McGree haters

Billy69_uk said:
Did you notice that , once again, when he was taken off in the second half, we got pushed further and further back into our own box and looked under growing pressure?

Coincidence?

Like I said a few weeks ago, our system and ultimate success lies on McGree and his link up play.
Click to expand...
I don't think it was so much that it coincided with McGree going off, I think it was more down to us being knackered as a team, largely in the middle, but suppose McGree does drop in there too, and was knackered.

McGree was good though, he's a good player in that 10 role, but if we're resorting to launching it up, then it won't suit McGree's game, it would have possibly suited someone more like Hoppe or Forrss if we needed a goal. Watmore is more like for like I suppose, which made sense, given we were 1-0 up.

McGree could have been more clinical with his other chances, but I'll let him off as he did well with the one he scored, especially after the touch by their player. His first touch to make that chance was exceptional, as was Giles ball in to him.
 
Last edited:
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
It's barmy to suggest he's Tav's replacement, they play different roles. It's like comparing Paul Kerr with Gary Hamilton.

Mowatt is more of a general midfielder and once he's up to speed we may see a difference but he needs time.
Click to expand...

I agree... but when Tav left, the negative "McGree hater" comments were centered around him being Tav's replacement.

I think the majority of fans have always liked McGree - we just didn't like him in the position we thought he'd be given.
 
He'd perfect in a midfield 3 with 2 holders and one attacker. That would give him 2 strikers ahead of him and means he won't be relied on so heavily for the defensive side of things. We don't play that though. He's not a box to box which is what the 2 either side of Howson need to be. He's not a 10 because his finishing is poor.

The season we got promoted with Karanka we tried a few different players at 10 but they were all midfielders (e.g. Downing) in an advanced position and their default was to drop into midfield rather than act as a striker. When Ramirez came in it was clear his default was as an attacker and it just worked so much better. That's what is needed from a 10, a deep striker, not an advanced midfielder.

I do like McGree but I just don't think he fits in our system. He's not good enough as a 10 to change our formation for. Ideally he can improve the defensive side of things and step back in midfield and we can play 2 strikers again.
 
The problem with playing McGree as 10, is that all 4 of our midfielders are on the pitch and we can't bring any fresh legs on. All 4 of Howson, Crooks, Mowatt and McGree were shagged after 60 mins last night and we couldn't do anything about it. We are desperate for reinforcements in midfield. If we get an injury, or when Crooks is suspended in a few weeks after picking up his 5th yellow, we'll be screwed.
 
Nano said:
He'd perfect in a midfield 3 with 2 holders and one attacker. That would give him 2 strikers ahead of him and means he won't be relied on so heavily for the defensive side of things. We don't play that though. He's not a box to box which is what the 2 either side of Howson need to be. He's not a 10 because his finishing is poor.

The season we got promoted with Karanka we tried a few different players at 10 but they were all midfielders (e.g. Downing) in an advanced position and their default was to drop into midfield rather than act as a striker. When Ramirez came in it was clear his default was as an attacker and it just worked so much better. That's what is needed from a 10, a deep striker, not an advanced midfielder.

I do like McGree but I just don't think he fits in our system. He's not good enough as a 10 to change our formation for. Ideally he can improve the defensive side of things and step back in midfield and we can play 2 strikers again.
Click to expand...
You're not trying to compare a seasoned pro in Ramirez with a novice like McGree surely.

Have a look how many minutes of English football he's played. Ramirez was top flight level, we're not spending like that now.
 
He’s always in the action and he’s always showing for the ball. I agree last night was prob his best game and another night could have had a few more.

I imagine he’s a managers delight.
 
uncle_rico said:
The problem with playing McGree as 10, is that all 4 of our midfielders are on the pitch and we can't bring any fresh legs on. All 4 of Howson, Crooks, Mowatt and McGree were shagged after 60 mins last night and we couldn't do anything about it. We are desperate for reinforcements in midfield. If we get an injury, or when Crooks is suspended in a few weeks after picking up his 5th yellow, we'll be screwed.
Click to expand...
Plus losing McNair we lost that sub option to move things around as well.
 
Billy69_uk said:
Did you notice that , once again, when he was taken off in the second half, we got pushed further and further back into our own box and looked under growing pressure?

Coincidence?

Like I said a few weeks ago, our system and ultimate success lies on McGree and his link up play.
Click to expand...
Give over man. Everything depends on Riley McGree?
Are you serious?
 
Nano said:
He'd perfect in a midfield 3 with 2 holders and one attacker. That would give him 2 strikers ahead of him and means he won't be relied on so heavily for the defensive side of things. We don't play that though. He's not a box to box which is what the 2 either side of Howson need to be. He's not a 10 because his finishing is poor.

The season we got promoted with Karanka we tried a few different players at 10 but they were all midfielders (e.g. Downing) in an advanced position and their default was to drop into midfield rather than act as a striker. When Ramirez came in it was clear his default was as an attacker and it just worked so much better. That's what is needed from a 10, a deep striker, not an advanced midfielder.

