Quality finisher though.[/QUOTE] Which is what he was signed to do. I hate it when attacking players are labelled as lazy. They're signed to score goals. Normally when such a player is a failure it's down to the rest of the team unless they're crap. I don't think Sheron did bad considering he played alongside Dyer, Hristov, Shipperley and Hignett and wasn't a regular starter apart from the 2001/2 season. A season (2001/2) when the players round him were crap.
Martin Bullock was a bit **** and produced very little end product - that's why he never played in the top 2 divisions for anyone else.
Which is what he was signed to do. I hate it when attacking players are labelled as lazy. They're signed to score goals. Normally when such a player is a failure it's down to the rest of the team unless they're crap. I don't think Sheron did bad considering he played alongside Dyer, Hristov, Shipperley and Hignett and wasn't a regular starter apart from the 2001/2 season. A season (2001/2) when the players round him were crap.[/QUOTE] Backing out of 50/50s will always make you unpopular with the fans especially when results are poor. When he was younger he had blistering pace and some of that seemed to be gone too. With the benefit of hindsight his career was on a downward trajectory when he joined us and so it continued. Amusingly he always scored against Blackpool and so they signed him!
Hiristov was the biggest waste of money in bfc history (big fee at the time) And Patrick schmidt not far behind if the reported fee was true.
Sometimes I wonder if that kind of player has value in just taking the game into the opposition half and relieving pressure. Bullock, Isgrove, JCR, Kent ect. In most cases if they had more end product they wouldn't be at Oakwell.
Exactly. Sometimes just having someone who can get the ball and drive forward 10 yards just takes a bit of the pressure off. It's what Luke Thomas was doing before his leg break and was a valuable outlet for the defence at the time.
I’d go a step further. The reason Mike Sheron looked poor was that he was too intelligent a footballer for his team mates. He saw things that others simply didn’t which made him look bad. When actually he was our best player by a country mile.
I never got my head around why he was dropped for Richard Naylor. Had he not been dropped we'd have stayed up that season. As bad as we were.
We signed Michael Reddy even though he was injured. Tony Bedeau, even though he was 5hite and Gary Mcswegan and didn't play him. All this whilst Sheron and Dyer were having their most productive seasons up front. Steve Parkin was an absolute disaster of an appointment.
His ability to pick the ball up in his own half run 10 yards back towards his own goal ,overun the ball lose it and concede a goal was tremendous
Dont think this is controversial. Loads of people say this. No idea why we single out woodrow for last season though as he would never score with the scraps given
I don't rate Helik, wouldn't make my top 10 Barnsley defenders. mike Sheron was a great player. Iain Hume was the biggest waste of money of any headline signings we've ever made. With regard to Martin Bullock, he had the highest pass completion rate of any Barnsley player in the Premier League season. Also, this:
We was ***** but we wasn't that bad that year. An average manager would of kept us safe. We scored for fun
Mike Sheron was too good for the players around him, he knew what he was going to do with the ball before he even got it, but everyone else was 5t minutes behind.
If we'd got Ashley Ward that January we'd have gone comfortably midtable. As it stood we drew 3-3 with Bradford and the rest was history.
You take that back right now or so help me god I will summon Martin's enormous billowing shirt to engulf you and suffocate you to death.