Was I Wrong?

[lifelongcanary 0]

I said Paul McVeigh was not consistant enough to play in the 1st team

Was I Wrong?

Yes, he had a fairly good game, but did he do anything really.

Yes, there was that 1 run where the goal should have been his but apart from that?

he can keep in if he sets up a goal a game

but did he set it up, i thought it was the 50yard cross-field pass by Marneythat opened up the space for McVeigh to run into.

But as i said, a goal a game and we should keep him in.

Give him a couple of games based on his performance on Saturday (i know in a previous post i said we shouldn''t give him a chance - i was very wrong!)

He''s set his standard - a goal a game - keep that up and we''ve found a new striker! (well not new, but you know what i mean

P.S, i thought Brennan had a very good game, it is a hard choice between him and Hucks atm, but i''d go with Hucks!

[ZLF 271]

No you was not wrong.   WLY has shown us he can perform at this level but he has also shown that he lacks motiviation too.  If he can reproduce his best form 3 games out of four I will be happy.

I have to say though that getting an assist a game is beyond the likes of Robben and Henry so do feel that is a bit harsh to measure zippers success on that basis. 

OTBC

[still holding out for new heroes 0]

Oh come on...McVeigh was everywhere and linked the midfield with Ashton all afternoon...never stopped running...best player on the pitch in terms of first touch and footballing brain...I dont believe theres another player at the club who could play that role.

[ronbol ronbol 0]

seems he hates playing for the reserves, but gives everything and more for the first team.

The sooner NW gets this picture the better.

[Gentleman Jim 0]

I think you will be proved to be wrong if Worthy gives him some sort of a run in the starting eleven.

[Mook 0]

Oh come on Zip, why do you think he lacks motivation?

Some players need to be treated differently to others to get the best out of them (See Brian Clough/Jose as experts in this field) and if McVeigh had been managed correctly his motivation would never have been an issue.

He knows, just as well as most of us know, that he was the makeweight when the loanees arrived and undeservedly so. Since then we''ve had McKenzie, Svensson, Thorne, Jonson, Bentley and Doherty all arrive and McVeigh did little wrong in the first place!

I don''t have much sympathy for footballers who throw their rattles, but McVeigh was our best player for two or three seasons and was not treated with the respect he deserved. Glad to see him back, and hopefully he will play interchangable roles on the left with hucks when he comes back.

[sheded 0]

[quote]seems he hates playing for the reserves, but gives everything and more for the first team. The sooner NW gets this picture the better.[/quote]

Yesbut ,  if he doesn`t want to play in the reserves  , then he should pull his finger out , and play to the best of his ability  in the reserves !   not  go into some sort of sulk ....  its about character       BTW   he DID himself  no harm with his work rate  against Plymouth  ,  and he should certainly be included  for tomorrows match  !    lets see how he performs  against a form team !!

[ZLF 271]

[quote]Oh come on Zip, why do you think he lacks motivation? Some players need to be treated differently to others to get the best out of them (See Brian Clough/Jose as experts in this field) and if McVeigh...[/quote]

I am with you on that one Mook - zipper has been managed appallingly and I have posted so many times.

However his performance against MK Dons was non committal at best so yes I do have a question mark against huim, even if it is the managers fault.  Last season was the same - he played a couple of games was good in one, poor in a couple and then dropped after the spurs game which ironically was his best performance of the season.  As such I do have doubts about him;  perhaps more his consistency than his motivation.

However on sat we saw exactly what he can do; superb link up play, intelligent use of the ball and creating chances for the team when played in his prefered position - just the WLY we know and love; I just want to see it more consistently, starting with tomorrow night.

Having re-read my original reply I agree it does read more negatively than I intended - WLY was excellent against PAFC, but I can understand why people have concerns. thats all.

OTBC

 

 

 

[Northern Canary 0]

proved a few seasons back that if you keep him in the team he will perform but the last few years he has had good runs of form then disappeared

[huck tastic<IMG src="http:new.pinkun.comforumsimagesline.gif"><BR><FONT face="Comic Sans MS">Bryan Hamilton could turn this around...<BR><FONT> 0]

[quote]Oh come on...McVeigh was everywhere and linked the midfield with Ashton all afternoon...never stopped running...best player on the pitch in terms of first touch and footballing brain...I dont believe ...[/quote]

Absolutely right.

His movement off the ball was excellent, and a big reason why we were able to keep possession better, as he constistently provided a good option to pass to. It was also clear that Ashton enjoyed his contribution, as he applauded him off at the end. Ashton plays well up front on his own, so perhaps this 4-4-1-1, particularly with Huckerby to come back in on the left  of midfield could offer a bit of promise.

I thought Hughes was excellent on Saturday too, in easily his best performance to date. 

[Crazy Eddie 0]

[quote]I said Paul McVeigh was not consistant enough to play in the 1st team Was I Wrong? Yes, he had a fairly good game, but did he do anything really. Yes, there was that 1 run where the goal should hav...[/quote]

Actually it was Hughes'' ball that released McVeigh, although i''ll admit it''s easy to confuse Marney and Hughes from a distance

[Mook 0]

Sorry ZLF, I was a touch harsh on you. I know you, like me, have campaigned for the return of Paul McSmall.

I just get frustrated with this "inconsistent" tag, because as far as I recall he hasn''t had a decent run in the team for years.

And the fact is, unlike all of our other players, he can turn a game with one pass. I would gladly put up with some of his indifferent moments for a touch of the unexpected.

Shutting Norwich out of the game five years ago was easy - mark Iwan tight. Now it''s just as easy - mark Hucks tight.

A bit of unpredictability would go a long way.

[Fat Barman 0]

Have to agree about WLY''s link-up play. Several times on Saturday he came deep to collect, before releasing a QUICK ball to Ashton, Marney, or Brennan. How often have we seen movesa break down this year because Hucks (or most of the midfield runners to be fair) have held the ball too long and missed the killer pass?

P Mc also made loads of intelligent runs into the channels, which Marney & Brennan didn''t seem to pick up on - maybe because it''s been so long since we had someone filling that role?

Please Worthy, don''t drop him for Lisbie straight away - by your usual standards he has done enough for a start against Watford at least.

[ncfcanna 0]

You were wrong.Based on that performance McVeigh deserves to start tonight. He was linking up more with the midfield, and did some good 1,2''s with Ashton. He had to pass many players to get the shot in which led to the first goal, and tricked them along the way.Thinking about it we''ve missed someone like him, he''s a totally different striker from McKenzie. And because he can play in the midfield he can link with them better than McKenzie (and probably Lisbie too). He was getting the ball and spreading it to midfield players, then running off upfront, but never got the ball back. It''s some like him that we need, he will also put really good crosses in if we can get someone else in the box with Ashton.He caused a lot of problems on Saturday, and to be honest he''s always been like that when he plays upfront.