View Full Version : NO STRIKER = NO GOALS END OF!
Chickens home to roost time.
Isn't it true that they had this sly thing called 'a Goalkeeper on an utter blinder'?
Isn't it true that they had this sly thing called 'a Goalkeeper on an utter blinder'?
Goalie pulled off some great saves, but did you see Pilks attempt on an open goal after Noone's free kick?
Goalie pulled off some great saves, but did you see Pilks attempt on an open goal after Noone's free kick?
Fair enough, no I didn't.
Fair enough, no I didn't.
Lost my vote for PFA Player of the Month.
Also needs heading practice (as does rest of team).
Eric the Half a Bee
08-03-16, 22:35
Chickens home to roost time.
17 goals in 10 games without strikers = 1.7 per game
30 goals in 26 games with strikers = 1.15 per game
Over to you....
17 goals in 10 games without strikers = 1.7 per game
30 goals in 26 games with "strikers" = 1.15 per game
Over to you....
Corrected for you.
A decent striker will score regularly and take a reasonable percentage of chances. He will be the difference on days like today between losing and getting a result. Fabio's sending-off is a side issue. We continued to be the better team after that, but no end result.
Cardiff 25 shots on goal; 10 on target.
End result 0 goals.
My case resteth.
(Edit: Even Kenwynne would have scored against those lardy centre halves today, no question!)
Cyclops, as I said before you cannot expect to see the real game as you only have one eye. The team tonight cannot be faulted, they gave everything, from start to finish, and even if we had a striker on to start he would not have scored, luck was against us tonight and a goalkeeper who has not played like that since God was a boy. you really are a tit, on another night we could have scored six.
Cyclops, as I said before you cannot expect to see the real game as you only have one eye. The team tonight cannot be faulted, they gave everything, from start to finish, and even if we had a striker on to start he would not have scored, luck was against us tonight and a goalkeeper who has not played like that since God was a boy. you really are a tit, on another night we could have scored six.
Not questioning the team's work-rate, mate. I'm questioning the wisdom of playing with not one recognised striker. All the work-rate in the world makes no difference if there's no-one to put the ball in the net.
So you think that their goalkeeper would not have saved those shots he did, if a striker had shot them? ;)
islandblue
08-03-16, 22:57
Cyclops, as I said before you cannot expect to see the real game as you only have one eye. The team tonight cannot be faulted, they gave everything, from start to finish, and even if we had a striker on to start he would not have scored, luck was against us tonight and a goalkeeper who has not played like that since God was a boy. you really are a tit, on another night we could have scored six.
This exactly. We were right behind the shot for their first goal and it would have hit the outside of the post until Fabio deflected in.
mazadona10
08-03-16, 23:17
You don't need a striker to win games, when we got promoted I don't think we had one which got more than 10.
There's no option now but to continue with pilks for the time being. We were unlucky tonight there's no point going over board after this
Sloop_Jon_Bee
08-03-16, 23:19
Cyclops, as I said before you cannot expect to see the real game as you only have one eye. The team tonight cannot be faulted, they gave everything, from start to finish, and even if we had a striker on to start he would not have scored, luck was against us tonight and a goalkeeper who has not played like that since God was a boy. you really are a tit, on another night we could have scored six.
The team did sort of give everything when we went down to 10 men, and we did not get the rub of the green with some of our chances. However, I thought CM was lightweight tonight. We need a ball winner/leader in there to boss these sort of games. We did not match Leeds physical game in midfield, except with Fabio's lunge!!The Ralls/O'keefe partnership seems to have a game on,game off rota going on and Whitts was poor I am also puzzled as to why Slade brings on Zahore when Idris is on the bench. If he is fit to be on the bench then give him a chance. Anyway, lucky most of the results went our way. A win against Ipswich can get us right back in it.
Spedger
So you think that their goalkeeper would not have saved those shots he did, if a striker had shot them? ;)
He wouldn't have saved all of them.
Similar to Marshall in the prem - outstanding saves game after game, but we still got tonked.
