Ollie Watkins

[Keyblade]

I think people forget he was playing as a winger 3 years ago. He's still developing as a striker. He won't have Danny Ings' instincts, who played as a poacher his whole life. Or even Cam Archer. Even in 20/21 his finishing was a bit suspect, but he scored so many goals because the team were creating a bunch of chances for him. Coupled with all the other hard work he does off the ball, he'd be a totally competent striker in a good team. Might even be able to improve on his finishing if he got more than 1 chance every 2 games. 

[abdulaziz1]

4 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

I think people forget he was playing as a winger 3 years ago. He's still developing as a striker. He won't have Danny Ings' instincts, who played as a poacher his whole life. Or even Cam Archer. Even in 20/21 his finishing was a bit suspect, but he scored so many goals because the team were creating a bunch of chances for him. Coupled with all the other hard work he does off the ball, he'd be a totally competent striker in a good team. Might even be able to improve on his finishing if he got more than 1 chance every 2 games. 

So why do we play him while we have the other two you’re mentioning? We don’t need a defender striker in games like yesterday. I’m all with playing him when we’re counter attacking against top 6…etc

But in most games he shouldn’t be starting (atleast as a striker).

[Keyblade]

2 minutes ago, abdulaziz1 said:

So why do we play him while we have the other two you’re mentioning? We don’t need a defender striker in games like yesterday. I’m all with playing him when we’re counter attacking against top 6…etc

But in most games he shouldn’t be starting (atleast as a striker).

The problem is we don't create anything for our strikers so I think the thinking is that he's more likely to create something out of nothing than Archer or Ings who need it on a plate. It's backwards thinking, but I think that's the logic.

[ChesterDad]

7 hours ago, Thug said:

Just two seasons ago he was playing brilliantly.

He never had a finishers touch, but he was playing very very well.

Earned himself an England call up.

 

Yes but that was two seasons ago and even then, many of us spotted concerns in his game.

I hope I am wrong and he gets back to some kind of form/confidence but even this is not good enough in the bigger picture imo 

[peterwithethewinner]

Think he was lucky to make the England bench!

[Tom13]

8 hours ago, Keyblade said:

The problem is we don't create anything for our strikers so I think the thinking is that he's more likely to create something out of nothing than Archer or Ings who need it on a plate. It's backwards thinking, but I think that's the logic.

Tbf I was encouraged by Archer the other night. Looked to have a bit of dribbling ability about him. I'd love to see him given a run (aware it won't happen).

[HanoiVillan]

9 hours ago, Keyblade said:

The problem is we don't create anything for our strikers so I think the thinking is that he's more likely to create something out of nothing than Archer or Ings who need it on a plate. It's backwards thinking, but I think that's the logic.

That's exactly it isn't it. We don't actually create any chances, so at least Watkins is like 3% more likely to nick it off a defender by more effective pressing than Ings or Archer. 

In general I just think Ollie's confidence is totally and utterly shot, and he needs someone to come in and do the 'striker whisperer' thing that Sherwood did to Benteke. Currently he's carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders, and he's not the only one either. 

[AV82]

10 hours ago, Keyblade said:

I think people forget he was playing as a winger 3 years ago. He's still developing as a striker. He won't have Danny Ings' instincts, who played as a poacher his whole life. Or even Cam Archer. Even in 20/21 his finishing was a bit suspect, but he scored so many goals because the team were creating a bunch of chances for him. Coupled with all the other hard work he does off the ball, he'd be a totally competent striker in a good team. Might even be able to improve on his finishing if he got more than 1 chance every 2 games. 

My issue with him is his complete lack of ball control. That's pretty strange, especially for a winger. The bloke often can't trap a ball and plays like he has timberlands on his feet.

[Zatman]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

That's exactly it isn't it. We don't actually create any chances, so at least Watkins is like 3% more likely to nick it off a defender by more effective pressing than Ings or Archer. 

In general I just think Ollie's confidence is totally and utterly shot, and he needs someone to come in and do the 'striker whisperer' thing that Sherwood did to Benteke. Currently he's carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders, and he's not the only one either. 

Great now I am just imagining a new Netflix series.

