Woodrow

[Hampshire reds]

To be fair to the lad. He is young and needs a run of games. At the moment he wont be getting it. Does have a bit of potential 

[ashton_fan]

Was involved in both goals today and should be given a run in the side, we're short of options and Taylor/Reid doesn't appear to work. He's one who will improve if given a chance.

[Redtucks]

3 hours ago, Ian M said:

I'm not convinced he did 

So far, 9 posts in, we have established that you need to visit Specsavers!!!

[Ian M]

6 minutes ago, Redtucks said:

So far, 9 posts in, we have established that you need to visit Specsavers!!!

Depends on your definition of loads. Personally I don't think one header counts as loads.

 

But I do need to visit Specsavers so you can have that  

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, Ian M said:

So far, 4 posts in, we have established that he both worked hard and was a bit lazy. Held up the ball but often lost the ball. Both suited & didn't suit our style of play. Opinions hey?  

 

Cauley "Marmite" Woodrow

 

 

3 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Can't say I am at all surprised to read this as many have clearly made their mind up to slag him off no matter what he does.

I thought he improved us & added energy & gave us a focal point whereas the bloke he replaced was absolutely shocking, but that doesn't fit the narrative, does it?

You’re preaching to the converted Brother 

In fairness I thought Taylor’s movement first 15-20 was excellent, but we never got the ball to him.  When we do get the ball to him that’s where things started to go awry.  He’s willing, but lacks quality imho.

Look at the difference Pato made....every touch had something about it.

I know I wanted Woodrow at City in pre-season, but I think he is so much a better fit for us.  I have probably have some bias here, but he Worked hard to hide balls from Liam Moore, which Taylor didn’t...and had composure to set up Brownhill for Kelly’s goal.  No doubt he’ll get 4/10 and "utterly useless" comments - haven’t read any yet...just back in.  We rarely ‘played’ in the final third whilst Taylor was on, but once Woodrow (and i’m Sure the big influence of Paterson) was on, we looked a threat as a team.

He needs a run...just not sure he’ll get one.  I’d start him v Wolves. Taylor’s lack of quality with the ball is why Reid is now getting starved, and we are getting little more than him busting a gut for the cause. 

1 hour ago, Tammy JR said:

It was pato that changed the game today????

He was mint today.

[Touch_my_butter]

He was a big improvement on Taylor today (who offered very little)

[Cardy]

Yep Woodrow was better than the Taylor today but that's not saying too much really. Taylor was dire. 

Woodrow definitely seems more prepared to chase balls around their 18 yard box than in his own half though. Reid's work rate even having played 70 mins longer put Woodrow to shame. 

In summary he's a body & we should be grateful for that at the moment but I would suggest he is very lucky to be getting into a team of our calibre & will be no where near it when some others return to fitness.

[Judda]

I personally think he's a waste of space. It' a shame as he looked promising on paper but unfortunately it's played on grass not paper....

[CitySSeven]

My reflection on the game is that I think Matty Taylor is better used as an impact sub. 
Regarding Woodrow, I'm still finding it hard to work out what the best part of his game is. He seems to have a little bit of a few things but doesn't have enough of one thing to make him that useful for us. If today was his best game in a city shirt then imo that clearly tells us that he hasn't really done much for us. However I fully understand the amount of injuries we have so obviously he's needed for us in the very near future but once one ST comes back and we could possibly sign one, I can't see him getting any game time. 

[Alex_BCFC]

He ain't up to much but was better than Taylor today and at least worked hard to keep the pressure on.

[tinman85]

15 minutes ago, Judda said:

I personally think he's a waste of space. It' a shame as he looked promising on paper but unfortunately it's played on grass not paper....

A player not good enough for Fulham was never going to be good for us. Nice lad I'm sure but not enough for us. 

[Offside]

I thought Woodrow was decent when he came on and was a handful for their defence. That’s the best I’ve seen from him so far (I wasn’t at the Derby home game).

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, CitySSeven said:

My reflection on the game is that I think Matty Taylor is better used as an impact sub. 
Regarding Woodrow, I'm still finding it hard to work out what the best part of his game is. He seems to have a little bit of a few things but doesn't have enough of one thing to make him that useful for us. If today was his best game in a city shirt then imo that clearly tells us that he hasn't really done much for us. However I fully understand the amount of injuries we have so obviously he's needed for us in the very near future but once one ST comes back and we could possibly sign one, I can't see him getting any game time. 

I think most would say Derby.

11 minutes ago, Offside said:

I thought Woodrow was decent when he came on and was a handful for their defence. That’s the best I’ve seen from him so far (I wasn’t at the Derby home game).

Nor was I.

[Up The City!]

Thought he was quite effective. Held the ball up well etc. Although spent the majority of the time just outside of the box on the right. Would like to see him play a little more centrally as he ain't gonna get goals from near the corner flag.

[Judda]

10 hours ago, tinman85 said:

A player not good enough for Fulham was never going to be good for us. Nice lad I'm sure but not enough for us. 

I think he will be a decent enough player but would probably benefit from playing 90 mins every week and maybe a loan to a league one club would have been better for him...