Jump to content

Conor Hourihane


dont_do_it_doug.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, av1 said:

So you buy a relatively limited footballer whose main attributes suit an attacking midfield role, and then shoehorn the kid in as deep lying midfielder next to the even more limited Glen Whelan.

Is it any wonder the kid isn't showing the kind of form he showed at Barnsley?

 

Somewhat ironically you also have Onomah, whose main attributes actually do suit a deep-lying midfield role, being shoehorned into attacking positions. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, VanDerVaart said:

Somewhat ironically you also have Onomah, whose main attributes actually do suit a deep-lying midfield role, being shoehorned into attacking positions. 

This. Been wondering about this for a while now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, VanDerVaart said:

Somewhat ironically you also have Onomah, whose main attributes actually do suit a deep-lying midfield role, being shoehorned into attacking positions. 

Thats what worries me about Bruce. Look I'm not saying all these guys are great players (I'm not a fan of Onamah) but playing them out of position is certainly not helping them. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Wouldn't have made a difference tbh, his forward passing is poor and he often elects to go backwards or sidewards. That said I'd be interested in seeing him play for a more positive manager who isn't a total tactical buffoon.

Because nobody is ahead of him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/12/2017 at 12:29, Dick said:

Likes to pass forward, we play Brentford who will leave space for passing into. So Bruce dropes Hourihane and plays two defensive midfielders.

 

He starts a lot of breaks and gets forward on the counter so would have been perfect for the Brentford game. So unless he was injured he wouldn't have been left out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, omariqy said:

No surprise that we play him in a more advanced position and he plays well. Jedi really gives him the security to push forward. 

Totally agree. Has to cover for whelan because whelan doesn't really tackle. Has more freedom to go forward with Jedi. Thought he was full of energy and offered attacking threat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stratvillan said:

Totally agree. Has to cover for whelan because whelan doesn't really tackle. Has more freedom to go forward with Jedi. Thought he was full of energy and offered attacking threat. 

I'm not sure its down to Whelan not getting stuck in, i think it's more to do with the fact that Whelan isn't as disciplined as Jedinak. 

Whelan gets pulled out of position to easily which leaves gaps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, av1 said:

I'm not sure its down to Whelan not getting stuck in, i think it's more to do with the fact that Whelan isn't as disciplined as Jedinak. 

Whelan gets pulled out of position to easily which leaves gaps. 

Would agree, he runs side to side, and hourihane has too be where he isn't. At least jedi goes to the ball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Set pieces and workrate. It's certainly not creativity. 

When you have a rubbish team, which there's no escaping we are at the moment, then I value work rate very very highly. Add in the set pieces and the smattering of goals and he'd be one of the first names on the team sheet for me. Doesn't mean he's amazing, just means he's better than the rest. And I don't think there's many people who would rather have Bjarnasson, Lansbury or Onomah in that role. He's definitely way better than two of them (possibly all three) and he's definitely got a better attitude than some of them. 

Hourihane is the least of our problems. Especially at this level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â