You don't need a striker to win games, when we got promoted I don't think we had one which got more than 10.
There's no option now but to continue with pilks for the time being. We were unlucky tonight there's no point going over board after this
Joe Mason got 12 that season and Bellars, 11.
There are striker options, not very good options, but few suddenly become strikers after playing in other positions.
Eric the Half a Bee
08-03-16, 23:30
He wouldn't have saved all of them.
So just because they were hit by a recognised striker would make them more likely to go in? Nonsense.
Joe Mason got 12 that season and Bellars, 11.
Are you sure about that?
Are you sure about that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_Cardiff_City_F.C._season
(Edit: Although, looking at this source in more detail, this appears to be duff information. I am sorry for posting wrong stats. It also appears that Whitts scored 68 club goals that season!)
Blue blood
08-03-16, 23:47
Are you sure about that?
I think those numbers are wrong. Wasn't Helgurson top scorer?
Don't recall Mason getting 12 and Bellers didn't get 11.....don't think he scored after Leicester away.
I think those numbers are wrong. Wasn't Helgurson top scorer?
Don't recall Mason getting 12 and Bellers didn't get 11.....don't think he scored after Leicester away.
Yeah, you're right. I was reading the total goals up to that season scored by current players that season. Apologies again.
valley boy
09-03-16, 18:17
The team did sort of give everything when we went down to 10 men, and we did not get the rub of the green with some of our chances. However, I thought CM was lightweight tonight. We need a ball winner/leader in there to boss these sort of games. We did not match Leeds physical game in midfield, except with Fabio's lunge!!The Ralls/O'keefe partnership seems to have a game on,game off rota going on and Whitts was poor I am also puzzled as to why Slade brings on Zahore when Idris is on the bench. If he is fit to be on the bench then give him a chance. Anyway, lucky most of the results went our way. A win against Ipswich can get us right back in it.
Spedger
Zahore won a lot in the air and at that stage of the game offered something different.He is a big lad and better equipped to battle the big deefnders
SuisseBluebird
09-03-16, 19:04
Not questioning the team's work-rate, mate. I'm questioning the wisdom of playing with not one recognised striker. All the work-rate in the world makes no difference if there's no-one to put the ball in the net.
Wonder if you use the same logic for Bale when Wales started to use him as a striker.
Pilkington is in good form and alongside Immers has formed a decent partnership up top.
I understand your cry for a recognised striker, but we'll see what future weeks have to bring. Maybe Saadi or Macheda will make an impact?
Jimmy the Jock
10-03-16, 07:12
very one eyed view of the attacking force we have at the moment.
Immers, Lawrence and Pilkington...
Best attacking and most entertaining partnership since Chopra,Bothroyd and Ross McCormack
I was very disappointed when we had to let Watt go.I wonder if he would he fit in to this team?
steve davies
10-03-16, 07:33
You don't need a striker to win games, when we got promoted I don't think we had one which got more than 10.
There's no option now but to continue with pilks for the time being. We were unlucky tonight there's no point going over board after this
It was only Frazier Campbell who got into double figures but I believe we had a lot of players scoring four or more goals. I thought we played as well if not better than against Brighton at home .
Sometimes it's just not your day or in this case night
A Quiet Monkfish
10-03-16, 09:18
Chickens home to roost time.
I agree. A lot has been made of the 'conversion' of Pilkington to a striker, but a striker he isn't. He and immers work really hard along with the rest of the side to create chances but few are put away. We are playing without a recognised striker [for 80 mins on Tuesday]. 100 years of football says you have to have at least one of these in your side. City have a dilemma - Pilkington and Immers are playing well, but can't snap up those half chances.
the other bob wilson
10-03-16, 09:54
I agree. A lot has been made of the 'conversion' of Pilkington to a striker, but a striker he isn't. He and immers work really hard along with the rest of the side to create chances but few are put away. We are playing without a recognised striker [for 80 mins on Tuesday]. 100 years of football says you have to have at least one of these in your side. City have a dilemma - Pilkington and Immers are playing well, but can't snap up those half chances.
