-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
...... And in the real world as opposed to the computer game one where players just score automatically this guy is a very talented footballer who's settling in with a new team in a new country.
He's getting better each game and he's scored two goals recently, but that's obviously not good enough for the anti Cardiff clique.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
He's our joint top scorer with two (level with goal machine Ralls!), and one was a penalty. Vassell, Ward and Bogle all have one and Madine surprisingly has none.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
I think he's the best striker we've had for a while. His movement and workrate are good, he'll get more goals as the team gels and improves, which it seems to be doing with each game.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
He'll never get goals in a Warnock team, the same as every previous striker under his watch.
Two months ago Woodgate was raving about him. Any Centre Forward who joins this club is on a hiding to nothing with the schoolboy tactics we employ. I feel sorry for the poor sod.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Joe Gillis
He'll never get goals in a Warnock team, the same as every previous striker under his watch.
Two months ago Woodgate was raving about him. Any Centre Forward who joins this club is on a hiding to nothing with the schoolboy tactics we employ. I feel sorry for the poor sod.
Totally agree with this, our strikers just don't get the service they need or deserve.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talksport
Totally agree with this, our strikers just don't get the service they need or deserve.
Nah mate. He’s shit /s
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Glaxo just missed City's best chance against West Brom - header from six yards.
'Nuff said
When he gets a chance, he muffs it.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
We flog him for 75 minutes and bring him off as soon as the game opens up
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
City123
We flog him for 75 minutes and bring him off as soon as the game opens up
Can’t we flog him for, say £6 million, in January?
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
City123
We flog him for 75 minutes and bring him off as soon as the game opens up
he's not very good though, is he?
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Same goal return as Zohore at West Brom, arguably Glatzel has played more minutes but would Zohore be anymore effective had Cardiff kept him this season?
I think Glatzel possesses good hold up play, however he appears to be more willing to stay on his feet than Zohore and as a result less capable of winning free kicks for Cardiff. Seems to want the ball to feet and faired better when Hoilett moved into the 10 role. His effort in the 65th minute was poor, should bury those opportunities, his heading does leave a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy.
I would not be resigning the player to a transfer that didn't work out just yet. There's plenty of promise however Ward in my opinion has certainly played himself into starting contention but perhaps Warnock will favour him as an impact player when the team is announced for the next game.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SuisseBluebird
Same goal return as Zohore at West Brom, arguably Glatzel has played more minutes but would Zohore be anymore effective had Cardiff kept him this season?
I think Glatzel possesses good hold up play, however he appears to be more willing to stay on his feet than Zohore and as a result less capable of winning free kicks for Cardiff. Seems to want the ball to feet and faired better when Hoilett moved into the 10 role. His effort in the 65th minute was poor, should bury those opportunities, his heading does leave a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy.
I would not be resigning the player to a transfer that didn't work out just yet. There's plenty of promise however Ward in my opinion has certainly played himself into starting contention but perhaps Warnock will favour him as an impact player when the team is announced for the next game.
There is nothing in his performances to suggest hes anywhere close to Zahore ability wise.
Id rather Ward Bogle or Madine tbh.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
It's possible he might come good, but based on what we've seen so far, he's just not up to it at this level.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NYCBlue
It's possible he might come good, but based on what we've seen so far, he's just not up to it at this level.
Unfortunately this.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MacAdder
Hasn't yet set the world alight but I like the look of him.
Players need to grow into a style of play and I suspect our style is a little different to what he has been used to.
Glad he has a couple of goals to his name, taking the pressure off him slightly (though reading this MB you wouldn't think so lol) and I reckon he will get better.
After today I think Danny Ward is our leading scorer this season ?
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Hasn’t had enough chances to decide. Spends most of his time chasing lost causes from the midfield
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Given him enough time now.
I wanted him to be great.
Unfortunately he's not.
Ward to start next, I know he needs someone to play off. Two up front?
I don't know, but Ward showed today, that he is good in the air and on the ground, and clinical.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
barrybloo
Given him enough time now.
I wanted him to be great.
Unfortunately he's not.
Ward to start next, I know he needs someone to play off. Two up front?
I don't know, but Ward showed today, that he is good in the air and on the ground, and clinical.
