PDA

View Full Version : No Deeks last night - coincidence ?



crewetollhibee
11-11-2010, 01:34 PM
Improved performance, midfield tighter and chipping in with a couple of goals. Better all-round team effort. Coincidence ? Thoughts ?

scott7_0(Prague)
11-11-2010, 01:36 PM
Improved performance, midfield tighter and chipping in with a couple of goals. Better all-round team effort. Coincidence ? Thoughts ?


Coincidence :confused:

so it is all Deeks fault now!!

I believe that is is or should be - horses for courses.

M11BMO
11-11-2010, 01:39 PM
If Deek's had played we would have scored more. Simples. :wink:

smurf
11-11-2010, 01:41 PM
Yip agreed.:thumbsup:

A team without a 20 goals a season player will always do better.:rolleyes:

Hibbyradge
11-11-2010, 01:46 PM
Coincidence :confused:

so it is all Deeks fault now!!

I believe that is is or should be - horses for courses.

I agree with this and I don't think Deek would have added anything to last night's performance.

We looked like a really hard working team unit and I'm not sure that sort of approach suits Derek Riordan's game.

Derek, like the whole team granted, has had a very poor season so far. Few goals, missed penalties, mediocre performances and then getting sent off when he was captain, would suggest that he can no longer take being in the starting line up for granted.

It might do him some good, though. Fingers crossed.

crewetollhibee
11-11-2010, 01:46 PM
Coincidence :confused:

so it is all Deeks fault now!!

I believe that is is or should be - horses for courses.
But it wasn't horses for courses, he was banned not dropped. I was just wondering aloud what I am sure others and indeed CC will have done, as to whether the performance overall was better than it MAYBE would have been if Deeks had been available/selected. Not a Deek's basher here, hope they get him on a new contract ASAP.

allezsauzee
11-11-2010, 01:49 PM
In a word...yes

blackpoolhibs
11-11-2010, 01:50 PM
No Nish too.

Ed De Gramo
11-11-2010, 01:51 PM
But it wasn't horses for courses, he was banned not dropped. I was just wondering aloud what I am sure others and indeed CC will have done, as to whether the performance overall was better than it MAYBE would have been if Deeks had been available/selected. Not a Deek's basher here, hope they get him on a new contract ASAP.

Thought we played fantastically without him.

Hopefully CC will keep the same team on saturday :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Disc O'Dave
11-11-2010, 01:53 PM
Yip agreed.:thumbsup:

A team without a 20 goals a season player will always do better.:rolleyes:

To be fair Smurfy, he's currently a 2 goals a season striker :duck:

But I see where the OP is coming from - perhaps it was better last night that the team didn't have the one "white knight" / "messiah" / "only place we'll ever get a goal from" focal point. Maybe the knowledge that they all had to be 100% on their game to "compensate" was the main factor......

Part/Time Supporter
11-11-2010, 01:56 PM
Riordan also didn't play in the first 3-0 and only came on as a sub at 2-0 in the second 3-0 (set up the third).

allezsauzee
11-11-2010, 02:03 PM
i remember 1-0 victories with goals from Darren Jackson and Keith Houchen and Riordan wasn't playing in those games either....i think you may have something there!

essexhibee
11-11-2010, 03:59 PM
Not so sure its cause of no Riordan. More likely the fact that we played 4-5-1 with an actual target man upfront that made the difference.

Valdas Trackys what a hero!! :greengrin

1two
11-11-2010, 07:44 PM
Murray in midfield last night... Coincidence?

I think not!

Bad Martini
11-11-2010, 07:51 PM
Some folk just love to Riordan bash........:rolleyes:

When he's scoring, assisting, turning the game around and making things happen its a different story. Fickle fitba fans roond here. Remember how sheite it was with nae Riordan in the team........as I recall he come on recently and started to turn the game, from the bench. All that let him doon was a lack of equally skilled and determined team mates that day (or most of them).

Him and Stokes done the same against Maribor IIRC.

Short memories - if in doubt, lets rip Riordan who wasnae even playing :confused::rolleyes:

heretoday
11-11-2010, 07:59 PM
Whatever they do I hope they keep the same team from now on.

Bad Martini
11-11-2010, 08:02 PM
Whatever they do I hope they keep the same team from now on.

I'd say, I hope the keep the same team until someone stops playing well. THEN, and only THEN, drop them.

