Hucks could and should be used up front

[a1canary 0]

I think we''re all feeling slightly uncomfortable about what''s happening with Hucks and Roeder. Obviously we''re delighted with the progress of the team but i was told by a geordie fan when Roeder joined that he''d do great with the kids but he won''t get on with the established names. How true that''s turned out to be.Anyway, it seems glaringly obvious to me that when we have a side that''s shot shy and short on goals, our finest attacking player, even today if you ask me, should be given a go. We''ve debated long and hard about where his best position is but the fact is he has been devastating for us both on the wing and up front. He can definitely play off Dion - they have a great understanding and great experience together. Chedders is a good option too but he''s only scoring about 1 in 4 at the moment. There''s definitely reason enough to give Hucks a go up there.

[Hackney Canary 0]

Here! Here! Bring him on and cut him loose...

[John Boubepo 0]

Norwich have improved over the last couple of months, there''s no doubt about that but there is no way we are so good that Hux can''t make the bench when fully fit, making him fight for his place in the final 11 is good practice but humiliating him is something else

[BCanary 0]

Agreed 100%

[blahblahblah 2]

If he is fit, it would be a shocking waste of his talent and wages not to use him as an impact player - that said, we keep winning matches without him, don''t we ? [:s]

[Boba Fett 0]

I could be reading into this too much but maybe Glen is playing Hucks a bit, he is the type of player who is passionatte and will hate being out of the team when he is fit maybe in a couple of games glen will bring him back in off the bench and he will have the fire in his belly again and start tearing defences apart to prove a point, maybe its just managing your players.  If thats not the case then its a sad end to one of the best players to play for the club..   Just a thought

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]If he is fit, it would be a shocking waste of his talent and wages not to use him as an impact player - that said, we keep winning matches without him, don''t we ? [:s]
[/quote]

We''re winning by the width of a post or with the last kick of the match, and more damaging, we''re drawing when we''ve created enough chances to win comfortably. And we rarely score more than one at the moment. I''m not denying or progress, but I can''t see how there''s no room for Hucks in our squad in these circumstances.

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]If he is fit, it would be a shocking waste of his talent and wages not to use him as an impact player - that said, we keep winning matches without him, don''t we ? [:s]
[/quote]

We''re winning by the width of a post or with the last kick of the match, and more damaging, we''re drawing when we''ve created enough chances to win comfortably. And we rarely score more than one at the moment. I''m not denying our progress, but I can''t see how there''s no room for Hucks in our squad in these circumstances.

[3canaries 0]

I disagree, he''s always offside!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Baldyboy 0]

how the hell has roeder humiliated Huckerby? what utter crap

[Syteanric 1]

we are winning games without Huckerby.. we cant put him in the team just because he is Hucks... we have to put him in the team because he has earned a place through training and hard work and an injury/opportunity has opened up for him.

jas :)

[tribes 0]

He''s doing his best to baldyboy though isn''t he.?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

If his body language in training is right and he''s fit then I would agree that he should be brought on in the last third as a substitute striker or a third striker - as the situation demands - but not, please not, in midfield.

A fit and motivated Hucks in this role could fire a run for the play-offs just like he fired the run to the Prem last time. What a wonderful finale that would be if he''s up for it.

OTBC

 

 

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="baldyboy"]how the hell has roeder humiliated Huckerby? what utter crap[/quote]I take it being perceptive isn''t one of your talents then baldyboy lolOk, lets spell it out - you work for a company where you have deservedly been the top earner because you are the top employee, you are still one of the best 5 years later but your boss replaces you with a 17 yr old who is only likely to be around for a few weeks, your boss then demotes you to cleaning out the company lavatory and writes in your company magazine that you can as good as f@ck off!Now that''s another example of  humiliation

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="John Boubepo"][quote user="baldyboy"]how the hell has roeder humiliated Huckerby? what utter crap[/quote]I take it being perceptive isn''t one of your talents then baldyboy lolOk, lets spell it out - you work for a company where you have deservedly been the top earner because you are the top employee, you are still one of the best 5 years later but your boss replaces you with a 17 yr old who is only likely to be around for a few weeks, your boss then demotes you to cleaning out the company lavatory and writes in your company magazine that you can as good as f@ck off!Now that''s another example of  humiliation[/quote]Good to see you''re not bitter John.  Oh, sorry, it''s an analogy ?  Ok, silly me...[:)]

