O'Dowda - take the risk.

[TBW]

13 hours ago, tinman85 said:

We have no width or outlet  with pace. Worth throwing him in. 

And risk further injury, potentially long-term. Great plan becauseof a current panic.

[Redtucks]

20 hours ago, tinman85 said:

We have no width or outlet  with pace. Worth throwing him in. 

.......and if he got another long term injury as a result, you could blame LJ for bring him back to soon???

 

[BRISTOL86]

So with you in charge not only would we have a different manager every week, we’d have a £200m team who would all be crocked from being forced play when injured  

[Esmond Million's Bung]

23 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Exactly this. 

Eliasson hasn't exactly impressed me at the club, but he's a young player, still developing his skill set and adapting to English football.

Brownhill didn't particularly impress me in his first season here, but he sure does now.

To be fair Eliasson has not been given a fair crack of the whip for some reason beyond me, but if he is worse than Kent and Paterson has been for close to 4 months boy he must be bad.

I would be very interested to hear the rationale about the signing of Kent because from where I am sat Kent is almost exactly one year younger than Eliasson and I don't see Kent ever being good enough to play for Liverpool and his signing has only served to give a player who is not our player a chance to improve at the expense of developing our own player, I don't get it.

[Redstart]

I thought/hoped he may make the bench for Millwall - but that's just my wishful thinking really, he obviously isn't ready yet and Millwall are the same old 'kick lumps outta anything that moves team' that they always were - so common sense should say why risk him.

We do need something to change, so although he has not impressed on the games he has started so far I think Eliasson should be given a go now.

[LondonBristolian]

12 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

To be fair Eliasson has not been given a fair crack of the whip for some reason beyond me, but if he is worse than Kent and Paterson has been for close to 4 months boy he must be bad.

I would be very interested to hear the rationale about the signing of Kent because from where I am sat Kent is almost exactly one year younger than Eliasson and I don't see Kent ever being good enough to play for Liverpool and his signing has only served to give a player who is not our player a chance to improve at the expense of developing our own player, I don't get it.

I think I have only seen Eliasson as a sub v Preston. He was not perfect and his decision making maybe needs work but he whipped three or four unpredictable balls into the box during a twenty minute appearance. From the sounds of our performances at Barnsley and v Brentford, someone who can get the ball into the box can only be an asset at the moment...

The only rationale for Kent that makes sense to me is KITR’s assertion the club knew we would be without O’Dowda for most of the season and felt we needed another winger as a result. Buggered if I know the justification for continuing to pick him though. Fine or no fine if we do not play him, he is not contributing and that is proving far more costly.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think I have only seen Eliasson as a sub v Preston. He was not perfect and his decision making maybe needs work but he whipped three or four unpredictable balls into the box during a twenty minute appearance. From the sounds of our performances at Barnsley and v Brentford, someone who can get the ball into the box can only be an asset at the moment...

The only rationale for Kent that makes sense to me is KITR’s assertion the club knew we would be without O’Dowda for most of the season and felt we needed another winger as a result. Buggered if I know the justification for continuing to pick him though. Fine or no fine if we do not play him, he is not contributing and that is proving far more costly.

I think you may have identified the real problem, a lot of the games he has been played in have been against the more physical sides in this division, I don't see that as a fair starting point personally, I also believe that in recent games where we have struggled against physical teams Preston, Barnsley and Burton off of the top of my head, we have also struggled in midfield and I believe the use of Paterson and or Kent has been a serious mistake tactically in these games and have only yielded 2 points from 9.

[redapple]

Let him start from the bench when he’s ready, but it’s not about any individuals. It’s about getting the best out of the team, getting them playing with confidence and swagger again in a system that suits. Getting players back into form , especially Korey Smith as he’s the most important cog in the wheel, and he’s been poor for a while. When he plays well he brings the best out of so many others. 

[phantom]

How far away is he from playing?

Didn't Pisano only have 60 minutes for the U23's before he came back into the starting line up?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

27 minutes ago, redapple said:

Let him start from the bench when he’s ready, but it’s not about any individuals. It’s about getting the best out of the team, getting them playing with confidence and swagger again in a system that suits. Getting players back into form , especially Korey Smith as he’s the most important cog in the wheel, and he’s been poor for a while. When he plays well he brings the best out of so many others. 

You should be applying that to Kent, who is a year younger than Eliasson and not worth a place even on the bench IMHO and I would add how much longer is LJ prepared to keep on playing Paterson who has been totally out of form and a virtual passenger for almost 4 months? I would have thought that playing Paterson at the moment and Eliasson not even being able to find a place on the bench is effecting both mentally and not in a good way.