He's maybe the type of striker we need. He's quick and can play comfortably in a 4-3-3 if we're trying to counter an attacking side. Scotland is the natural goal scorer out of the lot, Dagnall is the busy bee who causes defenders to **** themselves and O'Grady holds the ball up. Tyson would fit in nicely.
Re: Reighto, mate Certainly not picky that mate, if anything its the bare minimum we require. I think we look a little light in those areas which could prove tricky if we get a couple of injuries around November time.
Nathan Tyson is to be avoided. He does seem to be one of those players that does particularly well against us (e.g. a great strike at Pride Park last season). However, I work alongside lots of Forest and Derby fans and to a person they do not rate him. The popular comment is that he flatters to deceive. He's fast so opposing fans get the fear about him but his end product is non-existent.
Re: Reighto, mate I was just thinking (I know, I know, first time for everything!) that if we brought in a stopper centre half & a speedy striker, it'd give David Flitcroft more options of players with differing styles.
Like Scotland wasnt good enough for Ipswich last season, And Cywka not good enough for Derby and COG not good enough for Washday,........... Don't agree - If Flicker wants Tyson - I do. Couldn't care less if Derby want him or not TBH.
Twitter is just the same as the football rumours website, for its fullofshitness.....anybody can post owt on there, don't have to be any reality to it...unless it comes with a proven, credible source...id say its probably like the Johnson twitter deal...absolute *****..
Pace Without The Finish Although good games against us his lack of goals isn't what we really need. Any Rochdale strikers around ;-)
If Flicker wants Tyson - I do...............yes, got to agree with that I don't know the player, although I've heard his name of course............but if he's quick and can play any sort of football then Flicka et al will get the most out of him