Huckerby Dilemma

[ZLF 273]

Dion has said he isnt up to playing 2 games in a week so I wouldnt be surprised to see Brown start - Evans is unlikely too otherwise he would have come on instead of Brown on Sat.

Our game means we still need a target man.  That means hux either plays on the left (with the associated weaknesses) or its either him or Cureton partnering the big man.  Cureton had another shocker on sat (added nothing to play, missed some glaring chances and almost missed the one he did score) so would consider replacing him.

Just because we won doesnt mean we dont play our best 11 when players come back from suspension or injury - but we must not lose our shape in doing so.

However I do think Hux will start on the bench - but cureton needs to improve;  he wont continue to get so many chances and then once again his missed efforts will cost us points.

But  

 

[ZLF 273]

Dion has said he isnt up to playing 2 games in a week so I wouldnt be surprised to see Brown start - Evans is unlikely too otherwise he would have come on instead of Brown on Sat.

Our game means we still need a target man.  That means hux either plays on the left (with the associated weaknesses) or its either him or Cureton partnering the big man.  Cureton had another shocker on sat (added nothing to play, missed some glaring chances and almost missed the one he did score) so would consider replacing him.

Just because we won doesnt mean we dont play our best 11 when players come back from suspension or injury - but we must not lose our shape in doing so.

However I do think Hux will start on the bench - but cureton needs to improve;  he wont continue to get so many chances and then once again his missed efforts will cost us points.

But I  

 

[Web Team - Celia Sutton 0]

Huckerby story in today''s EDP:

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Sport&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=sport&itemid=NOED26%20Nov%202007%2008%3A26%3A39%3A360

[Grando 260]

Have Huckerby on the bench Tuesday. He can come on when we do our usual away no-show and are 2-0 down at half time!

[BigFish 1,986]

Ho ho ho........much of this thread shows the same old tired thinking and general antipathy to flair players in general and Huckerby in paticular. Look at tosh like this......

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Quite frankly, I don''t think it''s a much of a dilemma. Roeder''s a big enough man to handle Huckerby. Yankee has the kernel of the right solution. And if it doesn''t go well.........well release him and tell him thanks. After all we don''t want him hanging around sulking, now do we.

And if he gets stroppy? Well, the club is always bigger than the individual, and he''s been more than very well paid for what he''s done, plus had more than his fair share of hero worship over the years. So...........I guess it''s quits. Bye, bye my son. Life goes on. 

OTBC

[/quote]

I remember similar squit when we sold Fox for big money and replaced him with Adams on the cheap. We wouldn''t miss him (we did) and Adams would give us something Fox couldn''t (yep, relegation). Truth is it is a squad game. One of the glaring problems has been the lack of depth as soon as we pick up a few injuries. Do we really want one of the five dropped players back rather than a fit Huckerby if one of our midfield four goes over on their ankle again. No, of course not.

That is not to say that on a cold Tuesday in November at Blackpool we shouldn''t go again with what looks like a solid 442 but lets not through out the baby with the bath water. Hux still gives the team something that this 11 doesn''t have.

[Vern 0]

[quote user="Quantum"]So Pattison sets up two goals today playing on the left - where does this leave Hucks for Tuesday? Would seem harsh to leave Matty out; or indeed Russell or Fozzy who also had good games today from what I''ve heard. So unless Roeder considers a change of formation, it seems the man most said we would desperately miss will have to settle for a place on the bench at Blackpool.

What would you do?
[/quote]

There is no dilemma. The team that played on Saturday won the game 2.0. What message would it send out to anybody who is dropped to make way for Hucks?.

Hucks was sent off and was banned for three games so he should fight his way back into the side like anyone else.

[BigFish 1,986]

Which can only be for the good of the team!

[Dexx 0]

what you have to ask yourself is would have hucks passed the ball if he was in pattersons boots or tried to take on the defence by himself 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="BigFish"]

Ho ho ho........much of this thread shows the same old tired thinking and general antipathy to flair players in general and Huckerby in paticular. Look at tosh like this......

