Goals

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Unfortunately Hilts, nothing Mason's doing lately seems to be coming off for the lad. Tries hard but no cigar.

He doesn't seem to lack confidence on the surface, but deep down I think he needs a goal and that would make all the difference to him. You couldn't blame Malky if he benched him again which would be a shame, but who do we have available with that opportunist goal threat?

You could argue that Velikonja be pressed into service. More likely that Bellamy will be pushed up there for the moment with one of our wide men getting some bench time.

Smithy's got the guile to do the job but I doubt he's got the pace off the mark that we need up there.
 
Sparky, maybe the carrying his form forward was a bit tongue in cheek but the rest was fact not bullox. He Started 3 games and finished 1. He scored nil, so what is making everyone say he must be replaced, that we can't manage without him/
We have managed without him - very well. He didn't play in 9 of the 10 home games we won on the trot and got subbed in the one he did play in. It is also a fact that we paid a lot of money for him and are getting no return.
It is also a fact that he is a player who couldn't get a game at premier league level, so when we get promoted and he is fit again that's what we will have for our money - a player that cannot hold a place in a prem side.
I'm not saying it's his fault or that we were ripped off or anything, I just think all this "Must replace" stuff is based on a perception that was never a reality. He hadn't proven anything at all.
If we lose someone who has played 15 games then I agree lets find a stop gap, or if we need it lets strengthen in Jan, but this has been going on for 3 months from nothing and we are top of the shop. Where would we be if he had kept fit? No one can know, we may have lost games because he was taking the place of someone who has actually got in the team through his absence and actually scored a goal. Now that is specualtion. But it isn't the kind people want to hear.
 
Talking to another City fan last weekend about Mason we both agreed that he got more opportunities playing alongside Miller. While Kenny's shooting boots failed to fire in the second half of last season, his running the channels and off the ball work created a lot more space and time for Mason, hence his better goal tally last season.

Helga's strengths are not so subtle but if he ends the season with 16+ goals who are we to complain provided everyone else continues to knock in a few? Absentee scorers who contributed last season are Taylor, Turner, Gestede, Ralls and Kiss. Also likely to add to the pot are Mutch, Kimbo and Smith so plenty more goals in the team overall.

Xsnaggs - agreed we have managed without Maynard but consider that maybe our performances could have been further enhanced with him? From what we have seen so far he can give us an extra dimension in terms of a front runner able to hold up the ball and then turn and run at defences. (Yes, Mason can do this but his first touch is not as good so far). That can be a major worry for defenders. Both goals against Leeds came from this. He did not have much of a pre-season and came to us not fully match fit. He was building that fitness and starting to show his worth before his injury. Time will tell as to his overall contribution but I feel it is unfair to criticise the guy when he has had very little opportunity to demonstrate his full abilities to us. We know from our own experiences that he can and will score goals in the Championship.
 
Snaggs - the "bollucks" word was also used tongue in cheek - hence the wink smiley after it.

Nobody can say what would have been - we'll never know, but Maynard was bought for a for a reason. Malky and the board didn't splash £2M on somebody to get injured. He was thought to be needed and that reason hasn't gone away.

Yes, goals have come from all over the park and a bloody good job too. All that's being said is that as well as we've done without him, the probable additional goals he'd have scored as a striker of his calibre could have stretched our 1 point lead at the top.

As for the second half of the season without him, to rely on "more of the same" from the midfield and defenders could be pushing our luck - that's all some of us are saying. A proven goalscorer wouldn't guarantee anything, but it would be another option to the one we seem to be relying on.

Austin, Murray and Rhodes are grabbing the headlines and not without reason. With the service our players can provide, Maynard could well have been amongst those name.

Bluey. I agree with the list of absentee players you gave who can contribute to future scoring. It maybe stating the bleedin' obvious, but you can't play them all at the same time. A quality striker would score as many on his own as that lot put together.

Just an opinion.
 
I'm not criticising him, I said it isn't his fault. Maybe if he hadn't been played not match fit then he wouldn't have got injured and who's fault would that be?????
All I'm saying is that it is all speculation. People are crying out to replace something we never actually had. We only had a promise of it. He played a full game in the hammering by Brizzle. Did he contribute to that by being not match fit? I don't know. He got subbed against Leeds and carried off against Millwall. That is the total of his contribution, and I am not suggesting thats his fault. Just can someone tell me what exactly in there we are trying to replace, becuase what ever it is we never had it and have done very well thank you without it.
with regard to the 20 points form every 10 games thing, it's not my invention, lots of managers use it as a yard stick to see how they are doing, specially when pushing for promotion. Sir Alex uses it and if it's good enough for him, eho am I to argue. Malky is on record as saying that he works in batches of 6 games at a time,which I presume gives and even tighter picture of where you are. It is just better to takes small bits you can deal with and then re-assess than to go the whole season dropping points until suddenly you are 10 behind the plan
 
Sparks - they can take it in turns can't they? <whistle>

Isn't that what squad rotation is about?

