Conor Washington

[nasser95]

I agree. All the stats in the workd are no use if they aee used to measure different types of players.

Playing a lone striker role is probably not suited to CW, especially if the team is not playing through balls for him to get on to. Having said that, how many one on ones has CW missed?
It is pointless keeping him if JFH will not change formations or tactics that would suit him.

I agree, I think comparing their performances is futile in general because of how different they are. With that being said, if a striker is having shots, then we can look at that. I've got it here, CW had a shot a game inside the box this season and 0.7 last season; Seb had 1.3 this season and 0.8 last season. Not too far off each other really, especially considering how CW played half match time of Seb. But taking all these shots and not scoring is what's limiting him, especially since quite a few have been one on one opportunities.

And I agree on the last point, I think buying players like Seb, Sylla, etc makes more sense for us as they've got the pace and aerial threat that they can adapt to all styles much more easily. I hope that if we do sell CW, he goes somewhere that they'll play to his strengths without limiting the rest of the team.

[qprjeff1882]

I agree. All the stats in the workd are no use if they aee used to measure different types of players.

Playing a lone striker role is probably not suited to CW, especially if the team is not playing through balls for him to get on to. Having said that, how many one on ones has CW missed?
It is pointless keeping him if JFH will not change formations or tactics that would suit him.

I agree with this. They see him everyday in training so can see what he is better at and what he struggles with. Sometimes it's better to go with what a player is good at rather than buying a player and spending ages trying to convert him into a different type of player. If he thrives in training by playing off a big man and is scoring goals and looks a great threat then you change your matchday formation to accommodate two up top. If we are not going to play to players strengths then they may as weel be elsewhere. You never saw managers play Michael Owen or Robbie Fowler in a 1 up top. They always had a strike partner and thrived because of it. Conor in a way is similar to those as he seems to play off the defenders shoulder.

[stanistheman]

I agree with this. They see him everyday in training so can see what he is better at and what he struggles with. Sometimes it's better to go with what a player is good at rather than buying a player and spending ages trying to convert him into a different type of player. If he thrives in training by playing off a big man and is scoring goals and looks a great threat then you change your matchday formation to accommodate two up top. If we are not going to play to players strengths then they may as weel be elsewhere. You never saw managers play Michael Owen or Robbie Fowler in a 1 up top. They always had a strike partner and thrived because of it. Conor in a way is similar to those as he seems to play off the defenders shoulder.

I can't argue with your points.
I find it strange that QPR bought Polter Washington Ngaboto and Sylla yet JFH wants to play with just one striker. Sylla is good in the air, as is Polter, but QPR do not put crosses into the box for Polter and probably won't for Sylla (Unless the formation is changed). Washington's strengths appear to be pace and possibly shooting (could improve if his confidence does) but he will need a striker alongside him for this to happen.

The big issue here is a change in formation to suit the players above and the likes of Chery Sodipo El Khayati and the central midfielders.
Players thrive when playing in a team that plays them in their favoured positions and a suitable style.

Square pegs in round holes tactics doesn't produce good results.

[nasser95]

I can't argue with your points.
I find it strange that QPR bought Polter Washington Ngaboto and Sylla yet JFH wants to play with just one striker. Sylla is good in the air, as is Polter, but QPR do not put crosses into the box for Polter and probably won't for Sylla (Unless the formation is changed). Washington's strengths appear to be pace and possibly shooting (could improve if his confidence does) but he will need a striker alongside him for this to happen.

The big issue here is a change in formation to suit the players above and the likes of Chery Sodipo El Khayati and the central midfielders.
Players thrive when playing in a team that plays them in their favoured positions and a suitable style.

Square pegs in round holes tactics doesn't produce good results.

Of course this is true, the issue is changing the formation is difficult with us, especially if we're trying to accommodate cw. Play 2 up top? It's either going to be a 442, 4312 or 352 of sorts. First one, we lose chery, second one we lose wingers, third one we need wingers who will run non stop, it would be my preferred formation but it's really difficult to get right. We have to play to our strengths and right now, our biggest strength in attack is chery

[West Acton]

Starting so he's got his chance hope he takes it and nails a hat trick

[uptheR's]

Of course this is true, the issue is changing the formation is difficult with us, especially if we're trying to accommodate cw. Play 2 up top? It's either going to be a 442, 4312 or 352 of sorts. First one, we lose chery, second one we lose wingers, third one we need wingers who will run non stop, it would be my preferred formation but it's really difficult to get right. We have to play to our strengths and right now, our biggest strength in attack is chery

Now that I actually kind of agree with, but at home against Blackburn surely we could have sacrificed Henry in order to play 2 up front from the start. Are Blackburn that much of an attacking force that we needed someone sitting in front of the defence. Against better opposition I do agree it's difficult to accommodate 2 up front

[nasser95]

Now that I actually kind of agree with, but at home against Blackburn surely we could have sacrificed Henry in order to play 2 up front from the start. Are Blackburn that much of an attacking force that we needed someone sitting in front of the defence. Against better opposition I do agree it's difficult to accommodate 2 up front

But then you have a team that need a result who see a gap in our midfield. Cheryis attacking and cousins doesn't have the composure to play the ball calmly yet. If Blackburn saw that we were light in the middle, the first place they're gonna flood is the midfield. Force us to play even more hoofing football.

[uptheR's]

But we shouldn't be worrying about what the team bottom of the league may or may not try to do, we should have picked an attacking side and had a go at them. Newcastle is a different story, but Blackburn, come on

[stanistheman]

But then you have a team that need a result who see a gap in our midfield. Cheryis attacking and cousins doesn't have the composure to play the ball calmly yet. If Blackburn saw that we were light in the middle, the first place they're gonna flood is the midfield. Force us to play even more hoofing football.

Possibly, but should QPR really be worrying about the opposotion for every match? Blackburn are not a good side and QPR should have attacked them from the kick off.

Of course this is true, the issue is changing the formation is difficult with us, especially if we're trying to accommodate cw. Play 2 up top? It's either going to be a 442, 4312 or 352 of sorts. First one, we lose chery, second one we lose wingers, third one we need wingers who will run non stop, it would be my preferred formation but it's really difficult to get right. We have to play to our strengths and right now, our biggest strength in attack is chery

Points, but the team selection should be made with the opposition in mind.
This would also give players a much needed rest.

But we shouldn't be worrying about what the team bottom of the league may or may not try to do, we should have picked an attacking side and had a go at them. Newcastle is a different story, but Blackburn, come on

Agreed.

[nanocopic]

I don't really see why we have one set formation, surely should depend who we.are playing. At least two that can be used. We don't have the players.to probably just beat every team playing our way so we.need to also be tactical.

[stanistheman]

I don't really see why we have one set formation, surely should depend who we.are playing. At least two that can be used. We don't have the players.to probably just beat every team playing our way so we.need to also be tactical.

True, but I guess JFH is too rigid with his tactics amd formations, and of course, Henry has to start every game.

[Jimmy Floyd Rabbit]

Conor Washington

Well. Many of us asked for him to be given a run in the team. A fair one.

Seems he's had that if I'm not mistaken??

Just not doing it is he? How much did we pay?

[MYU]

To be fair he is not a lone striker, wrong role he's been given.

[Jimmy Floyd Rabbit]

I agree. Makes him look even worse though when a sub comes on and scores after 6 minutes.

How many league goals he got? 0 or I could be wrong, but don't remember him scoring.

[72bus]

he got a tap in