Harris as a center forward?

[Yellowbelly]

17 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

or it shows that recovering the club from the state that Monk's got it into isn't easy.

I'd have kept Nuhiu and Borukov and this wouldn't even be a consideration.

Well so far it’s only you considering it.

And given that you believe Nuhui & Borukov were legitimate striker option going into next season I would seriously doubt the validity of your considerations tbh.

[S63 Owl]

Can see the thinking behind this as Harris would be able to get himself a few yards on defenders and get into the box but the thing that would let him down is his shooting and composure. 
 

James Beattie will definitely be earning his money trying to convert Harris into a double figures striker 

[SwellOwl]

41 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

or it shows that recovering the club from the state that Monk's got it into isn't easy.

I'd have kept Nuhiu and Borukov and this wouldn't even be a consideration.

Borukov on what basis?! 
 

Proving my point here, sorry.

[Lombardo]

We are still looking for the next Warhurst!!!!!

[Ozymandias]

I’ll do it

[gurujuan]

37 minutes ago, 0114 said:

Problem is he’s very predictable. One thing that’s not helped our wingers this season is that our full backs don’t go on and overlap to create an overload in a wide area. 
 

We have very simply got the ball out wide to Harris/Murphy/Reach and just expect them to beat 2 players and put a cross in. 

our wingers are our full backs, unless we copy Wilder’s system, where the centre backs create the overload

[FreshOwl]

Put him in the hole 

[briggowl]

1 hour ago, SwellOwl said:

Posts like these show that being a Manager isn’t as easy as people may think. 

Too much playing FM

[cookeh]

1 hour ago, Yellowbelly said:

given that you believe Nuhui & Borukov were legitimate striker option going into next season I would seriously doubt the validity of your considerations tbh.

 

I'd rather we were not in a position of needing to sign 3 strikers who are capable of playing the season for us. I don't think that's crazy.

I think Nuhiu was ok as a player off the bench, and he's had times where he's consistently been a good championship level striker. We binned him off for nothing, leaving us with only a player who Monk repeatedly left out last season (Rhodes was given less than 700 minutes in the league).

 

That leaves us needing to sign 3 strikers who are good enough that they can start every game. Keeping Nuhiu would have reduced that number. Having Borukov (who by all accounts was a promising and capable goalscorer) would've left us with another option in case of injury or form loss.

 

So you can sit there are mock all you want, but the logic of it is obvious enough for a child to grasp. We've in a hole because Monk decided to put us here. And yes, I'm trying to look outside the box for what we could do to try and save the situation. But don't let that stop you worshipping Monk for failing in his duties.

 

 

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

He couldn't hit a barn door with a cow

[gurujuan]

5 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

I'd rather we were not in a position of needing to sign 3 strikers who are capable of playing the season for us. I don't think that's crazy.

I think Nuhiu was ok as a player off the bench, and he's had times where he's consistently been a good championship level striker. We binned him off for nothing, leaving us with only a player who Monk repeatedly left out last season (Rhodes was given less than 700 minutes in the league).

 

That leaves us needing to sign 3 strikers who are good enough that they can start every game. Keeping Nuhiu would have reduced that number. Having Borukov (who by all accounts was a promising and capable goalscorer) would've left us with another option in case of injury or form loss.

 

So you can sit there are mock all you want, but the logic of it is obvious enough for a child to grasp. We've in a hole because Monk decided to put us here. And yes, I'm trying to look outside the box for what we could do to try and save the situation. But don't let that stop you worshipping Monk for failing in his duties.

 

 

As you point out, Nuhiu’s best position was off the bench, then I’d suggest, that’s also the best position for Harris An impact sub from the bench

[DJMortimer]

4 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

I'd rather we were not in a position of needing to sign 3 strikers who are capable of playing the season for us. I don't think that's crazy.

I think Nuhiu was ok as a player off the bench, and he's had times where he's consistently been a good championship level striker. We binned him off for nothing, leaving us with only a player who Monk repeatedly left out last season (Rhodes was given less than 700 minutes in the league).

 

That leaves us needing to sign 3 strikers who are good enough that they can start every game. Keeping Nuhiu would have reduced that number. Having Borukov (who by all accounts was a promising and capable goalscorer) would've left us with another option in case of injury or form loss.

 

So you can sit there are mock all you want, but the logic of it is obvious enough for a child to grasp. We've in a hole because Monk decided to put us here. And yes, I'm trying to look outside the box for what we could do to try and save the situation. But don't let that stop you worshipping Monk for failing in his duties.

 

 

It seems this developed from a conclusion that Monk was entirely to blame and then worked backwards to 'justify' it. The club let Hooper and Joao go without replacing them before Monk even got here, Fletcher could not be persuaded to stay on a presumably reduced contract, Forestieri has for the last three years been far more trouble than he was worth, Winnall has proved not to be good enough, Rhodes has been abject and it's been rumoured that Nuhiu wanted to move closer to home. As for Borukov, I've no idea myself, but I've heard those who do suggest he was nowhere near the standard required. If all that is the case, then I fail to see how ANY of it can be put at the manager's door. 