If my ageing memory serves correctly didn't we have something like 22 or 23 different goalscorers last season including og's? Persoanlly I don't think the og's are doing enough for us this season.

In reality for us to succeed we need a mix of someone notching 18/20 a season plus a good number of regular contributors. I think a fit Maynard would have provided the first half of that and we have plenty of others stepping up to the plate for the second bit. If Maynard will not be back anytime soon then I also think we need to consider acquiring another regular goal scorer (despite Malky's statement) unless Velikonja is being held back as our secret weapon for the New Year.
 
Bluey - I wouldn't read too much into that press quote about Malky not planning to spend in the window. If the right full back or goal scorer was up for grabs at the time, I reckon the Malaysians would back him to the hilt - but it has to be the right guy to do us a job.

We mustn't forget in all this that stopping them going in at the back is as important as banging them in up front - scoring 4 goals and still getting beaten at Charlton springs to mind. <doh>

The thing is with the defensive options available, maybe with McNuggs coming back along with Nugent, John and perhaps an extended loan for Lappin, we could ring the changes and get by.

What you can't do is manufacture or manipulate a goalscorer. They are a unique class of player - they've either got the scoring knack or haven't. I firmly believe that young Joe Mason has that certain something that could make him special. If he starts putting them in this season he might never stop.

The Velikonja situation is all a bit strange. According to Malky, he needs to beef up and get stuck in. That was an awful lot of money to invest in him for the future when we really need it for the present.
 
It's great to see so many player names on the scoresheet but, I would expect Malky to be already tracking a recognised target man for a January purchase. We can't continue through to the end of the season with a targetman who rarely plays 90 mins and a back up targetman,who is enthusiastic but lacks genuine experience. Some of our toughest away games of the season are already on the horizon and will be points lost in my opinion. For an auto promotion we should be scoring far more goals. Of the twenty played, 6 have been 2 - 1 and 3 have been 1 - 0 home wins. Yes we are bagging maximum points but I will guarantee goal difference will be a deciding factor in the latter stages.
 
ITIWRAN said:
It's great to see so many player names on the scoresheet but, I would expect Malky to be already tracking a recognised target man for a January purchase. For an auto promotion we should be scoring far more goals. Of the twenty played, 6 have been 2 - 1 and 3 have been 1 - 0 home wins.
Click to expand...


Agreed Bob - despite our frequent dominance, we do seem to win games by the skin of our teeth. Burnley, Blackpool and Wolves were put to the sword, but we could easily have dropped a lot of points through not taking the chances we create through a game.

Only seen the away games on video, but the games I've watched in the flesh at the CCS have gone down to the wire far too often when we should have had a couple of goals cushion.

Good discussion thread guys, and thankfully not ruined by going off track.

Just to keep the thoughts flowing, anyone think it would be worth reversing roles and starting a game with Rudy up front then using Helguson for the last half hour?

Maybe not at Blackburn, but Peterborough in the next one would be a good shout for me.
 
Xsnaggle said:
I'm not criticising him, I said it isn't his fault. Maybe if he hadn't been played not match fit then he wouldn't have got injured and who's fault would that be?????
All I'm saying is that it is all speculation. People are crying out to replace something we never actually had. We only had a promise of it. He played a full game in the hammering by Brizzle. Did he contribute to that by being not match fit? I don't know. He got subbed against Leeds and carried off against Millwall. That is the total of his contribution, and I am not suggesting thats his fault. Just can someone tell me what exactly in there we are trying to replace, becuase what ever it is we never had it and have done very well thank you without it.
with regard to the 20 points form every 10 games thing, it's not my invention, lots of managers use it as a yard stick to see how they are doing, specially when pushing for promotion. Sir Alex uses it and if it's good enough for him, eho am I to argue. Malky is on record as saying that he works in batches of 6 games at a time,which I presume gives and even tighter picture of where you are. It is just better to takes small bits you can deal with and then re-assess than to go the whole season dropping points until suddenly you are 10 behind the plan
Click to expand...

He didnt play against Bristol City.
 
Hilts24 said:
He didnt play against Bristol City.
Click to expand...

Hadn't noticed that comment about Maynard and the Brizzle game. I don't think Maynard even signed for us before we played so poorly against the wurzels back in August.

I can remember seeing him in a couple of home games against Wolves and Leeds before he got crocked at Millwall.

History now, but potentially a huge loss.
 
Late deadline day signing wasnt he.?

Massive loss.

Bring back Cameron Jerome.
 
