bobzy Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 9 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said: Think he would have had a better game without Onomah on the pitch. The difference wasn't Lansbury vs Hourihane but just giving the player in that position a bit of a chance without the ballhogging, useless passing, no effort, sulking Onomah on the pitch. Perhaps - though I remember one point where Hourihane just aimlessly hoofed the ball up into the air when under a bit of pressure. Lansbury and Grealish were the complete opposite; tried to take the ball down and run with it. I think he needs a rest, in fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnyp Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 I don't want to get into a hourihane v lansbury debate but they are essentially competing for one spot. Lansbury imho is a better pure footballer than hourihane. Quicker footballing brain and anticipation. Hourihane's work rate is better but he won't get us on the front foot when we need to be because apart from a decent left peg he's pretty limited. However his goals for us especially at home to forest have been huge and we'll need both of them between now and may Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVTuco Posted December 1, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted December 1, 2017 18 minutes ago, omariqy said: Pretty terrible today. Expect Lansbury to start ahead of him next week. Nah, don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, AVTuco said: Nah, don't think so. Only as good as your last game He was poor today but that one is a rarity(imo), but I agree. I don't expect Bruce to drop him, it would be an utter kick in the bollocks and Bruce is far too cautious to chuck in a player who has only played half hours worth of football in months. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSV Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 wasnt his best game.. may need a breather. Lost a bit of form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 32 minutes ago, rodders0223 said: Only as good as your last game He was poor today but that one is a rarity(imo), but I agree. I don't expect Bruce to drop him, it would be an utter kick in the bollocks and Bruce is far too cautious to chuck in a player who has only played half hours worth of football in months. I rate Hourihane but we need fresh legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 (edited) I seemed to have upset some by calling him a 'shade above average', last night demonstrated why he's really not that good. He was extremely poor, totally failed to the control the game. Not the first time he has played like that this season. Edited December 2, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Yea, he's had a lot of games quickly. A game out of it would really benefit him I think, despite what he will probably want! Time for a rest. He's absolutely fine though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 I'd like to see him in front of Henry and Whelan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 The leeds match was a below average match for Hourihane. You can see here that Conor typically has a pass percentage in the high 70s to 80% range. https://www.whoscored.com/Players/134172/MatchStatistics/Conor-Hourihane Conor also only attempted 22 passes against Leeds where typically he is in the 50-60s is passes attempted. That is significantly higher than most players in the team. Onomah for example averages 22 pass attempts per match. Conor on a bad day got to that, and yes they play different roles, but compare conor's stats Lansbury's and Whelan's, and you'll see conor is the engine in our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 Needs to be starting for us. His set pieces are enough to merit a starting spot if you ask me. How many corners did Lansbury cock up? How many free kicks did Snodgrass hit the first man or hit way too deep? We had 11 corners, and not one scoring opportunity because the cross either hit the first man, or was floated into the keepers arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 On 04/12/2017 at 11:08, villan_007 said: I'd like to see him in front of Henry and Whelan. Yup. He's been playing far too deep. He showed against exactly what he can do further up the field against Norwich. It's been a frustration of mine, pretty much since we signed him. He's an absolute threat from 30 yards and in. He's got a wand of a left foot. Drop Onomah, put him in the 10 slot and he'll get another 8-10 goals and the same in assists before the seasons out. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 He doesn't play a good through ball, I doubt he'd be that good as a number 10, that's where Grealish should play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 Wonder why he didn't feature today. Must be injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 -------------------Hogan------------------ -Grealish--Hourihane-Adomah- I wonder if this would work? Put Onomah next to Whelan. The 3 behind Hogan can interchange easily. Then we have Snodgrass, Lansbury, Davis, and eventually Green as subs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 13 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said: He doesn't play a good through ball, I doubt he'd be that good as a number 10, that's where Grealish should play. I suppose it depends on how you view the number 10 role and what we need from it right now. I agree on Grealish, he's the more natural number 10 'type'. Silky dribbling, moments of genius etc, but how many amazing through balls are we seeing from him? Or anyone else? Do we even play in a way that through balls are going to be effective? Teams don't play a high line and we don't have pace to get in behind. Today's game was a perfect example. Lansbury can pick a pass all day long, but there was no movement ahead and no space behind for a through ball. What Conor lacks in that department, he more than makes up for in goal threat and quality in other areas. 11 goals and 21 assists in the season before we signed him, he'd piss that here, if he played further forward. Grealish and Onomah wouldn't get near it in this team. We don't play the right football. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said: Wonder why he didn't feature today. Must be injured. lot of games coming up maybe was best to give Lansbury some game time to work on match fitness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 On 12/2/2017 at 01:11, Johnnyp said: I don't want to get into a hourihane v lansbury debate but they are essentially competing for one spot. Lansbury imho is a better pure footballer than hourihane. Quicker footballing brain and anticipation. Hourihane's work rate is better but he won't get us on the front foot when we need to be because apart from a decent left peg he's pretty limited. However his goals for us especially at home to forest have been huge and we'll need both of them between now and may For me, Landsbury is more of a Gerrard, and Hourihane is more of a Lampard, if that makes any sense? Obviously Costco versions but , you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villianusa Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 14 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: For me, Landsbury is more of a Gerrard, and Hourihane is more of a Lampard, if that makes any sense? Obviously Costco versions but , you know what I mean. Hourihane in for Onomah, and leave Lansbury and Whelan in behind. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 19 hours ago, wazzap24 said: I suppose it depends on how you view the number 10 role and what we need from it right now. I agree on Grealish, he's the more natural number 10 'type'. Silky dribbling, moments of genius etc, but how many amazing through balls are we seeing from him? Or anyone else? Do we even play in a way that through balls are going to be effective? Teams don't play a high line and we don't have pace to get in behind. Today's game was a perfect example. Lansbury can pick a pass all day long, but there was no movement ahead and no space behind for a through ball. What Conor lacks in that department, he more than makes up for in goal threat and quality in other areas. 11 goals and 21 assists in the season before we signed him, he'd piss that here, if he played further forward. Grealish and Onomah wouldn't get near it in this team. We don't play the right football. That is the problem for a number of our players. We don't have enough cloggers for our brand of football. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts