Kadeem Harris

[McRightSide]

My gripe with Harris isn’t that he doesn’t look threatening - he often does

 

But he usually wastes those chances 

 

We create very few chances and it’s even worse when Harris is wasting 95% of them game after game

 

Its very damaging. 
 

 

[Paul..]

Unless he learns to put in dangerous crosses and vastly improve his decision making there's no way he keeps his place under Pulis.

 

 

[Holmowl]

7 hours ago, horny owl said:

He’s rubbish

 

Cant take anybody on and beat them

 

just cr@p like most players in this squad

 

Pulis has got a massive job on to shift these wasters out and get some championship standard players in

That’s not true though,

 

He beat his man numerous times. Often does. Trouble is, when he’s played in the left his crossing is awful. Or, he cuts inside onto his strong foot but his shooting is shocking. 
 

Needs to play on the right. 

[Bouncing Owl]

I thought he was very good before Christmas last season. He can beat a man but his delivery let’s him down time and again. You can’t question his workrate which is very good.

 

 

[Holmowl]

The “Highlights” feature 4 attempts by us.

 

Two were very good shots on target by Harris. A third was Harris feeding Bannan.

 

If we are picking holes in Harris, what does that say about the rest?

[A E Neuman NYowl]

12 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

The “Highlights” feature 4 attempts by us.

 

Two were very good shots on target by Harris. A third was Harris feeding Bannan.

 

If we are picking holes in Harris, what does that say about the rest?

Agree he was our most likely player to score yesterday.

 

He has the pace to get away from defenders and get to the byline and play the ball back into the area for  supporting midfielders which may be our best bet at the moment.

 

I think Pulis recognised that either a shot from him or Reach was going to be our best bet on getting a goal yesteday that's why he got them to swap wings in the second half. Maybe to get them to cut inside and create a better angle for the shot.

[Holmowl]

10 minutes ago, A E Neuman NYowl said:

Agree he was our most likely player to score yesterday.

 

He has the pace to get away from defenders and get to the byline and play the ball back into the area for  supporting midfielders which may be our best bet at the moment.

 

I think Pulis recognised that either a shot from him or Reach was going to be our best bet on getting a goal yesteday that's why he got them to swap wings in the second half. Maybe to get them to cut inside and create a better angle for the shot.

Agreed.

 

Though if he expects Harris to score cutting in I think his grandkids must have recorded CeeBeebies over last season’s match videos. 

[Bigblueowl]

16 hours ago, SallyCinnamon said:

I really don’t like singling players out. But he is really not good enough. His delivery and decision making is Non-League standard.

 

It’s ok having a bit of pace but his final ball is always shambolic.

 

It’s alright Pulis fetching Rhodes off, but what on earth is any striker supposed to do when the delivery is consistently Sunday League standard.

Non league standard? 

 

 

 

[Owls2k]

Harris has been poor for a full 12 months now. And the worst part is we are now over relying on him because we're so poor elsewhere. 

 

Still cannot get my head around Monk not going with Reach and Murphy when both were available. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by Owls2k

[cowl]

3 minutes ago, Owls2k said:

Harris has been poor for a full 12 months now. And the worst part is we are now over relying on him because we're so poor elsewhere. 

 

Still cannot get my head around Monk not going with Reach and Murphy when both were available. 

 

I think it was because Reach's form had also been poor, and the difference between Harris being in poor form and Reach's poor form is that Harris still gets you up the other end of the pitch.

[Lawrie’s Left Peg]

16 minutes ago, Owls2k said:

Harris has been poor for a full 12 months now.

Could that be because Harris has spent all his career as a right winger or inside forward and Monk chose to play him as a left wing-back ?

[Shiregreenowl 80]

18 hours ago, mattitheowl said:

 

 

According to the official stats we had 0 (zero) shots on target so I'm not sure which one you're on about!

You obviously wasn't watching.  Stoke defender stuck a foot out to stop it going in bottom corner 

[Owls2k]

10 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

I think it was because Reach's form had also been poor, and the difference between Harris being in poor form and Reach's poor form is that Harris still gets you up the other end of the pitch.

Reach's form was inconsistent while he was in and out of the side and whilst being played all over the pitch. Harris on the other hand was in the side uninterrupted and he contributed precious little in the final third from October onwards.

 

Reach got more assists than Harris despite making 7 less appearances (and a lot were from the bench) and being played through the middle for a chunk of that. 

 

Not hammering Harris, he was our only threat yesterday to be honest. He just needs to re-capture the form from early last season, or be replaced by someone suitable (that we arguably don't have at the moment, whereas when Murphy was here we did have that). 