[Pulcinella]

Maybe James Beattie can teach him where the goal is

[No 2 is r nilsson]

2 hours ago, domSWFC said:

Harris has been at his most effective at LWB. I think him running from deep drives us forward and he can get at the full back whilst in full flow. 

And he works hard to get up and down.  He’d be wasted with his back to goal.  

[Owly Mowly]

Thought Harris put in some decent performances post lock down in the LWB role. It’s just his final ball that needs to improve. Not sure what the solution to the right side is going to be - only really have Moses dont we? 

[Holmowl]

2 hours ago, WalthamOwl said:

No. Let’s get some players in that are actual strikers. 

Radical....but might be onto something.

[The Wall]

2 hours ago, Alan said:

Problem.. He can't shoot. 

 

Can't cross either...

[beswetherick]

7 minutes ago, Owly Mowly said:

Thought Harris put in some decent performances post lock down in the LWB role. It’s just his final ball that needs to improve. Not sure what the solution to the right side is going to be - only really have Moses dont we? 

 

And Palmer... I wonder if Liam could be an option in midfield though, then we could have Harris/Odubajo on the right and Reach/Penney on the left. Ideally we’d sell Reach and get a proper LB/LWB in if we’re persisting with wing-backs — some wingers adapt well to it like Harris has done, but I don’t think Reach is cut out for the wing-back role really

 

[cookeh]

4 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

It seems this developed from a conclusion that Monk was entirely to blame and then worked backwards to 'justify' it. The club let Hooper and Joao go without replacing them before Monk even got here, Fletcher could not be persuaded to stay on a presumably reduced contract, Forestieri has for the last three years been far more trouble than he was worth, Winnall has proved not to be good enough, Rhodes has been abject and it's been rumoured that Nuhiu wanted to move closer to home. As for Borukov, I've no idea myself, but I've heard those who do suggest he was nowhere near the standard required. If all that is the case, then I fail to see how ANY of it can be put at the manager's door. 

 

Nando and Fletch were going, no argument there.

 

Winnal is still a weird one. You say he's "proved not to be good enough", but scored bucket loads right before he joined us, and had a decent return at Derby on loan, to the point they wanted to buy him outright. As with many players in recent years, the problem doesn't seem to be with him so much as how we use him. Obvious parallels to Rhodes here.. they're similar players who in other teams have got goals by getting on the end of things.. but here they both faltered. In the end I imagine Winnall had no interest in a new deal as he probably wants to play and Monk bought in 2 guys on loan to keep him out the side, Monk giving Winnall just one 90 minutes all season in the league, not exactly giving the guy a fair shake under a new manager, eh? Meanwhile, Windass and Wickham's goals combined gained us just 4 points. So is Winnall a capable player? Yes. Will he score double figures in the coming season? Very likely. Why didn't we keep him? Garry Monk.

 

Rhodes is basically in the same boat as Winnall. Monk didn't give him 90 minutes in the league, not once. The first got any significant time on the pitch was at Derby and he scored a hatty in the very next game. But Monk had him back on the bench 3 games later and then left him out entirely. Rhodes' goals per minute is (i think) more than double Wickham's for the season. We all know strikers are confidence based and that they need game time to get into the groove, why was Rhodes never afforded that chance to have a run in the team? Garry Monk.

 

Nuhiu, you obviously know more about Atdhe's personal life than me.. but no contract was offered to him, so he didn't have the option of signing or rejecting it. So again he's a guy who Monk has pushed down the pecking order by bringing in 2 loanees in his position and then played both more than him. We then don't offer him a deal. What would your conclusion in you were in Adthe's shoes? You'd be off because the manager clearly doesn't rate you. How many league 90 minutes did Adthe get? Just 5. Bringing in a goal and 2 assists from them, not bad. Adthe's GpM was 237. Which over an average season is 15 odd goals. So does he have something to offer? Yes. Why is he no longer a Wednesday player? Garry Monk.

 

Borukov, had a good scoring record in the youth teams, and Monk himself put him on the bench earlier in the year. How you go from that to "bin that 20 year old off on a free, he's trash", I'm not sure. He must have had something about him if Monk had him on the bench. His wage can't have been huge, so to deny ourselves the option without him having kicked a ball is bizarre. Who will have made that decision tho? Garry Monk.

 

So yeah, we're left with 1 striker, who the manager has made clear is lower on the pecking order than a 2nd rate wigan reject.

But none of this is Monk's fault.

 

[cookeh]

2 hours ago, WalthamOwl said:

No. Let’s get some players in that are actual strikers. 

 

Obviously the best scenario.. remains to be see if we can actually do that tho.

We need 3 starting strikers and probaly 3 other players good enough to start thruout the rest of the team.

As the EFL has reminded us lately, we can't just do what we want, and money is not no object.

Edited August 14, 2020 by cookeh