Big Onion 0 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 That 'one-in-three' in the league is a bit generous if you ask me. He's got 32 in 109 league starts (which is one in three and a half), plus he's made a staggering eighty appearances off the bench. Martins has 27 in 72 starts plus 10 sub' run-outs, which is considerably better. I'd also take into account the fact that Carroll is much better in the air than Shola, important to us at both ends just now. We never win anything when a goal-kick/clearance is sent towards Ameobi, as most of the time he doesn't win the ball and on the rare occasions he does he has no control over where it goes. We'll pick up our share of second balls when Carroll plays, and these things count. I also think Ameobi's attitude has deteriorated - he looks lazy these days, and yesterday's failure to follow Faye more than once is an example of this, as was his pathetic sulk on the halfway line a few months back, and his 'I'm too big to be doing this' performance when KK put him in a reserve game last season (think it was v Man City - I was there and he was a disgrace). I think he's been absolutely shit for ages now and I'd be happy if he never played for us again. I'm not saying Ameobi currently deserves to start ahead of Carroll. Just that it's only right that Shearer's gone in and told everyone it's a clean slate, he's ignoring recent (relegation placing) form and giving players a chance to prove themselves all over again based on what they've produced in the past. I was at that Man City reserves game too. I don't think Ameobi was dragged off to preserve his fitness either, he didn't even look up to it at that level. You're probably right about Shearer's thinking (and I've probably overstated my case somewhat as I just can't fucking stand Ameobi these days ). Even if he was given a clean slate, there's already a dirty great blemish on it after just one game I'd say. Not that I'm yet convinced Carroll has the quality to make it in the PL - that's for him to prove. But he's got enough about him to get a start as things stand for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 That 'one-in-three' in the league is a bit generous if you ask me. He's got 32 in 109 league starts (which is one in three and a half), plus he's made a staggering eighty appearances off the bench. Martins has 27 in 72 starts plus 10 sub' run-outs, which is considerably better. I'd also take into account the fact that Carroll is much better in the air than Shola, important to us at both ends just now. We never win anything when a goal-kick/clearance is sent towards Ameobi, as most of the time he doesn't win the ball and on the rare occasions he does he has no control over where it goes. We'll pick up our share of second balls when Carroll plays, and these things count. I also think Ameobi's attitude has deteriorated - he looks lazy these days, and yesterday's failure to follow Faye more than once is an example of this, as was his pathetic sulk on the halfway line a few months back, and his 'I'm too big to be doing this' performance when KK put him in a reserve game last season (think it was v Man City - I was there and he was a disgrace). I think he's been absolutely shit for ages now and I'd be happy if he never played for us again. I'm not saying Ameobi currently deserves to start ahead of Carroll. Just that it's only right that Shearer's gone in and told everyone it's a clean slate, he's ignoring recent (relegation placing) form and giving players a chance to prove themselves all over again based on what they've produced in the past. I was at that Man City reserves game too. I don't think Ameobi was dragged off to preserve his fitness either, he didn't even look up to it at that level. You're probably right about Shearer's thinking (and I've probably overstated my case somewhat as I just can't fucking stand Ameobi these days ). Even if he was given a clean slate, there's already a dirty great blemish on it after just one game I'd say. Not that I'm yet convinced Carroll has the quality to make it in the PL - that's for him to prove. But he's got enough about him to get a start as things stand for me. Interesting stats on the goals versus minutes played front... Carroll 3/432 = 1 every 144 minutes Martins 6/1381 = 1 every 197.3 minutes Owen 8/1613 = 1 every 201.6 minutes Lovenkrands 2/503 = 1 every 251.5 minutes Xisco 1/285 = 1 every 285 minutes Ameobi 4/1245 = 1 every 311.3 minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Onion 0 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Even Xisco beats Shola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Gutless, spineless bastards, deserve to go down. MOM - Andy carroll, looked like the only one that cared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9007 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I liked the final formation we were using against Stoke. The three centre halfs, two wingbacks, two defensive midfielders, Jonas floating about the place and two strikers. I had faith in the system to provide sufficient protection for our suspect defence, but also sufficient support to our patched together forward line. Carroll was vastly superior to Shola in every way. Forget about his attacking play; movement, endeavour, touch, distribution, threat and goal return. His overall contribution warranted future selection. He passed the ball sensibly when he was back helping out, he defended like he cared as much about scoring as he does preventing a goal. I'm fully aware Carroll's not a great player, but surely this proves Ameobi should be a reserve player until we can farm him off to a championship club (where I believe Shola would do quite well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy 9 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Even Xisco beats Shola Shola should be on suicide watch if he ever finds out, mind you he'd fuck that up too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I'm fully aware Carroll's