Pat had twenty minutes. Hit the bar with a header and won three or four head-ons.
Glaxo had a shot that trickled slowly across the penalty area and was booked for handbags.
Surely Pat (Scotlnad's striker last season) have a run as our striker.
Printable View
Pat had twenty minutes. Hit the bar with a header and won three or four head-ons.
Glaxo had a shot that trickled slowly across the penalty area and was booked for handbags.
Surely Pat (Scotlnad's striker last season) have a run as our striker.
Depends on your style of play. Lumping it forward, as we did under Warnock and now Harris suits Paterson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
If we can get an additional playmaker to Tomlin, I would stick with Glatzel
We obviously need a striker who can actually score goals but until that happens give me patto every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by DubaiDai
Patterson is better as is Ward.
Glatzel just isnt good enough. Probably be loaned out the next couple of seasons.
We need new strikers.
Glatzel prefers the ball to feet, he's not your typical target man. If Harris intends to make the team pass more than we did under Warnock then he'll stick with him.
....and hopefully tell the rest of the team....Quote:
Originally Posted by celticknight
We do pass the ball more under Harris.
He needs to shift a few add pace and we need better up top.
if glatzel is the best we can do we got it bad...
these players always look good elsewhere and when moved on... :sherlock: so starting to think its obviously the surrounding personel who matter alot too... but just not feeling glatzel at all... i used to get frustrated at bothroyd at times never heading a ball and frustrating play... but jeezuz id prefer him over glatzel all day
I’m still not really clear on what Glatzel’s strengths are.
Funny, I drove home listening to Rob Phillips' phone in and the virtually unanimous view was that Glatzel played well - I left the ground thinking that as well.
How many efforts did our lone striker have on goal today?Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
And how did he not take that heading chance in the first five minutes? We were right behind the cross, and anyone with an ounce of conviction would have buried it.
How so Bob? I heard that on the radio and couldn't relate to it. I thought Paterson had more of an impact on the game and I wish he would have started.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Glatzel looks like he is lacking in every aspect of his game. Its not that hes bad hes just short to call it an attribute.
However much people want to change things we would be stupid to move completely away from what we do well. For me wingers need to come in a bit to give striker more options. For me Paterson has to play either on right or up top.
You can say that again.Quote:
Originally Posted by celticknight
Glatzel looks okay when he gets the ball played in to his feet, but then nobody runs beyond him and he has to do all the work himself.
Lot easier coming on and making an impact fresh legs etc..
Paterson is a handful granted but as target man I prefer Glatzel.
Good substitution I thought but I also thought Glatzel did well.
The game was a cagey affair and not much space to work in if you are an attacker.
Murphy also did well off the bench showing their right back a clean pair of heels on 3 occasions. One swallow though and I want to see more off the bench from him before he gets another chance in the starting line up.
Patterson hasn't done anything positive in about 12 months. He's become a "stag-do footballer" with comedy dives, kicking the ball into the net after the whistle has gone and charging after the ref in such an exaggerated style it must be mocking Real Madrid/Barca players when Mourinho and Pep were there.
Danny Ward is well liked and probably our most natural goal-scorer but cannot play 90 minutes currently, cannot play 70 minutes currently, and is much better coming off the bench. Tomlin managed to up his fitness - can Ward do as well?
We need to give Glatzel a run with Whyte, Tomlin, Ralls and, ideally, a motivated Murphy. There was something to build upon from todays game but it didn't go anywhere partly, hopefully mainly, due to a lack of familiarity together.
Paterson had the benefit of coming on against a defence who were tiring after competing with Glatzel for long balls all game
I'd like to see Glatzel coming on from the bench after someone else has roughed up the defenders
Glatzel did produce one of our few bits of quality, an excellent turn to put himself through on goal, rushed his shot though
Must be a reason for that - though I'm blowed if I can remember what it is...Quote:
Originally Posted by surge
I had given Glatzel the benefit of the doubt before today but I think he has very little to offer.
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by DubaiDai
I thought Glatzel did very well, especially first half. Pato did well when he came on but I don't think he's the long term answer tbh
No hes not the long term answer. But short term id play him.Quote:
Originally Posted by delmbox
I thought he did OK. However I think Paterson would have caused those 2 inexperienced and pretty average Centre half’s all sorts of problems ( and he did)Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Gutted he didn’t bury that header at the end.
My thoughts as well ,Glatzel for me looks lost at times.,he should have scored two in the first half, Paterson posed more if a threat albiet a physical one, wonder if we might see Lee Gregory coming in ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Father Dougal
Need the sniffer dogs on it to find out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I don’t think Glatzel ever looks like doing anything. Can’t win a header, doesn’t seem very quick, his touch isn’t anything special and I’ve never seen him hit a clean shot.
I was hoping lack of service meant he wasn’t playing at his potential but on today’s showing I’m not impressed.
Me too. Paterson can be effective in the air but can barely play football if we're honest. Doesn't seem to have the knack for arriving in the box at the right time like he was a doing few seasons ago which makes me wonder if he was just lucky then. I mean he was bought as a right back..Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
i dont even think glatzel even has any presence... not like when pat is on or coming on, you can sort of hear the deffenders thinking oh here we go pull my socks up this lad can do something... i dont get that same charachter and presence with glatzel... you want a deffender to be having a right handfull of a game because your forward is going at them hammer and tongs...
Callum : 242 games , 54 goals , 4 in Premiership . 10 in 32 games in the promotion year .
This. Our style of play seems to get the blame a lot for his shortcomings, but even when he has the ball played into his feet he doesnt fill with any confidence he can do anything with it. He even makes laying it off simple to a team mate look harder than it needs to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
I cant even tell if hes supposed to be right or left footed as the few shots hes had never seem to be struck cleanly.
He’s not your typical target manQuote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
DittoQuote:
Originally Posted by BlueArmy 86
both are crap
windows open could easily get 25k for the both of them
Patterson did well when he came on . He isn’t the answer though . Lacks basic football skills .
Quite afew of our lot lack basic skills. They fitted a warnock mould
Get rid of both. Not good enough.