Purely theoretical question regarding Woodrow.

I do not particularly enjoy the way that our coach has decided to play the game, but there is no doubt in my mind that his system was a big factor in our survival last year. We survived with his system even though many of the players he used were bought for a different coach and a different system. In many games, he had to shoehorn players into positions which did not suit their game, and yet, we still survived. The question is this. Do we let the coach acquire players who are more suited to the style he wants to play, or do we tell him that he is not allowed to meld the team into a unit more suited to his ideas. My argument is that we have to go along with his ideas. It is the only logic that makes any sense, and I say that whilst not particularly enjoying the way that we play the game. If you accept that logic, then players must leave in order to provide the finance for acquisitions more suited to his ideal.

 

No, you just tried to be patronising and inferred £15m for a 1 in 2 championship striker was somehow a joke.

Just a very very odd reply. I asked you lots of valid questions of what you may want instead and how much you may want to spend, and instead you get petty and personal.

But hey ho. If you don't want to engage and debate, just put me on ignore. It will be welcomed!

 

I can't disagree with that. What I do ask, is when we sell him, we get proper value.

I very much agree with your assessment of playing style too. I didn't see much of it, but what i did see wasn't really my cup of tea.

Its also a good question about allowing a coach to play a style they want with players they want. Cryne very much wanted to stop the cycle of throwing players away every 1-2 seasons because a manager changed. We instead went to a model of buying & selling players every 1-2 years anyway. But not always ones managers/coaches wanted or even asked for. We had the debacle of 8 no 10s that didnt fit into a flat 4-4-2, then we went out and got lots of wide players while we played a narrow diamond.

The balance is probably best inbetween with more harmony between managers knowns and speculative buys for the future with 1-2 players who can be solid and pass the mantle, and as a result have a broader range of diversity than we've managed to date.

My worry with this team when we lose Woodrow is just where on earth are the goals coming from? We don't get into the box much to get penalties. We are one of the worst teams I've seen at set pieces for over 2 years now (Halme aside who attacks the ball fantastically well, but hardly plays). Our midfield doesn't chip in anywhere near enough so we're massively reliant on strikers, and Chaplin and Woodrow in particular.

 

I think Ivan Toney has improved a lot since he was with us and is still on an upward curve of improvement , Woodrow on the other hand seems to have stood still in terms of development recently , he’ll still get his fair share of goals but could be so much better as Red Rain has said sometimes he doesn’t see better options in front of him and goes for the worldy goal that’s not really on . I’d still have him in the starting 11 though

 

A good question always splits opinion - which is what's happened here. Cauley the conundrum.

It was strange watching him after lockdown. It's as if his heart wasn't really in it. However I don't like being critical of him because he's been a great club man for us as well as being a terrific player. Anyone who can score the goals he's scored this season in this division (as striker and as head of the diamond) in a struggling team is a proper talent. He's also put his heart and soul into the club since he's been with us.

I've been in two minds as to whether he can fit into Gerhard's system. I've agreed with RR's previous comments in the past about his effectiveness as a number 10 at the top of the diamond. However CW has made me think twice about that with some of his pre lockdown performances in that position. He does play lots of square passes but I don't see that as a bad thing if its part of our build up play. He has scored some beauties from 18-25 yards and may be GS is looking for him to do more of that in the more withdrawn role. The thing he lacks is pace. He would be more effective as a number 10 if he could "give and go" a bit quicker. However this is compensated for by his footballing brain. Cauley is a player who can see a move ahead of its time (people use to say that of Martin Peters -RIP Martin-) , and that's maybe another reason GS plays him in the 10 role.

It's clear that GS expects us to defend and close down as high up the pitch as possible. CC and JB are able to do this because they have the pace. Cauley works hard but is less effective at closing down. For me the ideal player at the tip of the diamond is a Beardsley type - busy, pestering the opposition like a wasp wanting to sting. Cauley isn't that.

Tying myself up in knots of here............I'd keep him and play him, unless we got an out of this world offer; say £10m. He's an intelligent enough footballer to play in the 10 in this system.

Or is he?? !!

 

The set piece point is, in my view, the result of playing so few big men in our team. It is another angle on the Struber pressing system. It is a system that demands athletes. Smaller and very fit individuals with very good endurance, who can run for ever, put pressure on the opposition player with the ball, and generally outlast any opposition team who wants to play in a similar way. The problem comes with teams like Stoke. Teams who use big men. Teams that go from back to front with but a few passes. Teams that rely upon set-pieces to score their goals. Then we do not have enough big men in our team. Then we are poor at both ends of the field on set pieces. It seems that we have to have all our eggs in one basket, that we will out run the teams that want to play football, but lose the physical battle against teams that do not

 

I can see us selling Woodrow for £2.5 million. It’s just what we do.

 

But do we have as many people of height in the team as we did in say, in the first year in the championship under heckingbottom? Mawson weighed in with a fair few goals, but Winnall got a good amount from Hourihane assists and he is any bigger than brown or Woodrow?

Roberts was tall, but are Mads and Halme taller still? My now vague recollection is that team was very small apart from the two full backs and maybe Watkins. So I think it was very much down to incredible delivery and better movement.

We should certainly be chipping in with more goals from set pieces, and wonder how much priority is given to them now.

 

Halme scored 3 times last season, but he does not get a starting place when and Andersen and Sollbauer are fit, and he would be even further down the pecking order if Diaby was not suspended. If we are going to play a back 3 next season, as seems to be suggested from the coach's team versus Crewe, then surely Halme should play instead of Jordan Williams, if only for his height at set pieces.

 

I'm guessing struber realised the need for height when he tried playing him at the base of the diamond instead of actual midfield players.

Maybe they could get Mick McCarthy down as a set piece coach. His teams always tried to make the most of them and I recall Ipswich especially having incredible movement in the box.

Of course that won't happen, but I think they absolutely need to channel more effort into set pieces. Can make all the difference, especially for a low scoring team.

 

Player who I think we need to keep hold of - decent scoring record at this level and those players aren't that easy to get hold of either especially with our budget.

Would prefer to see him pushed further up the pitch instead of Brown who tends to fluff more chances than he takes. Always thought Brown looked really dangerous at wing-back

 

Scoring goals isn't an attribute.

 

On the £15m price tag you quote. Anything less would be a joke. It doesn’t work out as simple as you appear to think. A lot on here think Ivan Toney is not worth £10m. And have had Brentford’s pants down.
Brentford have paid that amount on his record irrespective of what league he is playing in. And see him as a replacement for the Player they are letting go.
Time will tell as to whether that pays off. I’m sure their scouts will have watched him a damn sight more than those on here who have just seen his goals on quest and see his total attributes.
As an outsider looking in and seeing £15m for Woodrow I’d think what the heck. I am aware of his attributes far more than other clubs fans, as Peterborough fans would be about Toney.
So are you saying £15m for Woodrow or no deal. Look what’s ‘s happened to Butland. If the highest bid for Woodrow comes in at £8m for example. Would you cash in. or make him see his contract out if he doesn’t sign a new deal.
Glad you’re not running my football club if it’s the latter.
I do believe if we get the right players in Woodrow could revert to his preferred position.( Striker come winger rather than the other way round) In effect replacing Brown. (If Struber chooses)His ability as a wide player was there for all to see. Even under Stendel. And Woodrow if remember right said he felt comfortable coming in from the wing.
Easy as pie to criticise. Given away by your total reluctance to see the other side of the coin.
Only Barnsley. As you seem/want to believe.
Some if we got/sold him for £15m would still bairn and say should’ve been £20m.

 

Then you read the tone completely incorrectly. As per. And continued with being patronising, as per.

If Toney is worth £10m having never kicked a ball at championship level, and Woodrow is getting a goal every 2.1 starts for us, despite being played completely out of position in the championship, I'd say he's worth much more. And when you see a 1 in 5 "forward" from QPR going for £20m, it affirms the value even more.

Quite a few people seemed to agree. Its absolutely not a problem that you don't. In fact I'm glad you don't.

 

I read your posts as needlessly antagonistic in an otherwise civilised thread.

 

Peterborough have said no several times. They got the value they asked. QPR said no til they got the value they asked.

Until we say no and hold out, we'll never ever get a good fee.

When you look at the alleged fees for Stones (well Patrick confirmed that was only 2.2m) and Hourihane, and Winnall and Vaz Te and...... (repeat to fade to current day) its rare we get anything close to what other peer clubs get for their prize assets.

Of course you might disagree, and thats your prerogative. We're seen as a proactive selling club and a soft touch and have been for decades. That combined with a climate where we pitch to players that we're a stepping stone anyway, it's not conducive to get good value that allows us to get better.

 

Then you also read it wrong. I find JLWBigLil as a good barometer of reason, and he liked the post. But i respect your right to view it how you see it while assuring you there was nothing intentionally antagonising within it.