by Snowball »
06 Jan 2011 21:54
andrew1957 Ian Royal i've watched 5 of his performances thanks. His first against Leeds he was a passenger. Hull he was really poor and we probably deserved to lose, not that Hull were especially good. Derby were desperately unlucky not to score a hatful, although we could have had plenty... not a good sign for a defensive midfielder. He was ok against Coventry, and good against Bristol.
I've seen plenty in those games to make me worry about whether a team with good attackers who can finish would give us a real hard time.
He was superb against Burnley. He is not a DCM anyway. By box to box it means that he both gets back to support the defence and gets forward to support the attack. Yes that can leave you a bit open at the back but that is always going to be the case with 4-4-2. It is the defenders who have to take the main responsibility for defending.
Correct Andrew
442 will always concede more goals but it usually means you score more.
It's difficult for some, but hello, three midfielders instead of two, see, it's easier to block runs, easier to win the ball and go forward.
If we lose Elwood we will almost certainly not make the top six. And YES, his acquisition is more crucial than a striker (but if we get a number 1-2 striker and keep Elwood, then the future is bright)
IMO Elwood looked very promising in his first game, just a bit unfit match-wise. In every other game he's been better except at Hull where he did good and bad (but turned out to be injured). But nhey, just because he's undefeated W3 D3 and has released the forwards to score 7 goals in 6, and just because the manager rates him and wants to buy him, that fades to nothing against an amateur's opinion or two.