Waggy's one of the few players currently in reasonable form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murraysrightplum Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 BURNS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Man Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 SC said earlier this week that he doesn't feel he can use 442 without Karleigh Osborne, that means Maloney isn't the preferred right back or right wing back. When is Osborne due back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 SC said earlier this week that he doesn't feel he can use 442 without Karleigh Osborne, that means Maloney isn't the preferred right back or right wing back. When is Osborne due back? SC: "We don't know about Karleigh Osborne; certainly no more than 50/50 at this stage." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!james Posted February 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 SC said earlier this week that he doesn't feel he can use 442 without Karleigh Osborne, that means Maloney isn't the preferred right back or right wing back. When is Osborne due back? I just asked Stockhausen that very question about Moloney, his response: "I asked him what other options he had available on the right hand side and he didnt mention his name. Not played since Watford away." He then said: "Cotterill may seek short term replacement for Wagstaff when the loan window opens tomorrow" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murraysrightplum Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I just asked Stockhausen that very question about Moloney, his response: "I asked him what other options he had available on the right hand side and he didnt mention his name. Not played since Watford away." He then said: "Cotterill may seek short term replacement for Wagstaff when the loan window opens tomorrow" Has Moloney ****ed SC's missus or something? I don't rate him as highly as some on here but come on he is a decent player at the very least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Man 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not overly dissapointed. Wagstaff is inconsistent. Burns has a lot of potential and I like what he offers when he plays. Yeah, he's not been anywhere near consistent enough for me to warrant his position week in week out. Granted when he's good, he's an asset but he isn't pacey nor cunning with the ball, he's just a bog standard wide midfielder for this level. In terms of us playing 3-5-2, I think Moloney (sic) has been really unlucky to not get a shot at the wing back spot in all honesty. But if he's not favoured by Cotterill then, I guess thats that. Think you're being very harsh on Wagstaff here. And I if he's bog standard for this level, I wish a few more of our players were, because he looks significantly better than a lot of the others with better pedigree. If nothing else, he's one of the few players that's scored more than a goal for us; losing that threat is a problem. He also busts a gut regardless of where he is played, and at 23 I think he'll improve; hope we keep him. That said; I'm up for seeing more of both Maloney (if Cotterill remembers if he exists...) and definitely Burns, who I hope plays a MUCH bigger role now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lack of Action Man Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Think you're being very harsh on Wagstaff here. And I if he's bog standard for this level, I wish a few more of our players were, because he looks significantly better than a lot of the others with better pedigree. If nothing else, he's one of the few players that's scored more than a goal for us; losing that threat is a problem. He also busts a gut regardless of where he is played, and at 23 I think he'll improve; hope we keep him. That said; I'm up for seeing more of both Maloney (if Cotterill remembers if he exists...) and definitely Burns, who I hope plays a MUCH bigger role now. He is bog standard for his level, no more no less. He looks good at times (and it is only at times) because those around him are so poor. Regardless of their pedigree, we have a team of poor players. 4 goals isn't great, it's just average in my book. What's more important to me is the fact that so few goals have come from the rest of the midfield, a true concern. I'm not sure I agree he busts a gut, when Osbourne was playing right cb in the back three Wagstaff constantly left him exposed by not tracking back or just giving a half hearted nudge in the back of the opposition player running through. That happened far too many times for my liking. I want to see Maloney make a return as he's solid for this level whilst Burns is very raw but has the potential to be moulded into a versatile player. Whether this happens or not though is Cotterill's decision to make now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecko Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Best crosser of the ball at the club so this is a huge, huge loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carey 6 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Does his and Jets running every game, gutted about this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakes Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Couldn't really see it but any blame attached to the Cov bloke or was it 50/50 tackle? thought the cov bloke took him out, knew exactly what he was doing. Wagstaff reminds me of Simon clist, too weak for me, would prefer Burns or Maloney. need to go back to 442, get kelly back in the middle as soon as he is fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Think SC still has his Forest opinion of Moloney as he was the one who allowed him to get out of his contract early and sign for us. Shame think he could really add to the side at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 He is bog standard for his level, no more no less. He looks good at times (and it is only at times) because those around him are so poor. Regardless of their pedigree, we have a team of poor players. 4 goals isn't great, it's just average in my book. What's more important to me is the fact that so few goals have come from the rest of the midfield, a true concern. I'm not sure I agree he busts a gut, when Osbourne was playing right cb in the back three Wagstaff constantly left him exposed by not tracking back or just giving a half hearted nudge in the back of the opposition player running through. That happened far too many times for my liking. I want to see Maloney make a return as he's solid for this level whilst Burns is very raw but has the potential to be moulded into a versatile player. Whether this happens or not though is Cotterill's decision to make now. 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor10 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.