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Quite frankly, I don''t think it''s a much of a dilemma. Roeder''s a big enough man to handle Huckerby. Yankee has the kernel of the right solution. And if it doesn''t go well.........well release him and tell him thanks. After all we don''t want him hanging around sulking, now do we.

And if he gets stroppy? Well, the club is always bigger than the individual, and he''s been more than very well paid for what he''s done, plus had more than his fair share of hero worship over the years. So...........I guess it''s quits. Bye, bye my son. Life goes on. 

OTBC

[/quote]

I remember similar squit when we sold Fox for big money and replaced him with Adams on the cheap. We wouldn''t miss him (we did) and Adams would give us something Fox couldn''t (yep, relegation). Truth is it is a squad game. One of the glaring problems has been the lack of depth as soon as we pick up a few injuries. Do we really want one of the five dropped players back rather than a fit Huckerby if one of our midfield four goes over on their ankle again. No, of course not.

That is not to say that on a cold Tuesday in November at Blackpool we shouldn''t go again with what looks like a solid 442 but lets not through out the baby with the bath water. Hux still gives the team something that this 11 doesn''t have.

[/quote]

Well Tosh.

Huckerby unbalances the team. No argument.

Can Lampard and Gerrard play together? No, the combination unbalances the team. Gerrard + Barry or Hargreaves + Barry in midfield would have won the game for Enlgland against Croatia because those combinations are complementary and give the team balance.

In our case Hucks doesn''t do defence (DDD) - and is a luxury in a struggling team. Yes, he may win us the odd match but the effect of  DDD unbalances the team and outweighs the periodic razmatazz.

From now on as far as I''m concerned Hucks must remain an impact player for us (the team comes first, not Hucks). And that should be his role as he''s eased towards retirement - as Yankee suggested.

We''ve eased out one DDD (Earny) and now it''s time to use Hucks, our other DDD properly as an impact player.

And, I repeat, if he doesn''t like it or his ego can''t take it, then thanks and bye bye.

There''s tosh & tosh - and one type of tosh is promoted by football fans besotted and blinded with hero worship.

I like flair players who work and think. Looks like you can''t spot the difference BigFish.

OTBC

OTBC

[HappyhammerAndy 0]

Unbelievable how quickly things can change in our beautiful game! A few weeks back alot of you said that you had a rubbish team with little hope of a goal or a win. Now it seems like you don''t know who to leave out and stick on the bench. Good luck to you.

[Yellow Rider 0]

[quote user="HUDDY "]

Pattison could well sign permanently, and could well be Huckerby''s long term replacement. It''s good to finally have some competition in the team.

As for Tuesday i''d keep the same team, stick Hucks on the bench, bring him on for 30 minutes and with pace to burn, and only 30 minutes to last he may well be able to tear Blackpool apart. Huckerby could turn into a very very important imapct player form the bench.

[/quote]

I''ll go against the tide here. I did''nt rate Pattison. Yes he created both goals so fair dos to him but that apart???  For me, his distribution was poor and do you remember those two appalling freekicks he took in the first half? What the heck were they all about!! He ran around a lot and got stuck in but I need a lot more convincing from the (admittedly flimsy) evidence of the first outing.  

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="BigFish"]

Ho ho ho........much of this thread shows the same old tired thinking and general antipathy to flair players in general and Huckerby in paticular. Look at tosh like this......

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Quite frankly, I don''t think it''s a much of a dilemma. Roeder''s a big enough man to handle Huckerby. Yankee has the kernel of the right solution. And if it doesn''t go well.........well release him and tell him thanks. After all we don''t want him hanging around sulking, now do we.

And if he gets stroppy? Well, the club is always bigger than the individual, and he''s been more than very well paid for what he''s done, plus had more than his fair share of hero worship over the years. So...........I guess it''s quits. Bye, bye my son. Life goes on. 