This is how our managers seem to continually **** it up. My point is simple and applies to the 11 last night who done ****ING BRAW as equally as it does to Riordan, Nish and anyone else who wasn't playing and it's this;
Play the players in position...
Play the players who are playing well...
Dont play them out of position...
When they dont play well, drop them...

Simples!

King Paddy
11-11-2010, 09:45 PM
I think it was proved last night that Deeks is a luxury we can't afford. What we seemed to have all over the pitch from watching the highlights was constructive effort. IMO i would bench derek for sat.

Hibee D
11-11-2010, 10:07 PM
I'd say, I hope the keep the same team until someone stops playing well. THEN, and only THEN, drop them.

This is how our managers seem to continually **** it up. My point is simple and applies to the 11 last night who done ****ING BRAW as equally as it does to Riordan, Nish and anyone else who wasn't playing and it's this;
Play the players in position...
Play the players who are playing well...
Dont play them out of position...
When they dont play well, drop them...

Simples!

Totally agree. Why change a winning team unless you need to. Dont think last night was because we had no Riordan in the team but do not think playing him as lone striker benefits the team or Riordan.

declan macmanus
11-11-2010, 10:17 PM
We did really well without Deek at Aberdeen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

truehibernian
11-11-2010, 10:21 PM
CC kept faith with the side that played Utd as he felt they deserved more from that game and were unlucky. I think he will keep the team as they are given we had our first clean sheet since last season and scored 3 really good goals.

Who better to bring on as well if we need to grab a winner or change the game.

Same eleven that started last night v Well please. Derek to come on and grab a couple in the closing 20 minutes when the game is safe :greengrin

offshorehibby
11-11-2010, 10:27 PM
Nothing against DR but he has to start with same team on saturday that started against the hun.

woodyloon
11-11-2010, 10:37 PM
I think it was proved last night that Deeks is a luxury we can't afford. What we seemed to have all over the pitch from watching the highlights was constructive effort. IMO i would bench derek for sat.

Sorry got to disagree, I think if Deeks is played in a position more suited to his game we will get more of what we used to get from him.

He is not a player who can lead the line or play as the lone striker. It might mean him having to play a position he doesn't like but were he gets goals from, like left midfield.

AgentDaleCooper
11-11-2010, 10:55 PM
Riordan also didn't play in the first 3-0 and only came on as a sub at 2-0 in the second 3-0 (set up the third).

that occurred to me as well.

it doesn't mean that we're better without him - it does, however, show that we don't need him to win games, which is a relief.

basehibby
12-11-2010, 12:32 AM
Improved performance, midfield tighter and chipping in with a couple of goals. Better all-round team effort. Coincidence ? Thoughts ?

It may just have played in our favour as Deeks is far from the ideal player to play up front on his own while the sturdier Trakys seems to have had a decent game there.

Interestingly Deeks didn't start in our last 3-0 win at Ibrox - but did come off the bench to chip in with a superb assist for no 3 IIRC.

Definately rather have him available though - and starting more often than not.

IWasThere2016
12-11-2010, 06:50 AM
I am a huge Deeks fan - and I do think CC will play him this weekend.

However, CC must be tempted not to - given we went from such a low the game before to such a high on Wednesday.

RIP
12-11-2010, 07:53 AM
Would Deeks have stopped 2 goalbound headers on the line?

Did you see the first one. Trackys moved back 3 yards to the goalline - then he clears

Total defensive duties from the striker

Honestly - it was like playing with 11 men on Wednesday

Prawn Sandwich
12-11-2010, 08:10 AM
Would Deeks have stopped 2 goalbound headers on the line?

Did you see the first one. Trackys moved back 3 yards to the goalline - then he clears

Total defensive duties from the striker

Honestly - it was like playing with 11 men on Wednesday

I was at the game on Wednesday and that was exactly what I was thinking particularly in the 2nd half. I wasn't just thinking is Riordan a luxury, but also Nish can't defend like Trackys?

They played like a team who all knew their duties and had the desire. I thought when Murray and Wotherspoon went off that this might unbalance the side somehow especially when it was Thicot who came on for Murray. But no, they played like a 'team' talking to and encouraging each other.

I was surrounded by Rangers fans albeit in the posh bit and they applauded Hibs off the park. I was simply stunned at such a change in performance after the absolute clueless and spineless display shown by Hibs last Sunday. It was like watching a different side!

Brooster
12-11-2010, 08:11 AM
No it is no coincidence that the players pull together more when DR is not in the team.

marinello59
12-11-2010, 08:26 AM
Riordan also didn't play in the first 3-0 and only came on as a sub at 2-0 in the second 3-0 (set up the third).

That's because he is a real fan who loves watching us beat the Huns in their own back yard. He knew what he was doing when he got sent off in the Derby:agree:

Septimus
12-11-2010, 08:34 AM
The real question is who would he drop to let Roirdan in?

Franck is God
12-11-2010, 11:32 AM
I think it was proved last night that Deeks is a luxury we can't afford. What we seemed to have all over the pitch from watching the highlights was constructive effort. IMO i would bench derek for sat.

This has been my thoughts for a while regarding Deeks although saying that his workrate against Hearts was better than I've seen from him at any point since he returned so maybe he could still contribute.

However given how well we played on Wednesday night I see no reason to change the eleven so a place on the bench should be his starting position.

--------
12-11-2010, 11:51 AM
Four games in, my strong suspicion is that CC is still assessing the squad and beginning to plan for the January window.

NOT leaping and dancing about the training pitch at East Mains shouting "Eureka! that's it! That's my team! Bin the rest of them! Punt Riordan NOW!!!!" :rolleyes:

The idea that Derek Riordan is "a luxury we can't afford" is premature to say the least. Not so long ago the opinion was being advanced that "Ian Murray was past it - too slow for full-back and not good enough for the midfield". Now he's the hero. Rightly - Ian has a lot to offer the club still, and I for one don't want to lose him. Or Derek.

Big Trakys may only now be approaching match-fitness. We have Sean Welsh, Zouma, and Darryl Duffy all out injured. We have Kevin McCann, Kurtis Byrne, Callum Booth and others out on loan, due to return in December. I do think we'll see a couple of new guys coming in in January.

CC has said that the matter of Derek's red card "has been dealt with". I would take that to mean that the matter is closed.

I would expect Derek to remain as team captain. How CC sets up the team for Motherwell, I don't know. But I guess he has more information available to him that I have to me, so I'll wait and see. :wink:

Bad Martini
12-11-2010, 12:42 PM
I think it was proved last night that Deeks is a luxury we can't afford. What we seemed to have all over the pitch from watching the highlights was constructive effort. IMO i would bench derek for sat.

Interesting. You say:

"Deeks is a luxury we can't afford" ... fair dues, thats yer feeling which is fine but then you say:

"What we seemed to have all over the pitch from watching the highlights was constructive effort" - again, I'd agree.

And THAT is what the difference is. NOT, the inclusion or exclusion of Riordan. He canny and doesny do it all himself....it helps when the rest of the team are bothering their arse to play.

You could turn that round and say, had we had Deek and all else been equal, there's every chance we would still have beaten the huns.

:agree:

PC Stamp
12-11-2010, 12:52 PM
Just out of curiosity, is it Derek Riordan's fault that Liam Miller & John Rankin went umpteen games without ever looking like scoring a goal before Wednesday?
If they'd been doing what attack minded midfielders are supposed to do and been chipping in with goals here and there, we possibly wouldn't be in the situation we are?

There's been far too much reliance on Riordan to bail us out in games and it's high time others started chipping in.

blackpoolhibs
12-11-2010, 12:54 PM
Just out of curiosity, is it Derek Riordan's fault that Liam Miller & John Rankin went umpteen games without ever looking like scoring a goal before Wednesday?
If they'd been doing what attack minded midfielders are suppose do and been chipping in with goals here and there, we possibly wouldn't be in the situation we are?

There's been far too much reliance on Riordan to bail us out in games and it's high time others started chipping in.

Spot on, if ever someone has hit the nail right on the head its you PC. :top marks

SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
12-11-2010, 01:05 PM
Some people on this board really are thick at times - why does everything have to be so absolute? Why cant a player have a bad run of form, he has to be sh&te, likewise with good form - managers are either tactical geniuses or tactically inept (depending on if we win or not).

Riordan is not a luxury player in general, he has strengths and weaknesses like every player we have. Why cant he be used as part of the squad?

