Haha

Same old same old running around and pointing valued more than being able to play. I

 

I'm in full agreement with you on that. But if we're swerving the thread into this direction then I can only say that both Dawson (and for example) Mellis were (in the main) **** for Barnsley FC over their respective time periods with us. So we're choosing between ****. Well, I'd go with shitty Mellis. He scored more, created more and cost us less goals. Both of them frustrated the life out of me though.

Thing is, I really rated Dagnall up front, and not just for his work rate. But the huge majority used to bemoan that asset of his because he had no talent apparently. Whereas folk preferred Proschwitz because he scored a few, but was lazy as ****.

I don't prefer one over t'other if I'm being honest. But if someone said "here, Andy, do you want to watch a Dawson-esque lad for 80 games or a Mellis-esque (Paddy-esque even) lad I'd go with the talented one.


End of the day, it's pointless comparing triers who are ****, and talent who can't be arsed. What we'd all love is a team full of triers with talent. But isn't every club after that same team?

 

Easier to have said 'Dawson or Mellis'. And I say Mellis.

But I'd sooner have neither, as was my point.


Neil Redfearn every time thanks. Graft AND ability. But we should be so lucky.

 

That's not what I'm saying though is it? All my favourite players could certainly play. But they also worked hard and as a consequence made the most of their ability. It's why Drinkwater is in the Premier League and Mellis isn't. A starker comparison is what happened to Vaz Te once he started to work and show tactical discipline and why Paddy McCourt doesn't have a club.

 

Very true , everyone is searching for the holy grail ! i think its the frustration of seeing mellis stroll around that gets my goat. If he had half an ounce of application as well as talent then he could and should have been a decent premier league midfielder and in fairness if you are giving me mellis or dawson then its no contest.

Dagnall was a strange one. Time and results proved we probably should have kept him. he was better than proschwtz imo but that's no reason alone.

 

I think Vaz Te's success came about through scoring great goals, because he was talented. But he wasn't even a regular for us because Keith didn't trust him, right up until him signing for West Ham. I saw no fantastic work rate in him. He wasn't lazy though, just made the odd strange decision. Bit like Paddy. He'd try and take a man on whilst most of our players were committed, and if it went wrong we were sometimes punished. Can't remember us being punished like that after a Paddy error, but I do recall plenty of those Paddy errors.

He's at Brighton by the way. Not sure if he's signed but he's definitely there.



I'm not telling you what you're saying either. I merely started a thread scoffing at Dawson being considered a winner by Keith. It's then swerved into the same direction as usual when Dawson is discussed. Which I don't understand. He was ****. I'd try hard, but I'd probably be **** too.

 

Made a point of watching Blackpool's extended highlights on opening day. Mellis was strolling as usual as Forest scored twice. Perkins was on the scene though, just failing to stop them, then pointing....

 

The stuff about Dawson is typical manager speak, as said last night: he's got to illustrate something out on the pitch.

The other stuff about negative pressure and the like was mystifying because a) it isn't happening (as Hill went on to say himself!) and b) we've heard similar before and thought it might have stopped this time around. Our local media are useless and Hill should realise this and not make comments that can be then out of context - which, by judging what he said about being pleased with fans the other night, is possibly happening here.

All so unnecessary.

 

Sorry Andy , was aimed at Jimmy Cricket, not you.

I tend to stick up for Dawson because I think he's a better player than others but it's just my opinion. He scored some good goals for us and plenty thought our chances of staying up had gone when he got injured in 2012/13 so they must have thought he was playing well then. He was cr@p out wide and he certainly can't play alongside another grafter in a two but that was Flitcroft's fault, not his. But in a midfield 3 you need workrate and bite too and I think he can do that alongside the passer and the creator.

 

Hybrid mode strikes again, pal.

Here, I rated Dawson initially. There is probably a decent player in there, certainly proven it in spells and definitely shown it at this level before. Also telling, is that his best form for us was under Keith.

Good luck to him. At Spotland on October 4th I'll be hoping to applaud both him and TK. However, I reckon I'd look a tit because I expect the drunken reds fans that day to just boo every fcuker.

 

perkins actually used to make me laugh , always half a yard behind play , in the wrong position and having to either blame others or make late,last ditch tackles..... and for some reason folk thought he was great !

 

I think all our midfielders suffered from us never being able to replace Butterfield's creativity and influence. No one else ever rewarded the freedom that role was afforded and it meant too much was expected of the others.

 

I thought we'd replaced him quite well with Mellis, he had a great first season. But he hasn't the appetite it seems.

On that, Jacob (Butterfield) saw him out in Leeds last season (Mellis), with Frimpong.

"Butts geeez... how's it goin bruv?!"

Proper ballaxed. Jacob was with his missus and nodded before leaving.

A few years ago, I won't deny it, he'd have joined em.

Maturity..

 

Fully agree bit he had everyone fooled for long enough.

 

I don't see any issue with this to be honest.

It's a mentality thing.

Dawson is a winner in the sense he'll give everything to the cause despite been pretty *****.

I know lads at Sunday league who have a similar mentality, some are ***** players but they'll give everything to win

 

Ya ya Dawson...he is not.

 

Dawson gave everything. I've heard it all now. He took a lot. A few grand a week for a start. I do a lot of shouting and pointing when I'm at Oakwell and I'm always in my seat by 3pm. I reckon I give as much as that useless get.

He does not have a single quality I look for in a footballer. This effort/work rate argument is just a fallacy to hide the fact that he really is beyond useless.

 

Gwyn Thomas by a country mile. After a poor start he was a great player for us.