OTBC

[/quote]

I remember similar squit when we sold Fox for big money and replaced him with Adams on the cheap. We wouldn''t miss him (we did) and Adams would give us something Fox couldn''t (yep, relegation). Truth is it is a squad game. One of the glaring problems has been the lack of depth as soon as we pick up a few injuries. Do we really want one of the five dropped players back rather than a fit Huckerby if one of our midfield four goes over on their ankle again. No, of course not.

That is not to say that on a cold Tuesday in November at Blackpool we shouldn''t go again with what looks like a solid 442 but lets not through out the baby with the bath water. Hux still gives the team something that this 11 doesn''t have.

[/quote]

Well Tosh.

Huckerby unbalances the team. No argument.

Can Lampard and Gerrard play together? No, the combination unbalances the team. Gerrard + Barry or Hargreaves + Barry in midfield would have won the game for Enlgland against Croatia because those combinations are complementary and give the team balance.

In our case Hucks doesn''t do defence (DDD) - and is a luxury in a struggling team. Yes, he may win us the odd match but the effect of  DDD unbalances the team and outweighs the periodic razmatazz.

From now on as far as I''m concerned Hucks must remain an impact player for us (the team comes first, not Hucks). And that should be his role as he''s eased towards retirement - as Yankee suggested.

We''ve eased out one DDD (Earny) and now it''s time to use Hucks, our other DDD properly as an impact player.

And, I repeat, if he doesn''t like it or his ego can''t take it, then thanks and bye bye.

There''s tosh & tosh - and one type of tosh is promoted by football fans besotted and blinded with hero worship.

I like flair players who work and think. Looks like you can''t spot the difference BigFish.

OTBC

OTBC

[/quote]

Emmm yes no arguing with that then is there. Hux unbalances the team. Same way he has done over four years. Like when we were promoted (a very unbalanced team?) and when he saved us from the abyss last year. Who is next in your flair free world BBB - Cureton?

Seems like your view is in favour of 10 defenders + GK + the hope the opposition will through in an og. Sometimes players are needed that give something the others don''t & sometimes the cost of that is DDD.

Anyway - Hargreaves & Barry. Yeah right you really know your football.

[Old Boy 0]

[quote user="BigFish"]

Emmm yes no arguing with that then is there. Hux unbalances the team. Same way he has done over four years. Like when we were promoted (a very unbalanced team?) and when he saved us from the abyss last year. Who is next in your flair free world BBB - Cureton?

Seems like your view is in favour of 10 defenders + GK + the hope the opposition will through in an og. Sometimes players are needed that give something the others don''t & sometimes the cost of that is DDD.

Anyway - Hargreaves & Barry. Yeah right you really know your football.

[/quote]Hux was awesome in the promotion season, and he shouldered a huge amount of the goal scoring and creating work. But he''s not the same player now, physically or mentally. To understand that doesn''t mean that you hate flair players, quite the reverse. What is "flair" - the ability to beat two players before losing the ball to a third before you''ve looked up? Not in my book. But that''s what Huckerby does nowadays, with rare exceptions.

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

It isnt a coincidence that we looked more balanced and better as a TEAM without Hucks (sorry Darren if you''re reading this), he still offers quality so should still play an important role.

[ca 1]

Think his performance when he came on spoke for itself [:D]

 

We love you Hucks - well I do!

[O.T.B.C 0]

I would like to stick with the same team again, barring injuries etc, give Hucks 30-35 mins again, he can scare the Stoke defence when they are tired, I''m off to bed a very happy man now, well done lads, lets not get too carried away with playoff talk etc, but we should all look forward to the future, albeit the short term future, we will stay up now, last week or so, I thought we were doomed, but I beleive that the team are now performing for Glen.

 

Night Night all, I''m a tired little bunny.

 

Oh love you CA

[ricardo 7,380]

[quote user="C.T "]It isnt a coincidence that we looked more balanced and better as a TEAM without Hucks (sorry Darren if you''re reading this), he still offers quality so should still play an important role.[/quote]

Came on and made goals 2 and 3.

Enough said.

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

I did say that ''he still offers quality so should still play an important role''. Enough said.

[ca 1]

[quote user="biggleyellow"]

Oh love you CA

[/quote]

 

Awww [:$]