This week world famous striker whisperer has his toughest challenge yet. He has been called by Thomas Tuchel for mission impossible and his mission is to get goals from Timo Werner

[abdulaziz1]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

That's exactly it isn't it. We don't actually create any chances, so at least Watkins is like 3% more likely to nick it off a defender by more effective pressing than Ings or Archer. 

In general I just think Ollie's confidence is totally and utterly shot, and he needs someone to come in and do the 'striker whisperer' thing that Sherwood did to Benteke. Currently he's carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders, and he's not the only one either. 

You can’t compare him with Benteke. Watkins can’t control the ball nor have intelligence with or without it. 
We’re losing a lot with mainly 3 things, keeping SG which is the main issue. Then trying McGinn and Watkins again and again. We’ve used him for 8 games now and the outcome is clear. What will we lost if we gave Archer a start? He’ll not score? He deserve another 8 to see if he’ll outscore Watkins or not. 
I’ve seen enough from Watkins to know hoe limited he is. We should invest on the ones that can actually become something. 
 

I still can’t understand how some want those called hard workers in games like Forest, Leeds (especially after the red) and Southampton. We’ve been given the ball without the need of all that. What we need is intelligent runs and linking with our midfielders. Watkins isn’t that for sure. With Grealish it was different as he used to get the focus of most of there teams and it’s easier for Watkins to link with his runs.

[Tom13]

1 hour ago, abdulaziz1 said:

You can’t compare him with Benteke. Watkins can’t control the ball nor have intelligence with or without it. 
We’re losing a lot with mainly 3 things, keeping SG which is the main issue. Then trying McGinn and Watkins again and again. We’ve used him for 8 games now and the outcome is clear. What will we lost if we gave Archer a start? He’ll not score? He deserve another 8 to see if he’ll outscore Watkins or not. 
I’ve seen enough from Watkins to know hoe limited he is. We should invest on the ones that can actually become something. 
 

I still can’t understand how some want those called hard workers in games like Forest, Leeds (especially after the red) and Southampton. We’ve been given the ball without the need of all that. What we need is intelligent runs and linking with our midfielders. Watkins isn’t that for sure. With Grealish it was different as he used to get the focus of most of there teams and it’s easier for Watkins to link with his runs.

Agree completely. And even then, Jack would often have to hold onto the ball longer than he wanted to, until Ollie realised the run he was supposed to be making!

[allani]

14 hours ago, Keyblade said:

The problem is we don't create anything for our strikers so I think the thinking is that he's more likely to create something out of nothing than Archer or Ings who need it on a plate. It's backwards thinking, but I think that's the logic.

We'd create a lot more chances if our striker didn't have four modes: (1) stand in an offside position, (2) stand still on the edge of the box next to the centre back marking him and wait for someone to try and pass before moving, (3) find a position / any position inside the box just as long as there is at least one defender between you and the ball or you and the goal or (4) drift wide and attack the corner flag.  I know it is slightly unfair to compare any striker to Haaland at the moment - but his movement in the box is sensational.  He has an incredible ability to drift away from his marker, find space where there is no-one to block or tackle him and where he has a clear line of sight at the goal.  Consequently when the ball does reach him he usually has a great chance to score and (at least at the moment) does exactly that.  Meanwhile Ollie seems to more often and not be stood too close to a defender so that either they get a touch / stop the ball getting to him or can get a foot in when he does get the ball.  Good strikers create chances, poor strikers wait for them to arrive and really poor strikers wait for them to arrive whilst standing in an offside position.

[ChesterDad]

5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

That's exactly it isn't it. We don't actually create any chances, so at least Watkins is like 3% more likely to nick it off a defender by more effective pressing than Ings or Archer. 

In general I just think Ollie's confidence is totally and utterly shot, and he needs someone to come in and do the 'striker whisperer' thing that Sherwood did to Benteke. Currently he's carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders, and he's not the only one either. 

Whilst I agree that we don’t create many chances I don’t agree that Watkins is likely to score by nicking the ball from a defender - he just doesn’t  have that calmness in front of goal in my opinion.

whereas Archer who equally looks as mobile and energetic does have that look about him.

Can we really be any worse off ?

