Jump to content

Josh Windass was never 100% convincing


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

I might stand alone.

I still like the fact he's one of those that looks to get in behind.

I wouldn't break up Rhodes and Paterson to put him in, and still think they will prove our best chance of survival if we work the ball out wide quickly and with accuracy to Reach and the much improved Harris. (Last match we just didn't do it) 

 

But there are times when you have to use a different implement to skin the cat.  The defence splitting slide-rule pass to the man playing on the shoulder should never be overlooked. 

 

 

Not sure if I agree. Windass to bit of pace about him, but he comes alive with ball at his feet, and less he sees it he looks less confident. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, @owlstalk said:


When Josh Windass was playing up front I was saying (not from a negative view) that once we had other options or a striker, that Josh Windass would find himself out of the side completely simply because he just doesn't fit anywhere


He's most certainly not a striker. He's not prolific enough, his shots are erratic and wild.

He's not a winger - nothing like


We don't play with a number 10 and if we do it's Paterson in that role


He can't play midfield


I know I was mocked at the time for saying it but look at the moment - there's just no way he fits in, no justification for playing him over Paterson and Rhodes.

He's out in the cold as I fully expected


He's not as convincing as some fans will tell you

I don't see a way back for Josh Windass into the side

 

No but he added some pace up front and looked like he could make things happen at a time when none of the forwards were convincing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, malek said:

 

Not sure if I agree. Windass to bit of pace about him, but he comes alive with ball at his feet, and less he sees it he looks less confident. 

 

I'm not suggesting we start shelling the ball 70 yards over the top though.

 

I'm on about a little pass slipped between the defenders a yard in front of the striker to get on.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windass is just another example of a haphazard approach to recruitment. To be successful at any level you decide how you want your team to play and then sign players to fit that system, our way seems to be sign someone who's available  and then see if they fit, if not they are sidelined until the end of their contract or released on a free. This is no way to be successful in today's football and will only result in failure 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FreshOwl said:

It’s a strange one. He’s clearly a decent footballer, but as you said doesn’t fit in tactically to what we’re doing. A flurry of goals would get him back in the team, but again, how likely is that to happen. 
 

Even Kachunga seems preferred to him at the moment 

and that’s crazy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bubbleowl said:

Windass is just another example of a haphazard approach to recruitment. To be successful at any level you decide how you want your team to play and then sign players to fit that system, our way seems to be sign someone who's available  and then see if they fit, if not they are sidelined until the end of their contract or released on a free. This is no way to be successful in today's football and will only result in failure 

I know this is going to set off the "DON'T TALK ABOUT FOOTBALLING IDENTITY" klaxon but DC's habit of signing managers with differing football phiosophies means that there's a much higher risk of a new manager's tactics/formation not fitting the players available. The whole point of a club having a medium-long-term footballing philosophy is to hire successive managers (if needed) who can easily utilise the players available - and having a DoF to ensure that signings make sense and won't be discarded as 'not fitting our shape' six months later.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dooogs said:

I know this is going to set off the "DON'T TALK ABOUT FOOTBALLING IDENTITY" klaxon but DC's habit of signing managers with differing football phiosophies means that there's a much higher risk of a new manager's tactics/formation not fitting the players available. The whole point of a club having a medium-long-term footballing philosophy is to hire successive managers (if needed) who can easily utilise the players available - and having a DoF to ensure that signings make sense and won't be discarded as 'not fitting our shape' six months later.

True, though DC wanted to go down that route, explicitly to avoid those problems All comes down to poor advice I’m afraid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, @owlstalk said:


When Josh Windass was playing up front I was saying (not from a negative view) that once we had other options or a striker, that Josh Windass would find himself out of the side completely simply because he just doesn't fit anywhere


He's most certainly not a striker. He's not prolific enough, his shots are erratic and wild.

He's not a winger - nothing like


We don't play with a number 10 and if we do it's Paterson in that role


He can't play midfield


I know I was mocked at the time for saying it but look at the moment - there's just no way he fits in, no justification for playing him over Paterson and Rhodes.

He's out in the cold as I fully expected


He's not as convincing as some fans will tell you

I don't see a way back for Josh Windass into the side

Totally agree, no way is he championship standard. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is like to see him up top with JR running the channels. He’s a fit lad and can be an out ball. 
Was crying out for someone like him (not kachunga) to run against Stoke but instead we just reverted to type and kept pinging it down the big Stoke lads throats. 
I don’t rate kachunga at all but windass has something. Clearly NT sees it the other way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

His pass success rate is 76%, which is one of the very best in our squad.


Thanks. I’m surprised. I saw him waste really good possession on those rare occasions we got into dangerous territory earlier in the season. His use of the ball always seems a greedy improbable shot or an aimless or lazy pass.

 

However, we are where we are, and he’s the third least terrible option we have.

 

I hope we play most of the rest of the season with Rhodes-Paterson up front, with Windass as next choice, with Kachunga in emergencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, heppers said:

I like Windass. I prefer him to Rhodes.


In a side which desperately relies on its strikers for goals....

 

Windass 3 goals 1551 minutes

Rhodes 3 goals 583 minutes

 

It doesn’t matter what they do in addition (though I would argue we look a better team when Rhodes plays and our results agree) we cannot afford Windass to be a regular pick up front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Holmowl said:

Thanks. I’m surprised. I saw him waste really good possession on those rare occasions we got into dangerous territory earlier in the season. His use of the ball always seems a greedy improbable shot or an aimless or lazy pass.

 

However, we are where we are, and he’s the third least terrible option we have.

 

I hope we play most of the rest of the season with Rhodes-Paterson up front, with Windass as next choice, with Kachunga in emergencies.

 

If we're going to persist with our recent style of launching crosses into the box, then it makes sense to stick with Paterson and Rhodes. They've hardly struck up a partnership, but they're each capable of getting on the end of quality deliveries when we're capable of producing them.

 

However, if we struggle for decent possession down the flanks, or come up against a defence who dominate them in the air as we did against Stoke, then their lack of pace allows the opposition to push further forward with very little to worry about in behind, which is where Windass can come in handy.

 

But then Thompson seems to prefer Kachunga, so I doubt he'll get much of a look-in under him if that's the case.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, @owlstalk said:


When Josh Windass was playing up front I was saying (not from a negative view) that once we had other options or a striker, that Josh Windass would find himself out of the side completely simply because he just doesn't fit anywhere


He's most certainly not a striker. He's not prolific enough, his shots are erratic and wild.

He's not a winger - nothing like


We don't play with a number 10 and if we do it's Paterson in that role


He can't play midfield


I know I was mocked at the time for saying it but look at the moment - there's just no way he fits in, no justification for playing him over Paterson and Rhodes.

He's out in the cold as I fully expected


He's not as convincing as some fans will tell you

I don't see a way back for Josh Windass into the side

 

He’ll play this weekend now no doubt. Prepare a bath just in case 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...