The riddle here is how can someone be having a good game when they are not performing their prime task? I racked my two remaining braincells over this, until the solution came to me today while I was watching my girlfriend blunt (and blame) a new kitchen knife by unsuccessfully trying to open a can of peas with it. "Don't blame the knife, you dumb bitch", I shouted affectionately (in impeccable Spanish), "It's not a tin-opener!" Same with Makienok. Nearly everyone agrees he is playing well and worth his place in the team, at least until we get a couple of better players in (and even then I don't think replacing Makienok should be a top priority). The problem comes when we call him a "striker" and then criticize him for not being a successful one. Don't label him as a striker, think of him as "something else". The nearest parallel I can think of is Fellaini (much closer in role than Leaburn). Man Utd managers omit him from their team because he does not fill an obvious spot in 4-3-3, 4-2-4, 4-4-2, or whatever. He is not a striker or an orthodox target man, not an orthodox attacking midfielder, and certainly not a wide man or defender. But when they restore him to the team, the team plays better, or, at least, picks up more points. The Belgium national team don't worry about how to label him, they just include him in their plans, and he and they had a very good World Cup. Let's just agree to appreciate Makienok and leave the regular goal-scoring to someone else. Though I think he will get eight by end of season. And before you sneer at that, remember that Derek Hales was once our top scorer with eight. And when he finishes with football, a career beckons as a Hollywood Viking. I reckon he could kick Gudmundsson's arse any time.
great piece B&M . For me it's simple... It's ok for him to play and not score goals as long as someone else is.
This forum's a bit too amicable for this thread. By the new year I expect fisticuffs to be breaking out in less peaceful quarters when Big Mak is discussed. I also expect a huge roar when he eventually scores his first goal. His defensive work is the best for a striker since Bartlett, even better than Leaburn's. I like the big guy for the way he always makes himself available, but I don't want him to be an automatic choice, especially when Igor is fit.
The acid test for Makienok will come when Watt stops scoring goals. Patience for his niche act will then wear thin.
Just as long as it is not in his own net........(which he is more likely to achieve before he scores one for Charlton). He could not score in a brothel.....!!
Agree 100%. He seems to be improving game by game to, though I can only go by what I've heard from the last 2 away games. We also have to take in to consideration that the players around him are also having to learn to play to his strength. The forest game seemed to be the first sighting of him being a goal threat, as well as an all round nuisance.
This is a bit like saying "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle" .... Big Mak is employed as a striker... a strikers role is to score goals OR at least worry central defenders that he WILL score goals. So on the basis of "if we had ham we could make a ham and cheese sandwich if we also had cheese" then yes Igor will probably make Big Mak a better player but Igor has been injured for several months now so as his return is not imminent then the big un needs to start finishing. Plus Fellaini actually scores goals when moved forward
So you say. But he has never scored goals at the only higher levels he has played at (Palermo and Denmark). I would say he was brought in to improve the team, and he has been successful in doing so. How many goals has Gudmundsson scored? Has Makienok done any less in midfield and defence than JBG? And Makienok has certainly come close to scoring more often than JBG. Why don't you label JBG a failing striker? It would be as logical. Fellaini cost 27 million pounds. I was only comparing him with Fellaini in that their roles do not fit into conventional formations.
OK. So if we call Makienok a midfielder, can we then all agree he is an asset to the side? Those are just labels. All that matters is what they contribute on the pitch. Makienok contributes his share, up front, in midfield and in defence. If he did not, the great majority of fans would not be reporting that he played well. The players who we have signed are not our problem. Our problem is the ones we have not signed (but hopefully will soon).
we're getting positive results, Makienok can play where he likes as long as that is happening. we were second favourites for relegation this year and so far we've had good results against two of the best teams in the division and a team that constantly finishes in the top four to six.
I was only kidding with you, eddie. Big Mak's lack of goals will become a side issue if the rest of the team (particularly the midfield) can weigh in with their share. As you allude to in your posts, if Big Mak can help out all over the pitch, which he is obviously doing, then the rest of the team should be expected to take on some of the goal scoring duties.
Big Mak had a terrific second half, starting and finishing one move, and having an assist for the other goal. And his tunnel jump was huge.
I don't want to claim all the credit but I said last week that he needed to improve his contribution as a forward and in the second half he stepped up to the plate
It was vital he made a contribution in the second half; the crowd was starting to get on his back following (another) fruitless/poor first half. Even if one of the miscontrolled touches was a result of Kashi bursting the ball with a crunching tackle.
Man of the match no. The first half he was a weak link. Second half, he scored a great goal, set up another and made a lot of other stuff happen.If the goal made that happen, then blessed be the goal, and he should now start to turn into a vital player (I'd definately want him in the starting line up after saturday). Luzón rates him, and my confidence in Luzón is currently without limits.
