Jump to content

Josh Windass was never 100% convincing


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

I don't think it's just Josh Windass who's not convincing all the recent signings (apart from Hutch) are in the same boat.  All willing workers but are probably in the wrong league to be considered regular first teamers.  

 

 

 

True, but you suspect all of them, would look a lot more effective, if we weren’t obsessed with a long ball game. Even Paterson, who you might consider, would suit that style, would, I reckon, score the same amount of goals arriving late into the box as a midfielder

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gurujuan said:

True, but you suspect all of them, would look a lot more effective, if we weren’t obsessed with a long ball game. Even Paterson, who you might consider, would suit that style, would, I reckon, score the same amount of goals arriving late into the box as a midfielder

 

Yeah would like to see a more fluid, flexible formation, we still suffer from a lack of Plan B.  Just lumping crosses in is to easy to defend against.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Yeah would like to see a more fluid, flexible formation, we still suffer from a lack of Plan B.  Just lumping crosses in is to easy to defend against.  

I never wanted us to sign Windass in the first place, but him, Kachunga and Marriott, all want the ball into feet Even Rhodes prefers it on the deck. Not saying we should rule out the aerial route, but please, let’s mix it up a bit None of our front players are the type to be racing on to flick ons, so why we keep persisting with it, I don’t know

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Yeah would like to see a more fluid, flexible formation, we still suffer from a lack of Plan B.  Just lumping crosses in is to easy to defend against.  

Another thing, while we’re on the subject of the new signings, we might actually see more from Brown and Dele-Bashiru, if we didn’t keep bypassing the midfield

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gurujuan said:

Another thing, while we’re on the subject of the new signings, we might actually see more from Brown and Dele-Bashiru, if we didn’t keep bypassing the midfield

 

Agree but the options we have up front don't really gel with them.  These two are on a different wavelength to the attackers and the attackers haven't the natural instinct to read them.  Comes down to not signing natural forwards in the first place, which has absolutely baffled me.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/02/2021 at 10:24, jonnyowl said:

No point playing him if we are to play long ball, he needs it to feet.

 

I'd like to see him in attacking midfield behind Paterson and Rhodes, think he has the best link up play!

First half passing accuracy

 

Paterson 33%

Widnass 90%

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

What we saying folks?

Anyone changed their opinion on this one after todays performance?

 

I said before the game that if we're mostly playing it on the deck and looking to get in behind, then it makes sense to play Windass.

 

Unfortunately, we just kept lumping it long and hoping he could chase it down. It's a futile task, especially when he's twinned with Paterson, who loses the ball more often that he picks out a teammate Windass did a good job retaining possession today, but he was given a thankless task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/02/2021 at 04:32, @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 he is

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

Agreed 100%.

If Rhodes had been playing he would have been in the position to knock the ball into the net from the throw-in from Paterson. This was in the 1st half. Windass was awol. Totally useless.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

I think that I would have made as much impact


That's not a criticism of his effort, of him as a player

Just his effectiveness up front

 

As I said, I don't think this was the game for Windass, given the 'tactics' we adopted.

 

Still, he held on to the ball and looked to bring others into play from the scraps he had to work with.

 

I don't get what's so surprising about me  saying he retained possession well on the occasions we actually got the ball to him?

 

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...