Cauley Woodrow - what did we see in him?

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

For me Wright did, he is a leader and I loved how he was clearly hurting that we were getting beat and so put a few "reducers" in..

He’s in our back 5, not our front 6 

[GrahamC]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

He’s in our back 5, not our front 6 

To be fair, that is a very good point..

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Who apart from Brownhill of our front 6 played anything like a 6/10 today?  None of them.

O'Dowda, maybe, just. 

[redfieldred]

Question - are we going to judge every player on the pitch today by that performance. I would certainly hope not because too many were asked to do jobs they are not natural at and once again pack was left to do virtually all the defensive work in midfield with very little assistance, he was ok for the last part of the first half, but as he tired the mistakes came in, mistakes I haven't seen from him since he bad part of last season, hegeler also, being asked to do the wrong job - possibly Woodrow is not an out and out striker and would be better played in the 10 position. 

[redfieldred]

4 minutes ago, 29AR said:

O'Dowda, maybe, just. 

Are you kidding? 

[Nibor]

He's not a bad player, bit of an all rounder more than a specialist at any one thing, and he's not had much of a chance yet.  Today it wouldn't have mattered who played up front, we didn't manage to give them anything to feed off.

[Major Isewater]

1 hour ago, BCFC Richard said:

Just thought I'd point out that it's not actually that long ago that people were saying on here that he should be in because Fammy was a waste of space and Woodrow had done well in a cup game. He actually hasn't had that many chances and could easily come good to write him off completely is silly. 

He's awful ...

 

[old_eastender]

17 minutes ago, Nibor said:

He's not a bad player, bit of an all rounder more than a specialist at any one thing, and he's not had much of a chance yet.  Today it wouldn't have mattered who played up front, we didn't manage to give them anything to feed off.

Fair point, just that Woodrow has contributed very little the last two times he has come on as sub too... let's hope Milan is ready to go, starting with Palace Tuesday.

[Redtucks]

1 hour ago, BCFC Richard said:

Just thought I'd point out that it's not actually that long ago that people were saying on here that he should be in because Fammy was a waste of space and Woodrow had done well in a cup game. He actually hasn't had that many chances and could easily come good to write him off completely is silly. 

How dare you imply that posters on here are fickle!!!

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

32 minutes ago, Nibor said:

He's not a bad player, bit of an all rounder more than a specialist at any one thing, and he's not had much of a chance yet.  Today it wouldn't have mattered who played up front, we didn't manage to give them anything to feed off.

Exactly what I was thinking. We could have had Harry Kane and Neymar up front today and they would barely have touched the ball.

[BRISTOL86]

It is very hard to see what he offers at all but I guess at the point we signed him we were somewhat in the dark regarding the likely lay offs to Taylor and Đurić? 

Either way he really is poor and I’m guessing Fam was carrying a knock or a slight illness or something as I can’t see any reason he would have got a start otherwise. 

[tinman85]

52 minutes ago, redfieldred said:

Are you kidding? 

The winger who doesn't want the ball and goes missing. Oh yes 

[Phileas Fogg]

Obviously any striker needs a run of starts before they can be fairly assessed. Amazed people don’t realise this time after time.

[Wrongagain]

Can’t see what the scouts rated him for, poor ball skills, low confidence and can’t tackle, hope his contract does not include guaranteed playing time!

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Obviously any striker needs a run of starts before they can be fairly assessed. Amazed people don’t realise this time after time.

The trouble is, he showed nothing to justify him getting another start. Nothing. There were several spectators who were bigger goal threats.

You have to take your chances to impress when they come.

[Phileas Fogg]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

The trouble is, he showed nothing to justify him getting another start. Nothing. There were several spectators who were bigger goal threats.

You have to take your chances to impress when they come.

Of course - I would choose Diedhiou or Taylor over him personally based on what I've seen. I wouldn't write him off though as I haven't seen enough.

My point is that people make rash sweeping judgements on players without allowing them any time. It's particularly the case for strikers but they need a run of games for you to write them off or say they're brilliant. 

[Chivs]

14 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

The trouble is, he showed nothing to justify him getting another start. Nothing. There were several spectators who were bigger goal threats.

You have to take your chances to impress when they come.

Thanks. 

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, Chivs said:

Thanks. 

You're welcome. 

[ZiderEyed]

I'd love to be positive about him but he was shit and he seems to be shit. 