And yet we scored four times against one of the top sides in the division with Pilkington and Immers as our most attacking players - we also scored three times against Huddersfield without a "proper" striker.
I'd take Pilkington and/or Immers over Macheda any day of the week and, although I've not seen a great deal of either of them, Zohore and/or Saadi would not appear to be an improvement on them either. That's a bit harsh on Saadi I know because he's played so little first team football, but, Slade definitely seems to favour Zohore over him and it seems to me that those fans who back Saadi (including me) might be reading too much into one good bit of play when he was on the pitch for about fifteen minutes against Reading.
Spooky Tree
10-03-16, 10:27
Their keeper had an inspired evening you dingbat.
On another night we would have won that game. Have to give credit to their goalkeeper, he had a blinder to our frustration. Only criticism of Pilks is he needs to brush up on his heading power, seems to be sliding off his head rather than putting his head through the ball but all in all he is doing a great job for us up front.
And yet we scored four times against one of the top sides in the division with Pilkington and Immers as our most attacking players - we also scored three times against Huddersfield without a "proper" striker.
I'd take Pilkington and/or Immers over Macheda any day of the week and, although I've not seen a great deal of either of them, Zohore and/or Saadi would not appear to be an improvement on them either. That's a bit harsh on Saadi I know because he's played so little first team football, but, Slade definitely seems to favour Zohore over him and it seems to me that those fans who back Saadi (including me) might be reading too much into one good bit of play when he was on the pitch for about fifteen minutes against Reading.
I'm sure you'd agree the Brighton and Leeds games were 'one-offs'. Little should be taken from them. I'm also sure that unless our team was like Barca, the majority would agree that you need recognised strikers to score goals. Remember, there was a furore on here after we sold our strikers in the window without getting replacements. While I totally agree that performances have improved (actually being enjoyable to watch), I am simply making the point that if a team wants to have a successful season there is no substitute for a proven goal scorer(s) .
Points get you promoted. It doesn't matter if all the goals come from defenders (though it's handy for fantasy football).
Points get you promoted.
Not convinced about this, frankly.
Father Dougal
10-03-16, 17:09
It was only Frazier Campbell who got into double figures but I believe we had a lot of players scoring four or more goals. I thought we played as well if not better than against Brighton at home .
Sometimes it's just not your day or in this case night
I don't think Campbell got double figures? From memory he got about 7?
Father Dougal
10-03-16, 17:13
I personally believe we are better without kenwyne Jones and Mason. Even it means no strikers at all that's better than having those 2.
Would it be fair to say you felt we needed a striker even against Brighton when we were 3 up after half hour and you have just waited for us not to score to post this and claim "see? I was right!" regardless of the circumstances around us not scoring?
I notice you changed your argument from us needing a striker to us only needing a good one. So, yes of course a 30 goal a season striker would be useful for any team if that's the point you are making?
A Quiet Monkfish
11-03-16, 20:44
And yet we scored four times against one of the top sides in the division with Pilkington and Immers as our most attacking players - we also scored three times against Huddersfield without a "proper" striker.
I'd take Pilkington and/or Immers over Macheda any day of the week and, although I've not seen a great deal of either of them, Zohore and/or Saadi would not appear to be an improvement on them either. That's a bit harsh on Saadi I know because he's played so little first team football, but, Slade definitely seems to favour Zohore over him and it seems to me that those fans who back Saadi (including me) might be reading too much into one good bit of play when he was on the pitch for about fifteen minutes against Reading.
I think my 'concern' - if it could be called that - is that Pilkington especially, looks less sharp when given a chance to score, than perhaps a genuine striker. The stats disagree with me, but I also think the situation is exacerbated by the overall weakness in front of goal of the City 1st choice squad. I remember within recent history that we always had 5 or 6 players on the pitch who could rifle in a powerful, sharp shot - Kavanagh, Parry, Ledley - who were midfielders, and on Tuesday you always felt we looked weak and timid when given a chance. Still, we'll see..
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.