Away to Ibrox wouldnt have suited him, away from home i quite often think he shouldnt start (my main problem with him is when he plays on the left, he always has to slow attacks down to stop and cut in-field, therefore stifling counter-attacks) and theres no doubt that he offers less defensively than others.

But there are there are and will be other games when we need him, and at home i would generally start with him.

To contradict myself though, i woldnt play him on saturday, i would go exactly as we did on Wednesday, IMO its more important not to lose on Saturday than it is to win, plus having Riordan on bench could come in pretty handy.

Bad Martini
12-11-2010, 01:17 PM
Ah sais this to masel on this matter:

Riordan scores and sets up goals...
Goals win games...
Wins make points...
Points make prizes...

= we NEED Riordan :agree:

Seeeeemples :greengrin

God Petrie
12-11-2010, 01:25 PM
Shame Riordan is seen as untouchable by so many on here considering we could do without his "influence" on the team.

vla_di_vla
12-11-2010, 01:32 PM
Ah sais this to masel on this matter:

Riordan scores and sets up goals...
Goals win games...
Wins make points...
Points make prizes...

= we NEED Riordan :agree:

Seeeeemples :greengrin

we need him but not tomorrow. Can't remember his name but their boy on the right is their best player so we need someone to help out Grounds on the left and i think we've established he can't play up top

shamo9
12-11-2010, 01:36 PM
Just out of curiosity, is it Derek Riordan's fault that Liam Miller & John Rankin went umpteen games without ever looking like scoring a goal before Wednesday?
If they'd been doing what attack minded midfielders are supposed to do and been chipping in with goals here and there, we possibly wouldn't be in the situation we are?

There's been far too much reliance on Riordan to bail us out in games and it's high time others started chipping in.

That was the point, wasn't it? The fact players were shirking responsibility in terms of going for goal, probably exasperated by the fact that Riordan's your typical greedy striker who is capable - and wants to - score from just about anywhere in the opponent's half (it's not unusual to see him try and score straight from corners like he tried against Hearts). No danger is he going to encourage guys like Rankin and Miller to have a pop from 30 yards - he wants to do it!:wink:

It's kind of like what they do when Nish is playing, players thinks they can just hoof the ball up to him, again passing the responsiblity. This isn't a criticism of Nish or Riordan, we just need the team as a whole to communicate better with each other, for each player to have the confidence to express themselves both individually and collectively.

I feel this reliance or dependance on certain players was exasperated by Hughes with his 'we've got goals in our team' mantra. This basically meant that it didn't matter what everyone else did for 89 minutes, Stokes, Riordan and Nish were capable of bailing us out with a moment of magic. When the magic dried up, the other players weren't prepared to step up until now, when they had none of the aforementioned trio to depend on.

blackpoolhibs
12-11-2010, 01:37 PM
Shame Riordan is seen as untouchable by so many on here considering we could do without his "influence" on the team.

I dont think he's untouchable, i do think he's pulled us out the crap many many times though. And one great result against the huns without him wont change that.

If CC picks the same side as Wednesday against Motherwell and we get another great performance it still wont make much difference. If it happens regularly though, and we have turned the corner and start scoring goals without Riordan in the side, then yes great news. Anyone think this will happen with this bunch of players?

blackpoolhibs
12-11-2010, 01:40 PM
we need him but not tomorrow. Can't remember his name but their boy on the right is their best player so we need someone to help out Grounds on the left and i think we've established he can't play up top

Yet when he scored our goal at parkhead, this board was raving about his performance up top?:confused:

Taz_hibee
12-11-2010, 01:45 PM
Would CC want to play a 4-5-1 at home to Well, IMO he might bring Deek back and go 4-4-2 :wink:

Ed De Gramo
12-11-2010, 01:52 PM
CC would be rather silly to change a team that thumped the champions 3-0...

'Sorry <<insert players name>> but even though you played brilliantly midweek, you're on the bench because Deek's available!'....

If that happens, the player being dropped (probably De Graaf or Valdas) has every right to be raging at the club.

PC Stamp
12-11-2010, 06:54 PM
That was the point, wasn't it? The fact players were shirking responsibility in terms of going for goal, probably exasperated by the fact that Riordan's your typical greedy striker who is capable - and wants to - score from just about anywhere in the opponent's half (it's not unusual to see him try and score straight from corners like he tried against Hearts). No danger is he going to encourage guys like Rankin and Miller to have a pop from 30 yards - he wants to do it!:wink:

It's kind of like what they do when Nish is playing, players thinks they can just hoof the ball up to him, again passing the responsiblity. This isn't a criticism of Nish or Riordan, we just need the team as a whole to communicate better with each other, for each player to have the confidence to express themselves both individually and collectively.