[BCFC Rich]

I not saying he has played well or is necessarily worth a place over others but you can't write someone off after what adds up to about 2 and 1/2 games. It's ridiculous, but its what seems to happen on here. Here is a little reminder what people were saying about Fammy not long ago:

-I've seen Fammy do nothing. Nothing at all. It's almost like we're playing with ten. -Shock horror, another big fee paid that looks like it isn't going to work out. -He really is a poor forward. -Even players who need time to bed in show some signs of making an impression. -he doesn't appear to quickly learn and adapt in order to succeed. -To be fair to the guy he isn't getting any service. Though admit £5.3M at this stage should have been more like 530K! -Looks unfit. Slow, doesnt gamble, scared, weak in the challenge. -He hasn't got any real speed, ball control, or natural finishing. -For his size he doesn't win enough balls in the air. -To me he seems like a Championship version of a Sunday morning pub team player - i e someone a bit past his prime, unfit, and suffering from too many pints the night before. -He hasn't got any real speed, ball control, or natural finishing. -For his size he doesn't win enough balls in the air. But Famara has no pace, wins little in the air, doesn't hold the ball up well,  doesn't look like scoring, loses the ball easily, passing a bit wayward and it does look like we have paid 10 times what he is worth.

-Surely Leko and Woodrow are ahead of him. -Think Taylor is simply behind Woodrow in the pecking order and on yesterday's evidence both of them are now behind Leko. -Good though that we have options like Woodrow who can help take the pressure off. -I thought Woodrow did the basics better than Fammy.

The last ones are particularly funny and highlight how knee-jerk many reactions are here.

[tinman85]

20 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

I not saying he has played well or is necessarily worth a place over others but you can't write someone off after what adds up to about 2 and 1/2 games. It's ridiculous, but its what seems to happen on here. Here is a little reminder what people were saying about Fammy not long ago:

-I've seen Fammy do nothing. Nothing at all. It's almost like we're playing with ten. -Shock horror, another big fee paid that looks like it isn't going to work out. -He really is a poor forward. -Even players who need time to bed in show some signs of making an impression. -he doesn't appear to quickly learn and adapt in order to succeed. -To be fair to the guy he isn't getting any service. Though admit £5.3M at this stage should have been more like 530K! -Looks unfit. Slow, doesnt gamble, scared, weak in the challenge. -He hasn't got any real speed, ball control, or natural finishing. -For his size he doesn't win enough balls in the air. -To me he seems like a Championship version of a Sunday morning pub team player - i e someone a bit past his prime, unfit, and suffering from too many pints the night before. -He hasn't got any real speed, ball control, or natural finishing. -For his size he doesn't win enough balls in the air. But Famara has no pace, wins little in the air, doesn't hold the ball up well,  doesn't look like scoring, loses the ball easily, passing a bit wayward and it does look like we have paid 10 times what he is worth.

-Surely Leko and Woodrow are ahead of him. -Think Taylor is simply behind Woodrow in the pecking order and on yesterday's evidence both of them are now behind Leko. -Good though that we have options like Woodrow who can help take the pressure off. -I thought Woodrow did the basics better than Fammy.

The last ones are particularly funny and highlight how knee-jerk many reactions are here.

Must admit Famara looked like a Garita raw type when he came on.  But should have started. 

[Aaron-Bcfc]

When I saw a video of Fulham fans screaming "don't shoot" when he was in a dangerous position I knew we were getting some proper shite. Stop ******* playing him Johnson 

[havanatopia]

8 minutes ago, Aaron-Bcfc said:

When I saw a video of Fulham fans screaming "don't shoot" when he was in a dangerous position I knew we were getting some proper shite. Stop ******* playing him Johnson 

Well well, if his confidence is on the edge he only needs to read this and he will be over it and into the abyss!!!

I am struggling to understand why some first teamers, particularly our 2nd highest goal scorer, were left on the bench though. Perhaps Lee has already come out and it has already been discussed; Flu? I see no other reason why he would be on the bench for a game like Leeds with, from what I have seen, a far more fragile Woodrow making a start.

[tinman85]

5 hours ago, havanatopia said:

Well well, if his confidence is on the edge he only needs to read this and he will be over it and into the abyss!!!

I am struggling to understand why some first teamers, particularly our 2nd highest goal scorer, were left on the bench though. Perhaps Lee has already come out and it has already been discussed; Flu? I see no other reason why he would be on the bench for a game like Leeds with, from what I have seen, a far more fragile Woodrow making a start.