[Holmowl]

2 minutes ago, Shiregreenowl 80 said:

You obviously wasn't watching.  Stoke defender stuck a foot out to stop it going in bottom corner 

Both Harris’ shots were on target. Stats eh!

 

His work and man-beating on the left are superb. Unfortunately what he does with it afterwards is tripe.

 

He is far more effective on the right. 
 

@A E Neuman NYowl is probably correct, that Pulis thinks Reach and Harris are our best hope of a goal cutting in on their strong foot....in which case he hasn’t seen much of Harris.

 

Dont get me wrong. Even on the left Harris is worth starting, but I do believe we are wasting his and Reach’s talents by inverting them.  

[Owls2k]

9 minutes ago, Lawrie’s Left Peg said:

Could that be because Harris has spent all his career as a right winger or inside forward and Monk chose to play him as a left wing-back ?

 

Monk certainly leant on Harris for his defensive work. But he still gets into great attacking positions and wastes the opportunity. 

[Lawrie’s Left Peg]

2 minutes ago, Owls2k said:

 

Monk certainly leant on Harris for his defensive work. But he still gets into great attacking positions and wastes the opportunity. 

If you’ve ever played football and been forced to regularly play out of position you’ll know how difficult it is. Everything is learned, nothing is instinctive. You are not as confident and take extra touches or play things too safe so as not to make mistakes. To be fair to Harris it isn’t easy crossing with your “wrong foot” even if you are a professional. When your form (inevitably) dips you feel hard done by. It’s not just a technical thing but a mental thing too. In my opinion a good manager does everything in his power to make it easy for their players to perform not make it harder. 

[Shiregreenowl 80]

8 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

Both Harris’ shots were on target. Stats eh!

 

His work and man-beating on the left are superb. Unfortunately what he does with it afterwards is tripe.

 

He is far more effective on the right. 
 

@A E Neuman NYowl is probably correct, that Pulis thinks Reach and Harris are our best hope of a goal cutting in on their strong foot....in which case he hasn’t seen much of Harris.

 

Dont get me wrong. Even on the left Harris is worth starting, but I do believe we are wasting his and Reach’s talents by inverting them.  

We seem to have a love hate relationship with players like  Harris. We had threads like this about Antonio  "just a runner not a footballer"  "JJ mk2".  Not saying they are the same, think Antonio was stronger and buldozed his way through and got a few goals. But his crossing was worse than Harris. To get players with pace and end product is  never going to happen in championship. Unless you manage to produce one of our own. Just wish Harris had more confidence in himself,  get into area and really run at players. 

[cowl]

16 minutes ago, Owls2k said:

Reach's form was inconsistent while he was in and out of the side and whilst being played all over the pitch. Harris on the other hand was in the side uninterrupted and he contributed precious little in the final third from October onwards.

 

Reach got more assists than Harris despite making 7 less appearances (and a lot were from the bench) and being played through the middle for a chunk of that. 

 

Not hammering Harris, he was our only threat yesterday to be honest. He just needs to re-capture the form from early last season, or be replaced by someone suitable (that we arguably don't have at the moment, whereas when Murphy was here we did have that). 

 

I'm not doubting the stats, and besides you're preaching to the converted when it comes to the perceived relative value of Reach and Harris. Still, though I'd rather not be saying something that could be construed as defending Monk, I suspect other managers would probably have done the same also anyway.

 

For me, there's no argument; when both players are on their game, Reach is a far more useful player.

 

The thing with Harris though, and what we all bemoan, is that his end product is poor far too often. But what you can guarantee with him is that he'll be able to actually get into those positions quite often in a game. In this regard, I believe he gets himself in that position more often than Reach—and even if that's partly down to the fact that Reach has more to his game than Harris and is perhaps more likely to come back and try to keep possession and pass inside to Bannan or whomever—crossing the ball from the byline is still (or ought to be) a pretty good route to goal—even for a one-good-cross-in-seven type of player as Harris.

 

Managers tend to be quite similar in that they'll plan for and work on little pockets of play, and so they like those players that are most able to go out on the pitch and realize those pockets of play most reliably. It seems counter-intuitive to think of a player ‘successfully’ realizing a pocket of play when their end product is often frustratingly poor, but really, so many managers go down this route. End product is always the pivotal factor in football no matter what the level is, and I suppose managers pretty much have to accept that, so poor crossing from a player that at least reliably gets himself into that position is something they'll have a fairly high tolerance for (in the absence of better alternatives obviously).

 

I'm not a manager and if I had to choose between them I'd choose Reach every time, because I've been frustrated with Harris' crossing far too often to expect it to ever significantly improve. But because I'm not a manager I'm also not viewing the game from the perspective of a game plan that is or isn't being carried out, or pocket of play that ‘we've worked all week on’ etc.