Can’t argue with that at all. Football is all about the present and at the present time Ward is doing it, he has to start no doubt.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
barrybloo
Given him enough time now.
I wanted him to be great.
Unfortunately he's not.
Ward to start next, I know he needs someone to play off. Two up front?
I don't know, but Ward showed today, that he is good in the air and on the ground, and clinical.
Ward has earned his start.
He'll also be cock a hoop.
Glatzel impact player off the bench?
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
I was really hoping Glatzel would come good like all of us were hoping. However, what are his strengths exactly? He's not particularly fast, so he can't lose his marker with pace; he's not t-h-a-t strong either; doesn't possess a great shot and his heading... :shrug:
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MacAdder
Ward has earned his start.
He'll also be cock a hoop.
Hard to disagree with that - 'cept Ward usually gets injured after a coupla games and is out for months.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
I wanted him to do well but we're almost a quarter of the way through the season and he isn't really pulling up trees to be honest.
He looks a decent player when we're hitting the byline and putting over decent crosses. Something we very rarely do.
He also looks decent with the inter linking play and think a lot of chances would come his way with another striker or support of another form. Again, it is something we rarely do.
My worry is that with Ward being the impact sub at the moment a lot of what he does will be lost starting against fresh defenders who are as fresh as he is. I think impact sub seems to suit him very well.
All that said I think he deserves a start given his recent goals whether it be alongside Glatzel or as the lone striker. If he is employed as a lone striker though I fear we might see the same from what we have seen from virtually every striker we've played while Warnock has been in charge, a lot of bluster and effort with very little by way of regular goals due to having to beat 4 defenders plus with no support and receiving the ball with their back to goal 10 yards outside the box.
For those questioning whether Zohore would have scored more, did you actually see the lad play the last few seasons? He's not getting bit parts for West Brom (and not even making it on some games) because he is much better than Glatzel.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tall Midget
Hard to disagree with that - 'cept Ward usually gets injured after a coupla games and is out for months.
Yes. Some people do offer more coming off the bench than if they were to start. Junior Hoilett seems to be one of those lately.
I do think though that ward should be given his chance though and told he has an hour.
Maybe Glatzel might benefit from a delayed introduction.
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
blue lewj
I wanted him to do well but we're almost a quarter of the way through the season and he isn't really pulling up trees to be honest.
He looks a decent player when we're hitting the byline and putting over decent crosses. Something we very rarely do.
He also looks decent with the inter linking play and think a lot of chances would come his way with another striker or support of another form. Again, it is something we rarely do.
My worry is that with Ward being the impact sub at the moment a lot of what he does will be lost starting against fresh defenders who are as fresh as he is. I think impact sub seems to suit him very well.
All that said I think he deserves a start given his recent goals whether it be alongside Glatzel or as the lone striker. If he is employed as a lone striker though I fear we might see the same from what we have seen from virtually every striker we've played while Warnock has been in charge, a lot of bluster and effort with very little by way of regular goals due to having to beat 4 defenders plus with no support and receiving the ball with their back to goal 10 yards outside the box.
For those questioning whether Zohore would have scored more, did you actually see the lad play the last few seasons? He's not getting bit parts for West Brom (and not even making it on some games) because he is much better than Glatzel.
Can't argue with any of that. The highlighted part is what you and I and nearly every City fan can see, so why doesn't Warnock and his assistants do something about it? Incredibly frustrating!
-
Re: After much thought, I conclude that Glatzel is simply not up to it
Leaving individuals aside for now, we aren't going to play two strikers, two wingers and a back four - something would have to give to get two strikers into the team. I've always believed the easiest way for us to do that is to play with three central defenders and wing backs, because then you can have three central midfielders as well.
What it would mean though is that Neil Warnock would have to shelve something that seems to be cast in stone with him - that two wingers have to be in the team with a couple of full backs behind them. It would probably mean no place in the team as a wing back for Lee Peltier, but I wonder if central defence might be his best position anyway now as he moves towards his mid thirties. Possible wing backs for us would include Patterson, Whyte and Coxe as well as Bennett and, maybe, Bacuna - it could be done and, with us leaking so many goals away from home, maybe it should be.