[duke313]

4 hours ago, ChesterDad said:

Whilst I agree that we don’t create many chances I don’t agree that Watkins is likely to score by nicking the ball from a defender - he just doesn’t  have that calmness in front of goal in my opinion.

whereas Archer who equally looks as mobile and energetic does have that look about him.

Can we really be any worse off ?

No, the worst Archer can do is get a start and not score. Which will be as good as Watkins and Ings most games.

[foreveryoung]

Watkins needs a bit of coaching, an at the moment we have no one to right his wrongs.

[Mark_1989]

19 hours ago, Keyblade said:

I think people forget he was playing as a winger 3 years ago. He's still developing as a striker. He won't have Danny Ings' instincts, who played as a poacher his whole life. Or even Cam Archer. Even in 20/21 his finishing was a bit suspect, but he scored so many goals because the team were creating a bunch of chances for him. Coupled with all the other hard work he does off the ball, he'd be a totally competent striker in a good team. Might even be able to improve on his finishing if he got more than 1 chance every 2 games. 

Or he’s just a bad footballer…I don’t think it’s a case of him lacking form, I just think his true ability is starting to show.

[birdman]

Watkins isn't a striker at least in this SG regime. He can't create chances for himself. This system is broke. We have nothing to lose by playing Cam Archer. Such a waste! Everything points to SG as being the main source of the problem as much as I'm frustrated with our players. 

[Keyblade]

14 minutes ago, Mark_1989 said:

Or he’s just a bad footballer…I don’t think it’s a case of him lacking form, I just think his true ability is starting to show.

20/21 Ollie Watkins was a good player. £28m was looking like a snip by the end of that season. He's playing in an awful team right now. I can't judge any of our attacking players properly in this setup.

[weedman]

We can all see his limitations but honestly he's being set up for failure by our "system". Gerrard clearly sees Ings as the better player hence him starting first game but Ings needs runners, he drops deep and plays one twos and little bits of pass and move football, Archer relies on service, through balls etc for him to get on the end of.

Our only method of attack is to have Mings or Emi lump the ball forward for the striker to either 1) challenge in the air against 2 or 3 much bigger and more physical defenders or 2) chase the ball down the line and hope to do something as there'll be no-one else in the opposition half by the time they get the ball. 

Ollie is good at holding the ball up under pressure, he's tenacious and hard working and if you're the only player in the opposition half up against 5 or 6 defenders that's the only way he's even getting a sniff of a chance. 

When Ings plays, for all his instincts, for all his history of goalscoring, for all his being in the right place at the right time how often do we say afterwards that we "barely realised he was on the pitch". He virtually never sees the ball because we have absolutely no plan on how to get it to him. 

As long as Gerrard is here Watkins simply has to start I'm afraid, Archer or Ings would just get marked out of the game and we'd just constantly turn over possession 

[ChesterDad]

4 hours ago, weedman said:

We can all see his limitations but honestly he's being set up for failure by our "system". Gerrard clearly sees Ings as the better player hence him starting first game but Ings needs runners, he drops deep and plays one twos and little bits of pass and move football, Archer relies on service, through balls etc for him to get on the end of.

Our only method of attack is to have Mings or Emi lump the ball forward for the striker to either 1) challenge in the air against 2 or 3 much bigger and more physical defenders or 2) chase the ball down the line and hope to do something as there'll be no-one else in the opposition half by the time they get the ball. 

Ollie is good at holding the ball up under pressure, he's tenacious and hard working and if you're the only player in the opposition half up against 5 or 6 defenders that's the only way he's even getting a sniff of a chance. 

When Ings plays, for all his instincts, for all his history of goalscoring, for all his being in the right place at the right time how often do we say afterwards that we "barely realised he was on the pitch". He virtually never sees the ball because we have absolutely no plan on how to get it to him. 

As long as Gerrard is here Watkins simply has to start I'm afraid, Archer or Ings would just get marked out of the game and we'd just constantly turn over possession 

With all due respect I disagree - what is the point in a willing runner who essentially does feck all when he gets the ball, other than give it away?

Archer seems an equally mobile and willing runner, with a better touch - it feels somewhat of a no brainier to give him an opportunity ?