I do like McGree but I just don't think he fits in our system. He's not good enough as a 10 to change our formation for. Ideally he can improve the defensive side of things and step back in midfield and we can play 2 strikers again.
Click to expand...
Don't think it'd be that hard to play that system though. Essentially it's a 3-4-1-2 with Jones and Giles as part of the four. Requires those two to bust a gut up and down the flanks, less forward ambition from the central two and an understanding that McGree has to contribute as best he can defensively. Ironically that leaves us even lighter in midfield, but at least then we'd have a proper midfielder on the bench to see the game out. Another point which isn't lost on me at least is that tricky 20 minutes at the end is a lot easier if you're defending more than a one goal lead, which two up top plus McGree might make more likely.

None of this is ideal, but our squad balance isn't so it needs improvisation. Wilder can't really continue to employ his ideal formation when he doesn't have the ideal squad to support it.

And as well as the suggestions people have made about McNair or Dijksteel providing midfield cover, what about Smith as well? Got the necessary aggression to break up play, even if he isn't the most creative.
 
this thread highlights the madness of letting Payero go when we hadn't replaced him. Another good option for the 10 role.

neither Mcgree nor Payero really fit(ed0 into our midfield 3 role, but a good option at 10.

Hopefully Akpom will be fit soon and we can see how him and Muniz gel.

I like what I've seen from Muniz, not afraid to get stuck in but some good skills too, and a cheeky smile when he's won a corner he didn't deserve etc
 
t4tomo said:
this thread highlights the madness of letting Payero go when we hadn't replaced him. Another good option for the 10 role.

neither Mcgree nor Payero really fit(ed0 into our midfield 3 role, but a good option at 10.

Hopefully Akpom will be fit soon and we can see how him and Muniz gel.

I like what I've seen from Muniz, not afraid to get stuck in but some good skills too, and a cheeky smile when he's won a corner he didn't deserve etc
Click to expand...
Has there been a time mentioned of when Akpom is to start teaining
 
Ash88 said:
The only quote I remember is he "won't be available before the international break", which I assume means he'll be available after it.
Click to expand...
Cheers, I thought I read he would be touch & go for Watford & he's still out, must have got that wrong, he'll certainly be welcomed back & hopefully, carries on his good work
 
Erimus74 said:
Cheers, I thought I read he would be touch & go for Watford & he's still out, must have got that wrong, he'll certainly be welcomed back & hopefully, carries on his good work
Click to expand...

"You all understand I have to be a little bit coy at times with injuries, but Chuba is going to be out for four weeks, which is a huge blow for us, and a huge blow for him as well because of his performances this season. That’s four weeks from when the injury happens, so we’re thinking it will be closer to the international break." - CW quote.
 
Ash88 said:
"You all understand I have to be a little bit coy at times with injuries, but Chuba is going to be out for four weeks, which is a huge blow for us, and a huge blow for him as well because of his performances this season. That’s four weeks from when the injury happens, so we’re thinking it will be closer to the international break." - CW quote.
Click to expand...
That'll improve us after the international break, another option & when you think how he started the season he's been a big miss
 
I think he's effective for us as a number 10 for where we are at, he's not flashy but does a lot of work, no coincidence that our best performances this season have been with him playing in that role. As others have said our weakness is the lack of midfield options, rather than upfront this season. Looked so much better defensively with Fry in the centre again too and no coincidence that we get three points when we keep a clean sheet for the first time!
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
You're not trying to compare a seasoned pro in Ramirez with a novice like McGree surely.

Have a look how many minutes of English football he's played. Ramirez was top flight level, we're not spending like that now.
Click to expand...
I'm only comparing him positionally. Obviously Ramirez was a better player but just having a deep striker which is what Ramirez was worked better than having an advanced midfielder which was what Downing was. Downing and Ramirez were similar ability levels so it was suitability for the role that was the difference. McGree is closer to Downing positionally than Ramirez is all.

Chutney said:
Don't think it'd be that hard to play that system though. Essentially it's a 3-4-1-2 with Jones and Giles as part of the four. Requires those two to bust a gut up and down the flanks, less forward ambition from the central two and an understanding that McGree has to contribute as best he can defensively. Ironically that leaves us even lighter in midfield, but at least then we'd have a proper midfielder on the bench to see the game out. Another point which isn't lost on me at least is that tricky 20 minutes at the end is a lot easier if you're defending more than a one goal lead, which two up top plus McGree might make more likely.

None of this is ideal, but our squad balance isn't so it needs improvisation. Wilder can't really continue to employ his ideal formation when he doesn't have the ideal squad to support it.

And as well as the suggestions people have made about McNair or Dijksteel providing midfield cover, what about Smith as well? Got the necessary aggression to break up play, even if he isn't the most creative.
Click to expand...
The whole point of the Wilder system is creating overloads. Getting the RWB, RCB, RCM in a 3 v 2 and still having the opposition CBs occupied with 2 strikers means it creates space. Playing 3412 would be possible but McGree would have to do what Crooks does with Jones on both sides. There's no option to switch the play then either because McGree won't be there on the other side. It could work but if McGree got injured, or was tired, then we have no other option for anyone to replace him so it is risky to build a system around one player.
 
Nano said:
There's no option to switch the play then either because McGree won't be there on the other side.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the flaw when I was considering it. He might be able to do that, but you'd have to release him entirely from defensive responsibility to do it. Dunno why we can't just sneak 11 outfield players on and hope no-one notices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top