not a great player, but surely this proves Ameobi should be a reserve player until we can farm him off to a championship club (where I believe Shola would do quite well). We might be a championship club ourselves next season . My theory on Ameobi is that something snaps in his head comes matchday. Call it lack of composure, lack of confidence, lack of heart or whatever but there has to be a reason why he looks great in training and shite on the day. I don't think it's laziness, and I think it's unfair to say he's not trying. I think he just can't focus on the day, the occasion or the adrenaline gets the better of him and he just loses all sense of what he's supposed to be doing. So he barges into players, jumps at the wrong time, his touch is woeful, he loses his man when defending set pieces, he can't time a shot etc. In other words, he's largely clueless when the whistle goes in front of a crowd. If he was in war scenario they'd call it shell shock and pack him off to a sanitorium. They wouldn't let him anywhere near a loaded gun and he'd probably be shot by his own side anyway. No way we should be picking him for the toon, and we've known this for a long long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohhh_yeah 2783 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bob Almighty! 0 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I'm fully aware Carroll's not a great player, but surely this proves Ameobi should be a reserve player until we can farm him off to a championship club (where I believe Shola would do quite well). We might be a championship club ourselves next season . My theory on Ameobi is that something snaps in his head comes matchday. Call it lack of composure, lack of confidence, lack of heart or whatever but there has to be a reason why he looks great in training and shite on the day. I don't think it's laziness, and I think it's unfair to say he's not trying. I think he just can't focus on the day, the occasion or the adrenaline gets the better of him and he just loses all sense of what he's supposed to be doing. So he barges into players, jumps at the wrong time, his touch is woeful, he loses his man when defending set pieces, he can't time a shot etc. In other words, he's largely clueless when the whistle goes in front of a crowd. If he was in war scenario they'd call it shell shock and pack him off to a sanitorium. They wouldn't let him anywhere near a loaded gun and he'd probably be shot by his own side anyway. No way we should be picking him for the toon, and we've known this for a long long time. Nail on the head mate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 When KK was here first time round Lee Clark was the best player in training. Make of that what you will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoggeordie 0 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 According to The Times, Delap wasted 10 minutes and 14 seconds of the game against us. In total he took 25 throw ins and each one took an average time of 24.6 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acid 0 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 According to The Times, Delap wasted 10 minutes and 14 seconds of the game against us. In total he took 25 throw ins and each one took an average time of 24.6 seconds. Yep, they took the pure piss. Everytime they recieved a throw-in he'd stand there and dry the ball for ages, and the referee just seemed to ignore it. Timewasting and very cheap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackas 0 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 According to The Times, Delap wasted 10 minutes and 14 seconds of the game against us. In total he took 25 throw ins and each one took an average time of 24.6 seconds. Yep, they took the pure piss. Everytime they recieved a throw-in he'd stand there and dry the ball for ages, and the referee just seemed to ignore it. Timewasting and very cheap! Were they not waiting for the CB's to get forward aswell? Its as if they're taking a corner really. And really annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 According to The Times, Delap wasted 10 minutes and 14 seconds of the game against us. In total he took 25 throw ins and each one took an average time of 24.6 seconds. I've been saying this since day one, in fact way back in the day when Dave Challinor used to do it. Refs just happilly stand by and allow them to come from all parts of the pitch to where the throw is, take a while to dry the ball and get a good hold on it, then slow walk backwards followed by big run up, usually taking it from well forward to where it went out. Do this throughout a game and its no wonder so much time is wasted. Its up to every team and manager who face them to be on at the refs all the time, firtly in the media before hand like Fergie does if he has an issue to get it in refs minds and then everytime they do it, whinge to the linesman and ref that its timewasting, eventually they'll have to act. Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. You're one to talk about happily pissing away as much as you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. You're one to talk about happily pissing away as much as you like. I won't play a part in us maybe getting relegated though...well i hope not anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3984 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. My take on the "classic" Wimbledon side was that their aim was to get the 90 mins over with as quickly as possible with the least possible time for the other team to try and play football - that attitude lives on with Stoke imo (as well as Bolton under Allardyce). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. My take on the "classic" Wimbledon side was that their aim was to get the 90 mins over with as quickly as possible with the least possible time for the other team to try and play football - that attitude lives on with Stoke imo (as well as Bolton under Allardyce). Its true, against good footballing sides the longer they can have the ball out of play the better for them and reducing the game to dead balls kicks and throw ins is a good way of time wasting. Not that we are in any way a good footballing side, but i think with even half those 10 mins back we might have created a chance, you never know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandman02uk 0 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. My take on the "classic" Wimbledon side was that their aim was to get the 90 mins over with as quickly as possible with the least possible time for the other team to try and play football - that attitude lives on with Stoke imo (as well as Bolton under Allardyce). Its true, against good footballing sides the longer they can have the ball out of play the better for them and reducing the game to dead balls kicks and throw ins is a good way of time wasting. Not that we are in any way a good footballing side, but i think with even half those 10 mins back we might have created a chance, you never know! we had 1 shot on target before carrolls header, I wasn't holding my breath for a 2nd until the goal went in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. My take on the "classic" Wimbledon side was that their aim was to get the 90 mins over with as quickly as possible with the least possible time for the other team to try and play football - that attitude lives on with Stoke imo (as well as Bolton under Allardyce). Its true, against good footballing sides the longer they can have the ball out of play the better for them and reducing the game to dead balls kicks and throw ins is a good way of time wasting. Not that we are in any way a good footballing side, but i think with even half those 10 mins back we might have created a chance, you never know! we had 1 shot on target before carrolls header, I wasn't holding my breath for a 2nd until the goal went in Well, shite as we were (and by god we were bad!) we did have the odd chance, Owen had maybe a halfchance with a header, there was Owen's pullback into the box which i think a defender cleared for a corner and if Shola was anything but shite he would have chested the ball and had a great chance in the box first half and a volley/half volley in the box second half. I just wish one of Shola's had fell to Owen instead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandman02uk 0 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. My take on the "classic" Wimbledon side was that their aim was to get the 90 mins over with as quickly as possible with the least possible time for the other team to try and play football - that attitude lives on with Stoke imo (as well as Bolton under Allardyce). Its true, against good footballing sides the longer they can have the ball out of play the better for them and reducing the game to dead balls kicks and throw ins is a good way of time wasting. Not that we are in any way a good footballing side, but i think with even half those 10 mins back we might have created a chance, you never know! we had 1 shot on target before carrolls header, I wasn't holding my breath for a 2nd until the goal went in Well, shite as we were (and by god we were bad!) we did have the odd chance, Owen had maybe a halfchance with a header, there was Owen's pullback into the box which i think a defender cleared for a corner and if Shola was anything but shite he would have chested the ball and had a great chance in the box first half and a volley/half volley in the box second half. I just wish one of Shola's had fell to Owen instead! I'm sure the stats at the end of the game had us as 8 shots on goal, 2 shots on target, 1 goal which for 95mins against a team like stoke is shocking to be fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. My take on the "classic" Wimbledon side was that their aim was to get the 90 mins over with as quickly as possible with the least possible time for the other team to try and play football - that attitude lives on with Stoke imo (as well as Bolton under Allardyce). Its true, against good footballing sides the longer they can have the ball out of play the better for them and reducing the game to dead balls kicks and throw ins is a good way of time wasting. Not that we are in any way a good footballing side, but i think with even half those 10 mins back we might have created a chance, you never know! we had 1 shot on target before carrolls header, I wasn't holding my breath for a 2nd until the goal went in Well, shite as we were (and by god we were bad!) we did have the odd chance, Owen had maybe a halfchance with a header, there was Owen's pullback into the box which i think a defender cleared for a corner and if Shola was anything but shite he would have chested the ball and had a great chance in the box first half and a volley/half volley in the box second half. I just wish one of Shola's had fell to Owen instead! I'm sure the stats at the end of the game had us as 8 shots on goal, 2 shots on target, 1 goal which for 95mins against a team like stoke is shocking to be fair Its totally shocking i agree, just if Shola wasn't shite there would be two more on target there and one at least a goal! But terrible as he is, if we go down this season its mainly about midfield creativity and home games against shite teams where we've lost points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandman02uk 0 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. My take on the "classic" Wimbledon side was that their aim was to get the 90 mins over with as quickly as possible with the least possible time for the other team to try and play football - that attitude lives on with Stoke imo (as well as Bolton under Allardyce). Its true, against good footballing sides the longer they can have the ball out of play the better for them and reducing the game to dead balls kicks and throw ins is a good way of time wasting. Not that we are in any way a good footballing side, but i