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

we are winning games without Huckerby.. we cant put him in the team just because he is Hucks...

jas :)

[/quote]No-one is saying that - the point is we are not scoring enough and Hucks is our best attacking player (still) so how can he not be even in the squad. Yes he leaves us exposed on the wing at times, so play him up front.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="John Boubepo"][quote user="baldyboy"]how the hell has roeder humiliated Huckerby? what utter crap[/quote]

I take it being perceptive isn''t one of your talents then baldyboy lol
Ok, lets spell it out - you work for a company where you have deservedly been the top earner because you are the top employee, you are still one of the best 5 years later but your boss replaces you with a 17 yr old who is only likely to be around for a few weeks, your boss then demotes you to cleaning out the company lavatory and writes in your company magazine that you can as good as f@ck off!
Now that''s another example of  humiliation

[/quote]

 

So show me anywhere where GR has humiliated Hucks?  Dictionary definition is - to reduce to a lower position in one''s own eyes or others'' eyes.  Huck''s isnt lower in my eyes nor I would think in other fans, and in the past GR has praised Huck''s.   [;)]

So would you react the same if another member of the squad was in the same position as Hucks?

NCFC isn''t Huck''s, its about 11 players on the pitch, brilliant fans and a darn good manager.

This summer we will be without Huck''s if rumours are to be believed, NC survived before him and it will survive after him, simple as.

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="John Boubepo"][quote user="baldyboy"]how the hell has roeder humiliated Huckerby? what utter crap[/quote]I take it being perceptive isn''t one of your talents then baldyboy lolOk, lets spell it out - you work for a company where you have deservedly been the top earner because you are the top employee, you are still one of the best 5 years later but your boss replaces you with a 17 yr old who is only likely to be around for a few weeks, your boss then demotes you to cleaning out the company lavatory and writes in your company magazine that you can as good as f@ck off!Now that''s another example of  humiliation[/quote]Good to see you''re not bitter John.  Oh, sorry, it''s an analogy ?  Ok, silly me...[:)][/quote]"you''re not bitter John"  - Hey my name is John Boubepo not John Smith Smooth!Anyway I was too livid to feel bitter, before I left off work yesterday I blocked the company Lavatory with that company magazineand let the tyres down on that smart @rsed 17 yr olds mountain bike!

[Canaries for Ever 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

we are winning games without Huckerby.. we cant put him in the team just because he is Hucks... we have to put him in the team because he has earned a place through training and hard work and an injury/opportunity has opened up for him.

jas :)

[/quote]

Before Saturday and since Glenn arrived, we had won ONE game only, in which Huckerby didn''t feature; but we have had a goalless draw in which we just couldn''t score and a ''humiliating'' (according to Roeder) 3-0 defeat.

Don''t get me wrong, I admire what Roeder has achieved, but as I have said elsewhere, the game was crying out for him on Saturday - Croft & Bertrand looked lost anywhere near the penalty area and if Cureton hadn''t come on, I don''t think that Russell would have had the space to take the chance that he did.

If Roeder can see a good reason not to play him then OK, but I hope that it isn''t for example some kind of ''one-up-man-ship''.

[sdldjl 0]

Agreed get him in upfront like he was in our promotion winning season then people wont moan at him for not defending he has the ability to fire us up the table, hes done it twice before as he was also used upfront for man city wen they went up

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Hucks is liable to stay too far left of his strike partner.

Do any of the stattos out there know how many goals we let in when Hucks plays as opposed to not. I suspect we are far more solid without him and one goal is often enough.

[ron obvious 0]

Might have to now!

 

http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1233245,00.html

[Cheerio 0]

He''s been tried up front again and again..... he just does his own thing and drifts wide left every time. I seem to remember towards the end of Worthingtons days he started several games up front and his score rate was quite impressive..... might work in a 433 but not 442. It would just end up 451