#61
|
||||
|
||||
You do have to wonder if Holloway is going to play the guy on the wing all season, then what was the point in buying him. On MOTD2, they showed the places on the pitch Gayle touched the ball on Sunday, only once in the penalty box.
Last edited by palacea; 20-08-2013 at 11:32 AM. |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
People questioning if Holloway has bought Gayle as a winger is like saying we have bought Chamakh, Campana & Marange just to sit on the bench if we are just basing it on Sundays starting line up.
__________________
Tedious & dopey. |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Because Ollie only plays with 1 up front and Gayle would work best in a 442 or 352 system.
|
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That said I thought he looked very sharp and composed on the ball. When he pushed forward more in the last half an hour it looked very promising - Chamakh almost played him in, there were a couple of good runs made and he was wide open when Sir Kev decided to have a go from the edge of the box (would have done better to play him in)... I think there will be lots to come from Dwight Gayle..... |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So, when all fit, we have Wilbs, Murray, Chamakh, Gayle & Phillips but Ollie wont budge from 1 up top? So because, with the 3 out and out wide players we currently have are crocked he will only ever play a striker with such massive potential on the wing? So you know that Gayle works better as a 2 man front line but Holloway doesn't know this? So you really don't think when all are fit and firing there will be some intention to play Chamakh and Gayle together?? At the end of the day, Gayle is still learning his trade and because he has pace and we have a few square pegs in round holes at the mo, he will fill in where he is needed. We have played one game, nothing is set in stone.
__________________
Tedious & dopey. |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You don't think that if we had (for argument sake) Thomas fit Saturday, he would have been in Gayle's postion and Gayle in Wilbs????? Crikey, there are some cracking managers on here.
__________________
Tedious & dopey. |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There was me thinking our manager may have more than just one plan. Lets hope other teams don't read these boards or our secrets out eh?
__________________
Tedious & dopey. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
We'll need a whole lot more games to see how Gayle does. He is a gamble, one I think it was right to take, but it is very unclear how that gamble will pan out. However, surely no point in pretending he did well when he was hardly in the game. |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
However, to suggest where the manager played him was 'baffling' I cant agree with. Our wide players were injured. Gayle has pace to burn. He had Wilbs & Chamakh to play the role of targetman to try and put themselves about. With what Holloway had available, you can see why he did it even if you don't agree. Not suggesting anyone pretends he played well but young lad, first game of season, Prem, out of position, debut, big crowd, live on Sky? Cut the lad a bit of slack.
__________________
Tedious & dopey. |
#73
|
||||
|
||||
That all you got? We will see Radders, let's have this conversation in a month and you will see that I'm right and Gayle is played on the wing.
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Now part of that may be true, however clearly the strategy for the 1st hour was to leave Wilbraham up front on his own, play deep, shut Spurs down quickly, keep as many players behind the ball as possible and keep the game tight. Dwight was deployed in midfield in this system so I think that it is unfair and not representative to single him out as an example in the way they did as clearly he was never going to get in the Spurs box as often as he would as a 2nd striker. Had he actually been up front the whole game then fair enough, but he wasn't. |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
All I've got? Is not pointing out that your talking like you run the club and the team enough? Jesus wept.
__________________
Tedious & dopey. |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Not at all, like others have stated, it's pretty obvious Gayle will be playing on the wing, and we will have one main striker (with Gayle not being that one main striker). If that's tactics then Jez wept Glad you're not the tactician, more an observation.
|
#77
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We will soon see. But if Holloway persists with playing him on the wing and doesn't see what we're expecting of him, particularly with the fee we paid he will go up top. I for one think he will struggle badly playing out wide or in the deeper role Holloway had him in. He's too raw and untried to mix him about in other positions yet. And besides, if the rumours are true that we're in for another winger I'm sure that means he's looking to use Gayle up top. I personally think it will be Chamakh playing just off Gayle once we have two proper wingers fit. |
#78
|
||||
|
||||
We're not going to play with wingers.
|
#79
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So just to clarify, you and a couple of others because of one league game and a couple of friendlies think that our 4/5 million (or whatever) striker has been bought to play on the wing? Even though we have 3 wingers at the club, 2 of which we have just bought, along with being linked with tons of other wingers? Its necessity not tactics which see him played there. With your obvious tactical genius, surprised you haven't spotted that.
__________________
Tedious & dopey. |
#80
|
||||
|
||||
As in not in a front 4 or not a front 3 or neither? Gotta be doing something with wingers/wide players because we have 3 and may be in the market for more innit!?
__________________
Tedious & dopey. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|