I feel this reliance or dependance on certain players was exasperated by Hughes with his 'we've got goals in our team' mantra. This basically meant that it didn't matter what everyone else did for 89 minutes, Stokes, Riordan and Nish were capable of bailing us out with a moment of magic. When the magic dried up, the other players weren't prepared to step up until now, when they had none of the aforementioned trio to depend on.

Thanks for confirming that it is indeed Riordan's fault that no-one else in the team was chipping in with goals. :rolleyes:

PC Stamp
12-11-2010, 06:59 PM
CC would be rather silly to change a team that thumped the champions 3-0...

'Sorry <<insert players name>> but even though you played brilliantly midweek, you're on the bench because Deek's available!'....

If that happens, the player being dropped (probably De Graaf or Valdas) has every right to be raging at the club.

Why would he be silly? We're playing Motherwell at home on Saturday and not the champions away from home. There's a phrase called "horses for courses." Motherwell won't play the same way at Easter Road as Rangers are expected to play at Ibrox. At Easter Road we should be concerned with making teams worry about us. If we play 4-5-1 at home on a regular basis then just watch this board implode with threads about lack of flair, not the Hibs way, boring, like being back in the days of Alex Miller etc.

blackpoolhibs
13-11-2010, 10:41 PM
Thats why you play Derek when he's available.:top marks

vla_di_vla
13-11-2010, 10:53 PM
Yet when he scored our goal at parkhead, this board was raving about his performance up top?:confused:
I meant on his own but was pleasantly surprised to see him playing him in a 4 4 2 today cause i thought cc would always persist in 4 5 1. Looks like he could form a good partnership with trakys with nish as back up. But he was still nowhere near mom for me today

Titch
13-11-2010, 10:56 PM
Shame Riordan is seen as untouchable by so many on here considering we could do without his "influence" on the team.

:faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf: NUFF SAID

blackpoolhibs
13-11-2010, 10:57 PM
I meant on his own but was pleasantly surprised to see him playing him in a 4 4 2 today cause i thought cc would always persist in 4 5 1. Looks like he could form a good partnership with trakys with nish as back up. But he was still nowhere near mom for me today

I agree, he played very average imho, but did what he's good at again. When he's fit, imho he should play.

Bookkeeper
13-11-2010, 11:31 PM
Would CC want to play a 4-5-1 at home to Well, IMO he might bring Deek back and go 4-4-2 :wink:

:agree: If I ever do a lottery ticket, you can fill it in for me.

Good decision by CC that paid off. Deeks might even have had a hattrick with that superb volley near the end. Hopefully the start of a decent partnership up front with Trackys too.

matty_f
13-11-2010, 11:50 PM
I thought Deek started badly but kept going and really deserved his two goals. After that, his work rate was immense and he contributed massively to the win today.

I would much rather have Deek in my Hibs team than not, every day of the week.:agree:

hibeez1875
14-11-2010, 01:04 AM
I would much rather have Deek in my Hibs team than not, every day of the week.

Me too. Believe that was his 200th start for Hibs in all comps (plus 37 as sub) and he's got 98 goals (10 from pens). Not too shabby. :agree:

Saorsa
14-11-2010, 01:09 AM
CC would be rather silly to change a team that thumped the champions 3-0...

'Sorry <<insert players name>> but even though you played brilliantly midweek, you're on the bench because Deek's available!'....

If that happens, the player being dropped (probably De Graaf or Valdas) has every right to be raging at the club.Yeah, how silly he was :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Sammy7nil
14-11-2010, 01:19 AM
Cant imagine a Hibs team withouy Deek - In terms of Hibs he is a Genius, End of

And those who don't rate him or think he is a luxury be VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. :boo hoo:

Shrekko
14-11-2010, 01:35 AM
Every Hibs manager Deeks has played under has been of the same opinion as most (I believe) of us. That he has his faults and there are times when he deserves to be subbed.... but he is worth a starting place more than 95 percent of games Hibs play. It's been proven time and time again that he gives us something virtually no other player outside the Old Firm can bring.

