SimplyRed Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Apologies if this has already been raised - I haven't been on for some time. I just wanted to say that I'm unsure whether Brooker is really the player we need up front. I haven't seen him play yet and I hope he proves me wrong but I do have reservations. We spent a long time looking for a target man to hold up the ball and we come up with a fairly lightweight, 5'11" striker with no pace. If we were so desperate for a target man and pace was no object, why didn't we look for a neanderthal built like a brick outhouse that defenders bounced off? Personally, I would have preferred a taller, more muscular striker with a modicum of pace. Perhaps, a 'fattened up' Lee Miller? I really hope I'm wrong, but I can't see what Brooker has that we don't have already. He's not tall, he doesn't look particularly heavyset and he has no pace - so what's new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Gows' Tash Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Apologies if this has already been raised - I haven't been on for some time. I just wanted to say that I'm unsure whether Brooker is really the player we need up front. I haven't seen him play yet and I hope he proves me wrong but I do have reservations. We spent a long time looking for a target man to hold up the ball and we come up with a fairly lightweight, 5'11" striker with no pace. If we were so desperate for a target man and pace was no object, why didn't we look for a neanderthal built like a brick outhouse that defenders bounced off? Personally, I would have preferred a taller, more muscular striker with a modicum of pace. Perhaps, a 'fattened up' Lee Miller? I really hope I'm wrong, but I can't see what Brooker has that we don't have already. He's not tall, he doesn't look particularly heavyset and he has no pace - so what's new? ← Maybe we ought to send Miler to a Sumo Wrestling School for a bit then. Trouble is at this level you don't get many big blokes who are also pacy. Granted he is only 5 11 but thats still a bit more height than we have at the moment, he looks strong on the ball and agressive too. Too early to tell but I think he'll do ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 It seems he wins more than his fair share of headers at both ends, whatever his height or bulk, and that will be a big plus for us. Also a reasonable scorer who has always done well against us, which is about all we can judge him on at the moment. How his inclusion with his less pacey game will affect our style of play and the entertainment value could be a worry. Scotty will certainly need to maintain recent form and get far more quality crosses in if he is to prosper. I liked the hard low crosses that Murray and Roberts fired in for our goals against Everton and wouldn't like to see a return to hopeful high balls. All we can hope is Brooker scores his first quickly, because as a striker some fans will only judge him on goals scored. I'd like to think that Tinman has chosen Brooker because he's potentially Championship class, as that's where he's expected to play next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy g Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 I think you need to give him a chance before writing him off ! He's only played one game and that was with unfamiliar players only days after being transfered. Everyone at Port Vale seems to rate him (and some say he played a big part in McPhees success last season) so he cant be all bad. Anyway - size isnt everything ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swindon Hater Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 Apologies if this has already been raised - I haven't been on for some time. I just wanted to say that I'm unsure whether Brooker is really the player we need up front. I haven't seen him play yet and I hope he proves me wrong but I do have reservations. We spent a long time looking for a target man to hold up the ball and we come up with a fairly lightweight, 5'11" striker with no pace. If we were so desperate for a target man and pace was no object, why didn't we look for a neanderthal built like a brick outhouse that defenders bounced off? Personally, I would have preferred a taller, more muscular striker with a modicum of pace. Perhaps, a 'fattened up' Lee Miller? I really hope I'm wrong, but I can't see what Brooker has that we don't have already. He's not tall, he doesn't look particularly heavyset and he has no pace - so what's new? ← You haven't even seen him play yet, and your asking is he right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topbuzz Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 I went to C/field he seems useful cant see him banging in a hatful but thats what we got Lita for,,He won lots of ball without getting blown up for a foul every time unlike a prev target man we loved so much . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leadman Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 chesterfields trainer came on 4 times during the game, twice for each centre half, hes a burly bloke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bransonmo Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 Apologies if this has already been raised - I haven't been on for some time. I just wanted to say that I'm unsure whether Brooker is really the player we need up front. I haven't seen him play yet and I hope he proves me wrong but I do have reservations. We spent a long time looking for a target man to hold up the ball and we come up with a fairly lightweight, 5'11" striker with no pace. If we were so desperate for a target man and pace was no object, why didn't we look for a neanderthal built like a brick outhouse that defenders bounced off? Personally, I would have preferred a taller, more muscular striker with a modicum of pace. Perhaps, a 'fattened up' Lee Miller? I really hope I'm wrong, but I can't see what Brooker has that we don't have already. He's not tall, he doesn't look particularly heavyset and he has no pace - so what's new? His given weight is 14 stone.....get the picture ......heavy boned , not a pork pie 14 stone. I played at 6 ft and 14 st 7 lbs and boxed at that weight, yet i looked skinny.....Heavy boned...If he weighs 14 stone at 5-11 he will be ok----the pigs will bounce off him with bruises. ← Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyRed Posted October 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 I think the point I was trying to make was what qualities he brings to the the team. The club are always harping on about the fact that they won't buy anyone unless they are better than what we already have. We've already seen new players brought in this season warming the bench, if they can get into the squad at all! When you look at Brooker, you have to say: Does he add height to our attack? - No. Does he add pace to our attack? - No. Does he add strength to the attack? - Possibly, at 14st he is top weight for his height. But weight doesn't necessarily mean strength. Does he add experience and guile to the attack? - debateable - he's only 23. Does he add shooting prowess and accuracy to our attack? - Possibly, reputation says so but remains to be seen. Does he hold the ball up well? - Possibly, reputation says so, but remains to be seen. I guess what I'm asking is, did Tinnion buy him because he was