Jump to content

Conor Hourihane


dont_do_it_doug.
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


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 by Dr_Pangloss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

  • VT Supporter
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • VT Supporter
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â