I'll be honest though, even if he'd been available I think it's possible he may have started on the bench at Ibrox- it was one of those very rare games where a physical presence up front (one thing he doesnt have) was more important than anything else as we were flooding the midfield with bodies.

He was always going to play v Motherwell at home though and rightly so. I think even if his form isnt that great it's not too relevant.

I'd say he's our top player of the past decade as a whole, but must admit I do sometimes cringe at his more hardcore fans blinkered views on him. Hibs legend though!

poolman
14-11-2010, 01:42 AM
]I think it was proved last night that Deeks is a luxury[/B] we can't afford. What we seemed to have all over the pitch from watching the highlights was constructive effort. IMO i would bench derek for sat.


What a load o keek :bitchy:

A luxury we cant afford :bitchy: where the **** are you coming from :bitchy:

Why dont you go and google deeks and find a bit more info before postin *******

poolman
14-11-2010, 01:46 AM
that was the point, wasn't it? The fact players were shirking responsibility in terms of going for goal, probably exasperated by the fact that riordan's your typical greedy striker who is capable - and wants to - score from just about anywhere in the opponent's half (it's not unusual to see him try and score straight from corners like he tried against hearts). No danger is he going to encourage guys like rankin and miller to have a pop from 30 yards - he wants to do it!:wink:

It's kind of like what they do when nish is playing, players thinks they can just hoof the ball up to him, again passing the responsiblity. This isn't a criticism of nish or riordan, we just need the team as a whole to communicate better with each other, for each player to have the confidence to express themselves both individually and collectively.

I feel this reliance or dependance on certain players was exasperated by hughes with his 'we've got goals in our team' mantra. This basically meant that it didn't matter what everyone else did for 89 minutes, stokes, riordan and nish were capable of bailing us out with a moment of magic. When the magic dried up, the other players weren't prepared to step up until now, when they had none of the aforementioned trio to depend on.


sigh

blackpoolhibs
14-11-2010, 10:18 AM
Derek has an attitude during games, we can all see this.He hates losing, he hates bad play, and he hates players not giving him the ball when he wants it. He's never going to fly into tackles, apart from last week. :wink: He's never going to shut down defenders like Tevez or Trakyss. :wink: But what you do get is goals, and guile.

And when we get a better midfield, he can get back to doing a little less shutting down, i know he has done a lot more recently, and it has been noticed. Although i believe with a better midfield, he can then conserve a little of his energy, and that will help him concentrate on what he does better than anyone at the club, and most of the SPL, and thats score goals.

Liverpool wouldn't get rid of Torres just because he's not doing so well, he's not the problem, its the dross behind him. You don't get rid of your better players, you keep them, and replace the ones who are not so good with better, thats how to get a better team, and get the best from your mavericks like Riordan.

If anyone thinks replacing the likes of Riordan with a player like Nish or any other player who will give the team more battling abilities, then you want a different type of football to the one i want.

ronaldo7
14-11-2010, 10:22 AM
Derek has an attitude during games, we can all see this.He hates losing, he hates bad play, and he hates players not giving him the ball when he wants it. He's never going to fly into tackles, apart from last week. :wink: He's never going to shut down defenders like Tevez or Trakyss. :wink: But what you do get is goals, and guile.And when we get a better midfield, he can get back to doing a little less shutting down, i know he has done a lot more recently, and it has been noticed. Although i believe with a better midfield, he can then conserve a little of his energy, and that will help him concentrate on what he does better than anyone at the club, and most of the SPL, and thats score goals.

Liverpool wouldn't get rid of Torres just because he's not doing so well, he's not the problem, its the dross behind him. You don't get rid of your better players, you keep them, and replace the ones who are not so good with better, thats how to get a better team, and get the best from your mavericks like Riordan.

If anyone thinks replacing the likes of Riordan with a player like Nish or any other player who will give the team more battling abilities, then you want a different type of football to the one i want.

Spot on G. He'd be in my team every time:top marks

Bad Martini
14-11-2010, 08:55 PM
we need him but not tomorrow. Can't remember his name but their boy on the right is their best player so we need someone to help out Grounds on the left and i think we've established he can't play up top

:greengrin

I hate to say it but.......

ENDOF :thumbsup:

--------
15-11-2010, 10:19 AM
Derek has an attitude during games, we can all see this.He hates losing, he hates bad play, and he hates players not giving him the ball when he wants it. He's never going to fly into tackles, apart from last week. :wink: He's never going to shut down defenders like Tevez or Trakyss. :wink: But what you do get is goals, and guile.

And when we get a better midfield, he can get back to doing a little less shutting down, i know he has done a lot more recently, and it has been noticed. Although i believe with a better midfield, he can then conserve a little of his energy, and that will help him concentrate on what he does better than anyone at the club, and most of the SPL, and thats score goals.

Liverpool wouldn't get rid of Torres just because he's not doing so well, he's not the problem, its the dross behind him. You don't get rid of your better players, you keep them, and replace the ones who are not so good with better, thats how to get a better team, and get the best from your mavericks like Riordan.

If anyone thinks replacing the likes of Riordan with a player like Nish or any other player who will give the team more battling abilities, then you want a different type of football to the one i want.


:agree:

He wasn't our best player on Saturday, but he scored 2 goals and might very well have had a third. AND he put himself about a bit and worked to close opponents down. Not a bad shift, all in all, from a man some folks want to bin...

He would ALWAYS be in my squad if available - though occasionally not in the starting eleven. Nor is he a 'luxury' player - in football goals and guile aren't luxuries - they're the basic ingredients of a good team. I'm pretty sure CC's wise enough to know this, even if some of our fellow-posters aren't.

We need more muscle in the team IMO. Hughes had us so wee and wimpy at times, we were being pushed around by anyone who fancied a go. Big Trakys from all accounts is beginning to look like a player - not another Derek, but the sort of guy specifically designed to have a Derek playing alongside him. HE won't score loads, but he should make it a lot easier for Derek and others to do so.

Nid seems to be adding a bit of steel in midfield - and possibly finally being allowed to provide the leadership and captaincy the team's been crying out for. Hopefully Derek will provide his usual quota of goals, and we'll climb the table and go on next season to improve still farther. With him around, we may also begin to see the real benefit of players like Miller and De Graaf. And Wotherspoon. And Zouma?

We have a back four - shock, horror - composed of a right back, a right centre, a left centre, and a left back, ALL PLAYING IN THEIR PROPER POSITIONS. A decent goalie, too. The team is beginning to look like a team, and Derek is an integral part of that.

By Christmas, CC'll know roughly who he wants to keep, and who needs to go. I have no doubt that all he'll want to keep Derek.

cockneymike
15-11-2010, 10:30 AM
:agree:

Nid seems to be adding a bit of steel in midfield - and possibly finally being allowed to provide the leadership and captaincy the team's been crying out for. Hopefully Derek will provide his usual quota of goals, and we'll climb the table and go on next season to improve still farther. With him around, we may also begin to see the real benefit of players like Miller and De Graaf. And Wotherspoon. And Zouma?

We have a back four - shock, horror - composed of a right back, a right centre, a left centre, and a left back, ALL PLAYING IN THEIR PROPER POSITIONS. A decent goalie, too. The team is beginning to look like a team, and Derek is an integral part of that.

By Christmas, CC'll know roughly who he wants to keep, and who needs to go. I have no doubt that all he'll want to keep Derek.

:top marks

Ray_
15-11-2010, 12:54 PM
CC would be rather silly to change a team that thumped the champions 3-0...

'Sorry <<insert players name>> but even though you played brilliantly midweek, you're on the bench because Deek's available!'....

If that happens, the player being dropped (probably De Graaf or Valdas) has every right to be raging at the club.

Why would that be? As fans we should be raging at the dross the same players have been producing for most of the year.

blackpoolhibs
15-11-2010, 12:59 PM
CC would be rather silly to change a team that thumped the champions 3-0...

'Sorry <<insert players name>> but even though you played brilliantly midweek, you're on the bench because Deek's available!'....

If that happens, the player being dropped (probably De Graaf or Valdas) has every right to be raging at the club.

Who's the silly one today? :faf:

silverhibee
15-11-2010, 03:53 PM
Who's the silly one today? :faf:

Its not the manager thats for sure. :thumbsup:

blackpoolhibs
15-11-2010, 04:06 PM
Its not the manager thats for sure. :thumbsup:

I can see the argument of Derek being left out away against the old firm, i dont agree, but can see why some would prefer us set up differently. But there's no way on earth we should not play Derek against Motherwell at home, unless he's injured, suspended or locked up in jail. :wink: