Gylfi or Zurab, but not both???

[buzzbee]

Simple question - If you had the choice of which of these two you would like in the team, but you could not have both, which one would you have?

I would have Gylfi, purely because I think we need his goals. We don't have any really potent goal threats. We have guys like Long and Kebe who have been playing well and offer other things up front, but they don't score a great deal.

Zurab is a very welcome signing, but I don't think that what he offers over Pearce is quite as much as what we lose up front with Gylfi going.

Discuss...

[LoyalRoyal22]

I cant believe you are seriously asking that question

[Row Z Royal]

Zurab. Ask this a week ago and I'd have said the same, regardless of today's movements. It's where the greater need is in the team.

We need to build from the back and Zurab's the way to do that. Goals will come as confidence grows. We'll be fine.

[LoyalRoyal22]

Zurab. Ask this a week ago and I'd have said the same, regardless of today's movements. It's where the greater need is in the team.

We need to build from the back and Zurab's the way to do that. Goals will come as confidence grows. We'll be fine.

[facaldaqui]

That's a terrible question. Of course Gylfi's more precious; but he's gone and Khiz is one of us. It's not a fair choice. I think we'd have got Khiz today whether Gylfi went or not. The lack of defenders was gruesomely obvious.

[URZZ]

Gylfi.

Simples *squeek*

[loyalroyal4life]

easiest question ever posted on here???

GYLFI

[Handsome Man]

Zurab. Ask this a week ago and I'd have said the same, regardless of today's movements. It's where the greater need is in the team.

We need to build from the back and Zurab's the way to do that. Goals will come as confidence grows. We'll be fine.

I don't agree, but I see what you are saying. We have lots of exciting attackers, but no defensive cover.

Gyfi was special though - look at his goal v Leicester again

[Row Z Royal]

Zurab. Ask this a week ago and I'd have said the same, regardless of today's movements. It's where the greater need is in the team.

We need to build from the back and Zurab's the way to do that. Goals will come as confidence grows. We'll be fine.

I don't agree, but I see what you are saying. We have lots of exciting attackers, but no defensive cover.

Gyfi was special though - look at his goal v Leicester again

What, that tap in?




Anyway, at least I'm consistent

Suddenly we're chasing every striker imaginable when quite obviously the priority is a central defender, therefore this more crap from another media outlet.

If sig leaves we'll be playing 4-4-2

We only have Church, LoLong (couldn't hit a barn door), Hunt and Taylor(who keeps being played out of position).

Priority is now a striker.

Defender > striker

Church and Long are adequate Championship strikers. Is Pearce adequate at this level?

[buzzbee]

I just thought I would re-visit this thread and see what people thought about it. Clearly at the time, the majority opinion was that Gylfi was more valuable, but we’ve kinda done alright since he went.

It makes interesting reading IMHO

[NR_Royal]

Gylfi <3

[Row Z Royal]

+1 for the consistency again.

I thought this was a new thread about next season when I loaded up the main page and immediately went for Zurab again.



The fact that I was singing his name to myself in the lift just now is completely unrelated.

[weybridgewanderer]

Gylfi may have been our best player, but with him we were often a one man team

Without him I think we are much more of a team

[Snowball]

Gylfi may have been our best player, but with him we were often a one man team

Without him I think we are much more of a team

AMEN to that.

Gylfi was a fantastic player, but without him, since he left, we got 72 points from 42 games, (equiv of a 79-point season)
playing "couldn't hit a barn door" Shane Long up front of a solid defence.

When you consider that we were floundering round trying to find a new system/team
to play without Gylfi, that "79 points" is even more remarkable.

Had we lost Gylfi before the season, signed Harte, Griffin, Zurab and L-Wood, I believe
we would have been champions. Our form since L-wood joined is easily the best in the league.

[Terminal Boardom]

Gylfi may have been our best player, but with him we were often a one man team

Without him I think we are much more of a team

AMEN to that.

Gylfi was a fantastic player, but without him, since he left, we got 72 points from 42 games, (equiv of a 79-point season)
playing "couldn't hit a barn door" Shane Long up front of a solid defence.

When you consider that we were floundering round trying to find a new system/team
to play without Gylfi, that "79 points" is even more remarkable.

Had we lost Gylfi before the season, signed Harte, Griffin, Zurab and L-Wood, I believe
we would have been champions. Our form since L-wood joined is easily the best in the league.

Your second and third points are probably the best that you have posted. Your third comment endorses my opinion of Liegertwood. Since he has come into the team there has been an incredible turnaround in form and results.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Always impossible to say, Man Utd sold Ronaldo and Tevez, yet despite how good they are they still perform as a team. I believe had Siggy stayed we would still have made the play-offs, McD knew this squad inside out, and who he wanted to bring in. No one else wanted Kish, so no reason to believe he would not have come in, and it speaks volumes that Warnock let Leig come to us.

We invested some of the Siggy money in wages, not fees, sensible or what.

[Cookie]

This is the most no-brainer of a poll we've ever had.

[brendywendy]

kish would be more important to our premiere league survival imo