the only 'front man' available at the right price, or did he genuinely buy him because he though the had the qualities that would improve the team? Looking at the above points, you would have to say the jury's still out. Other than his reputation, I don't see anything there that should have attracted us. We were looking for a 'target man'. In my eyes that meant we needed a strong, tall, pacy striker. In Brooker, we have, possibly, one out of those three characteristics. I really hope he fits in and proves me wrong, because we desperately need someone to turn our season around and I get the feeling the club are putting all their eggs in his basket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike11 Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 I think the point I was trying to make was what qualities he brings to the the team. The club are always harping on about the fact that they won't buy anyone unless they are better than what we already have. We've already seen new players brought in this season warming the bench, if they can get into the squad at all! When you look at Brooker, you have to say: Does he add height to our attack? - No. Does he add pace to our attack? - No. Does he add strength to the attack? - Possibly, at 14st he is top weight for his height. But weight doesn't necessarily mean strength. Does he add experience and guile to the attack? - debateable - he's only 23. Does he add shooting prowess and accuracy to our attack? - Possibly, reputation says so but remains to be seen. Does he hold the ball up well? - Possibly, reputation says so, but remains to be seen. I guess what I'm asking is, did Tinnion buy him because he was the only 'front man' available at the right price, or did he genuinely buy him because he though the had the qualities that would improve the team? Looking at the above points, you would have to say the jury's still out. Other than his reputation, I don't see anything there that should have attracted us. We were looking for a 'target man'. In my eyes that meant we needed a strong, tall, pacy striker. In Brooker, we have, possibly, one out of those three characteristics. I really hope he fits in and proves me wrong, because we desperately need someone to turn our season around and I get the feeling the club are putting all their eggs in his basket. ← i saw him against us the other week...he looked the part,scored,always involved,won tackles he shouldn,t have....he,ll do for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 When City got thrashed at Port Vale earlier this season Butler and Coles apparently come off after the game and they reckoned that Brooker had given then both the hardest physical battle they could remember.Some accolade. Brooker is 5'11 of solid muscle and built like the proverbiable "brick sh1tehouse" Miller on the other hand might be taller and better in the air but he's too flimsy and lightweight.If Miller could put on a stone of muscle and still be able to get off the ground he'd be much a more valuable asset and possibly push Brooker for his place. One thing is for sure though', I'm looking forward to seeing Brooker play on Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 i think he will do a good job for us against teams of physical strength in their back four, i'm sure given the right service he will set up a few goals for whoever is upfront with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cider red Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 lightweight. If we were so desperate for a target man and pace was no object, why didn't we look for a neanderthal built like a brick outhouse that defenders bounced off? He's not tall, he doesn't look particularly heavyset and he has no pace - so what's new? ← You obviously havent seen brooker play then because he is a bat fastard!! He is really bulky and wins headers and is completely the oposite of what your saying, he's not that tall but he wins headers and the defenders find it hard to get the ball off of him. He's only played 1 game so far but from what i've seen he is completely different to what we have already got and looks like the target man tinnion has been searching for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy g Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Well, of course the jury is still out Simply Red, he's only had one game ! But the jury at Port Vale seemed to rate him and whats more, they believe he brought the best out of the strikers he played alongside. Plus, you put down the negatives as fact and then put down his positives as 'remains to be seen' ! Thats a bit unfair isn't it ? He's got a scoring ratio of close to a goal every three games and it was clear from the two games we've seen him in so far that he HAS got strength to hold the ball up and bring in other players. And remember, he wasn't brought here for his pace, he was brought here as a target-man, so I don't know why his pace should be an issue. Cheer up ! Three points on Saturday ! <--- cider drinkers ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Why are you questioning someone who has played 90 minutes for us of which 40 were up front on hi own against a behemoth in steve blatherwick. Patience my young padawan, only time will tell. Until he has had a fair go give him the time and space to show what he is made of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy g Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Thats a good point ! I wonder if someone like Steve Blatherwick could be the no-nonsense central defender we need... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Thats a good point ! I wonder if someone like Steve Blatherwick could be the no-nonsense central defender we need... ← NO he cant read the game at all and in terms of passing/keeping the ball in play uh-uh. All he did was make it awkward for the big man, in this case brooker. I reckon we should sign shaun tatlor, he can have my knees, get that gum shield back in boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Gows' Tash Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 I think Brooker is a quality player, but his effectiveness for us will depend on the quality of ball he gets. He needs good service from the flanks, from Murray on the right and (If it was up to me) Bell on the left, delivering quality crosses. He and Lita are chalk and cheese, could be a hell of a front line if they hit it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyRed Posted October 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Gentlemen please! I really wasn't trying to judge him, sight unseen, I was merely raising points for discussion. I am quite happy for him to disprove the points I raised, I just felt they needed raising because, on papaer at least, he doesn't appear to be a 'target man'. Andy G - I only put down things as fact, the stuff I knew to be fact - which just happened to be the negative bits - that's why I posted! His positive points are, so far, unproven in a City shirt. As for a target man not requiring pace - really? I would suggest to you that if you want to be successful in the modern game, you must have pace, especially up front. Oh well, as you say, I'm looking forward to him ramming my words back down my throat with a hat-trick against the Tigers next Saturday (my 51st birthday, incidentally)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.