think with even half those 10 mins back we might have created a chance, you never know! we had 1 shot on target before carrolls header, I wasn't holding my breath for a 2nd until the goal went in Well, shite as we were (and by god we were bad!) we did have the odd chance, Owen had maybe a halfchance with a header, there was Owen's pullback into the box which i think a defender cleared for a corner and if Shola was anything but shite he would have chested the ball and had a great chance in the box first half and a volley/half volley in the box second half. I just wish one of Shola's had fell to Owen instead! I'm sure the stats at the end of the game had us as 8 shots on goal, 2 shots on target, 1 goal which for 95mins against a team like stoke is shocking to be fair Its totally shocking i agree, just if Shola wasn't shite there would be two more on target there and one at least a goal! But terrible as he is, if we go down this season its mainly about midfield creativity and home games against shite teams where we've lost points. Agreed, the thing thats infuriating is most people on here have been savvy enough to recognise the fact we need a creative midfielder and seemed to be contented with Bartons arrival and wanted the defence looking at we need (were not going to get it like) a major overhaul in the summer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Whitehurst 790 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. My take on the "classic" Wimbledon side was that their aim was to get the 90 mins over with as quickly as possible with the least possible time for the other team to try and play football - that attitude lives on with Stoke imo (as well as Bolton under Allardyce). Its true, against good footballing sides the longer they can have the ball out of play the better for them and reducing the game to dead balls kicks and throw ins is a good way of time wasting. Not that we are in any way a good footballing side, but i think with even half those 10 mins back we might have created a chance, you never know! we had 1 shot on target before carrolls header, I wasn't holding my breath for a 2nd until the goal went in Well, shite as we were (and by god we were bad!) we did have the odd chance, Owen had maybe a halfchance with a header, there was Owen's pullback into the box which i think a defender cleared for a corner and if Shola was anything but shite he would have chested the ball and had a great chance in the box first half and a volley/half volley in the box second half. I just wish one of Shola's had fell to Owen instead! I'm sure the stats at the end of the game had us as 8 shots on goal, 2 shots on target, 1 goal which for 95mins against a team like stoke is shocking to be fair Its totally shocking i agree, just if Shola wasn't shite there would be two more on target there and one at least a goal! But terrible as he is, if we go down this season its mainly about midfield creativity and home games against shite teams where we've lost points. Very true, in my opinion, central midfield has been our weakest position for a good few years. The problem is, with Nolan and Guthrie going into hiding, it is left to Butt to try and provide that creativity which clearly isn't his game. His pass completion percentage on Saturday was even worse than usual. As pish as he was, at least he wanted the ball and tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to create something. We desperately need some competent central midfielders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its bad enough that Stoke reduce football to hoofing and throwing balls into the box for giant players to head without them beign allowed to piss away as much of the game as they like as well. My take on the "classic" Wimbledon side was that their aim was to get the 90 mins over with as quickly as possible with the least possible time for the other team to try and play football - that attitude lives on with Stoke imo (as well as Bolton under Allardyce). Its true, against good footballing sides the longer they can have the ball out of play the better for them and reducing the game to dead balls kicks and throw ins is a good way of time wasting. Not that we are in any way a good footballing side, but i think with even half those 10 mins back we might have created a chance, you never know! we had 1 shot on target before carrolls header, I wasn't holding my breath for a 2nd until the goal went in Well, shite as we were (and by god we were bad!) we did have the odd chance, Owen had maybe a halfchance with a header, there was Owen's pullback into the box which i think a defender cleared for a corner and if Shola was anything but shite he would have chested the ball and had a great chance in the box first half and a volley/half volley in the box second half. I just wish one of Shola's had fell to Owen instead! I'm sure the stats at the end of the game had us as 8 shots on goal, 2 shots on target, 1 goal which for 95mins against a team like stoke is shocking to be fair Its totally shocking i agree, just if Shola wasn't shite there would be two more on target there and one at least a goal! But terrible as he is, if we go down this season its mainly about midfield creativity and home games against shite teams where we've lost points. Agreed, the thing thats infuriating is most people on here have been savvy enough to recognise the fact we need a creative midfielder and seemed to be contented with Bartons arrival and wanted the defence looking at we need (were not going to get it like) a major overhaul in the summer Yeah, we've all said it for years that we haven't had enough creativity in the middle, and unless the widemen and strikers are on fire all the time you will be found out if the CM's aren't up to it. People used to slag off Dyer and Jenas for various reasons (much of it deserved) but christ they'd walk into our midfield with ease these days, providing Dyer was fit obviously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now