Bonkers decision to start with Reid and Woodrow against their backline. I really hope we don't see much more of him once Đurić and Taylor are fully fit. Be more effective to play Flint up front. Strange that at the time we were after a pacy forward like Vassell and when Birmingham out bid us it appeared we went for the cheap option for a type of player that we really didn't need. Would have been better keeping Mclouskey

[Dr Balls]

My only conclusion for yesterday's attacking selection was squad rotation as Woodrow is ineligible against Palace so starred with him against Leeds instead. That might have been ok if we played better as a team and had some creativity as per the game against Derby, when Woodrow played well and scored. But we were outmuscled in midfield plus playing wingers, one of whom rarely gets to the byline and crosses (O'Dowda) and one who seemed low on confidence (Leko). Why LJ thought Woodrow could compete against the Leeds central defenders for headers from crosses or high balls pumped forward does beggar belief. The only time we got behind their defence with a long ball, the pace of Reid & Woodrow got them through and clear, only for Bobby to fall over his own feet. We needed to turn their defence and that was the only time we managed it.

Eventually LJ turned to one of his dad's tactics by throwing Flint forward (for GJ it was Jamie McCombe) and finally we started to get a head to those first balls forward.

So in conclusion, the tactics were wrong yesterday, plus  number of players did not play well, of which Woodrow was one, but clearly not the only one. However to write him off after that is clearly daft. He still appears to have more scoring ability than Taylor, who is an irritant up front but doesn't look like he is going to score more than single figures in a season even if he started every game.

[Swede]

I am afraid to say I think he was a panic signing in the wake of Wilbs leaving and the injuries to Đurić and Taylor.

Yes there were problems elsewhere but he looked lightweight which was a real shame as he needed a good 90 minutes.

It is up to him to impress and I just don't think he grasped the opportunity.

[tinman85]

1 minute ago, Swede said:

I am afraid to say I think he was a panic signing in the wake of Wilbs leaving and the injuries to Đurić and Taylor.

Yes there were problems elsewhere but he looked lightweight which was a real shame as he needed a good 90 minutes.

It is up to him to impress and I just don't think he grasped the opportunity.

Wilbs would have been a good foil yesterday. 

[Dr Balls]

14 minutes ago, tinman85 said:

Wilbs would have been a good foil yesterday. 

Any player who could hold up the ball or head on the first ball past their defenders would have been good. If you play 2 smaller, quicker players up front, you need to control midfield to be able to play balls through the defence for them to run onto, or play quickly on the break to stretch the opposition defence. We did neither yesterday, which explains our lack of goal threat.

[Red-Robbo]

3 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

Any player who could hold up the ball or head on the first ball past their defenders would have been good. If you play 2 smaller, quicker players up front, you need to control midfield to be able to play balls through the defence for them to run onto, or play quickly on the break to stretch the opposition defence. We did neither yesterday, which explains our lack of goal threat.

Would have been nice if Đurić was available.  Perhaps he'll be the ace up our sleeves on Tuesday 

[Redtucks]

23 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

My only conclusion for yesterday's attacking selection was squad rotation as Woodrow is ineligible against Palace so starred with him against Leeds instead. That might have been ok if we played better as a team and had some creativity as per the game against Derby, when Woodrow played well and scored. But we were outmuscled in midfield plus playing wingers, one of whom rarely gets to the byline and crosses (O'Dowda) and one who seemed low on confidence (Leko). Why LJ thought Woodrow could compete against the Leeds central defenders for headers from crosses or high balls pumped forward does beggar belief. The only time we got behind their defence with a long ball, the pace of Reid & Woodrow got them through and clear, only for Bobby to fall over his own feet. We needed to turn their defence and that was the only time we managed it.

Eventually LJ turned to one of his dad's tactics by throwing Flint forward (for GJ it was Jamie McCombe) and finally we started to get a head to those first balls forward.

So in conclusion, the tactics were wrong yesterday, plus  number of players did not play well, of which Woodrow was one, but clearly not the only one. However to write him off after that is clearly daft. He still appears to have more scoring ability than Taylor, who is an irritant up front but doesn't look like he is going to score more than single figures in a season even if he started every game.

I think that is probably spot-on.

I guess LJ didn't want Famara playing two games, so because CW can't play Tuesday that was his only real option.