Chery discussion

[lymehoop]

Would rather have a traffic cone in number ten role over Chery

fair play Westie, you sussed it yonks ago

[1973 ranger]

Indeed.

[norfolk ranger]

Don't think Holloway has the balls to drop chery,all you hear from him is how good he can be....any #### can look good against our shower of shite in training. Some of our poor little poppets need telling from the manager in the public domain that they ain't performing...if they don't like it they can gladly fck off as wouldn't be missed.

[nasser95]

Really don't see it mate. Couple of flashy moves a player doesn't make. Still waiting for him to dominate a game. Flits in and out of games, doesn't score or assist (much). Makes a few tackles but is that the point of him? Midfield of him and Hall will create zilch.

And as for Yeni? Wtf is he all about?

I feel like everyone seems to keep thinking Mass is a different sort of player to what he actually is. He wins the ball, plays it to someone else who's job it is to be more creative. Or he wins the ball, runs with it into the final third and plays it to someone else. He's not an assist magnet, he's not a goalscorer, he's a ball winner and a ball player and he's a really good one. He runs around and covers massive ground to win the ball back and plays it to people in front of him. You say you're waiting for him to dominate a game, but notice how when Luongo has a great game, the rest of the team performs. Obviously everyone looks for scapegoats when things aren't going well and they look to blame anything associated with the club, but at this point, it should be clear that Luongo isn't in any way the problem...
Chery deserves criticism because he was actually poor, same as a few others (Although I find it fittingly ludicrous that there are still people who don't see how bad Washington actually is as a finisher, yet will go out criticising Mass et al). There's a crippling lack of pace at the club and that's the simple issue, When we get fast full backs, we'll see improvements guaranteed. Right now, our full backs have the physical traits of a lumbering Centre Half and a tom Caroll-esque centre mid and those don't go well with full back roles.

[1973 ranger]

Nas our strikers would get better service in a travelodge.

[Bill]

Nas our strikers would get better service in a travelodge.

and yet you expect the manager to put this right in six games

[nasser95]

Nas our strikers would get better service in a travelodge.

I agree, but people thinking that's Luongo's job when you can see by watching him it isn't. Chery has been poor, hence the lack of service, criticising chery is absolutely warranted because ultimately, he's the creative hook that Luongo releases the ball to and then he plays it to the strikers or wingers. He's not doing that so we aren't creative. But that shouldn't be something the players behind him get criticism. Today for example, Luongo made more successful tackles (4) than anyone on the pitch, made 1 successful dribble (no one else made more), only Perch had more touches of the ball than him (75 touches) and no one on the pitch played more successful passes than him. Oh, and passes targetted into the final third? Well... only Chery played more successful ones than him on the pitch today (19).

So he's doing his job.. it's just that the players in front of him aren't doing a good enough job. Today for example, Chery only made one key pass, which is pi5 5 poor, made one successful dribble out of only 2 attempted, which is again, poor for a creative hook. There's not much players like Hall and Luongo can do if the guy they're supposed to give the ball to in order to produce some magic, isn't capable of doing that.

And going 442 won't fix that, because our strikers don't know how to create anything for themselves and are reliant on creativity behind them, hence why they've not scored when Chery's been so poor.

[Bill]

He was s hit last season and s hit this one. We slated Ramsey but give him credit he hardly played him he could see he was lightweight

and yet you expect Ih to pu it right in six games

[1973 ranger]

Bill that is why he is paid to work out how to improve the players and get the best out of them. The fact he has won 1 game and scored 3 in 6 is not anyone elses issue but Ollies.

[Bill]

It was not that long ago some posters were saying he was our best player and yet now he is crap and in my eyes always has
been.

Totally overrated like a lot of the other crap Ferdinand has brought in

[1973 ranger]

Bill I have never rated the bloke and can go way back with that opinion so never our best player. The managers job is to get the best out of what he has and pounts and goals scored says Ollie is failing on both fronts.

[nasser95]

It was not that long ago some posters were saying he was our best player and yet now he is crap and in my eyes always has
been.

Totally overrated like a lot of the other crap Ferdinand has brought in

My personal thoughts are that being a number 10 is something no one would want to be at QPR if they just read this forum. Every number 10 that comes here is gonna be compared to Adel that one season or to Stan Bowles. They've got no chance with a fanbase that is willing to turn on everyone faster than anything I've ever seen.

[West Acton]

and yet you expect Ih to pu it right in six games

You make my point!!!! Yet Holloway continues to select him although he offers nothing. Is that not the managers choice and therefore his fault or am i missing something??

[Bill]

My personal thoughts are that being a number 10 is something no one would want to be at QPR if they just read this forum. Every number 10 that comes here is gonna be compared to Adel that one season or to Stan Bowles. They've got no chance with a fanbase that is willing to turn on everyone faster than anything I've ever seen.

Very True

[West Acton]

It was not that long ago some posters were saying he was our best player and yet now he is crap and in my eyes always has
been.

Totally overrated like a lot of the other crap Ferdinand has brought in

Not me I outted him last season but I was told I was wrong