I can"t agree that Maynard is a massive loss. As we are top of the league and there are goals from all over the park.
If we were lower in the league and no one was scoring then that is a massive loss. What is a loss is the goals he could have potentially scored had he remained fit.
For example how big a loss was Robbie Fowler when he got injured? Given all the arguments raised above it stands to reason Robbie Fowler was a massive loss, do you agree?
 
Taff - you can't seriously compare Maynard to an ageing Fowler. Maynard is in his prime and not on the way down looking for a pension club.

I will go as far to say though, that if Fowler hadn't got injured and stayed reasonably fit, him and JFH could have seen us up. Crazy? Maybe, but it wouldn't have taken a lot extra to have played in the FA Cup final AND got promotion that season.

The truth is we'll never know just how much of a loss, massive or otherwise Maynard's absence has been or will be.

Only if we don't make the grade without a replacement come May will it be a relevant question.

If we don't replace him and fail to go up, no doubt there'll be more conjecture.

If we do get a goal scoring replacement and still don't go up, then perhaps he wasn't a loss.

On the other hand, if we don't get a replacement and still go up, then he wasn't a loss.............

.............Oh, me 'ead 'urts. <doh>
 
Sparks, not comparing them as players or the stage of career. The debate is whether Maynard is a big loss this season. One of the debating points is the lack of goals and games played by Maynard. So based on his games to goals ratio some suggest (and I agree) he wouldn't appear to be such a loss. Given Fowler scored 6 in 6 (if memory serves me right) before getting injured therefore, based on the same argument Fowlers loss makes the loss of Maynard insignificant whatever the season end is for us.
 
Taff - how can you talk of a "goals to games ratio" about someone who played two and a half games for us at the start of the season when he wasn't even fully match fit?

That statistic is as pointless as saying he WOULD have scored a hatfull if he was playing right now. The argument is a circular one and can never be proven one way or the other.

We are still basically relying on goals from midfield and defence to win games - that can't be healthy.

However, it's a great discussion point.
 
Wiki says 4 goals in 13 games for Blobby. Narrative: -

"On 21 July Fowler signed a two-year contract to play for Cardiff City. He missed the season's opening fixtures due to a lack of fitness, making his debut in a League Cup tie on 28 August. He scored his first two Cardiff goals on 22 September against Preston North End, scoring with two headers.[58] Fowler scored twice in his next game, a third round League Cup tie against West Brom, which Cardiff won 4&#8211;2."

In all honesty (other than shirt sales to keep Pistol Pete's till ringing) those 2 scoring games apart he was an embarrassment. I remember a home game (don't recall who we played) where he and JFH were our strikers. It went like this: -

Our defence win the ball

Either lump it up front, or

Pass to midfield who then lump it up front

In either case Blobby and JFH look at each other to decide who will stroll towards the ball

In either case, big defender wins ball and sets up opposing attack against us with neither Blobby nor JFH bothering to track back. I don't think Blobby was capabale of tracking back anyway.

By the second half in that game the defenders were stepping up to the half way line and cutting out balls before they reached the deadly duo. The defenders were then taking on our midfield leaving us out numbered and under so much pressure.

Okay perhaps we should have passed through midfield more but its not like the front 2 were making any runs or getting into space to receive good passes. Now JFH picked up his game when playing with other partners, particularly Paul Parry who became his "legs", and scored some good goals but Blobby just carried on taking the money with no sign of any on the pitch playback. I said at the time, he would have got a lot more respect if by the December he had said " Sorry guys its not working, lets shake hands tear up my contract and walk away". He didn't.

Not necessarily comments related to Maynard just that I think comparisons with Blobby are very unfair on a young player who will come good provided he can regain full fitness.
 
I'm only using part of the argument that is fact although it is not a very scientific or comprehensive data.
Given we are scoring goals surely means we do not miss Maynard as much if we were not scoring the goals. We do need a an out and out goal scorer and I believe we do need a striker in the January window but are we going to get someone in the same mould as Maynard who can add to the team.
With the Fowler comparison, he was neither fit nor overly interested but still found the net 6 times before injury even if you halve his game time he still averaged a goal a game so the comparison is fair. Therefore, Fowler was a massive loss and Maynard not so much....
Some good debate here and the bottom line is Maynard needs to recover and be in the team when he's ready, if we get another striker in January it will be for the benefit of the team and god competition for Maynard when he recovers.
 
BFB thanks for the stats on Fowler, I was sure he had 6 in 6 but there you go, the memory fades.
I agree Fowler was less than interested and unfit. Fitness or lack of with regard to Maynard is one of the debating points.
I don't want this to become a Fowler v Maynard debate, it's a debate on whether Maynard is a big loss or not. With Maynard only playing 2 and a bit games he can hardly be deemed a huge loss to the team. Of course he is a loss but not just because of his goal potential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back