No 'individual' players according to Sturrock, true or not?

[Rob1920]

I notice Luggy said in his post match comments that we lost to the better side on Saturday (can't argue with that). However he also said we don't have the individual players who can win games for us, so if we're not firing as a team we're basically stuffed.

I quite like Luggy, but personally I think he's wrong on two levels. Firstly comments like that hardly help players confidence, and secondly I think in the likes of Hall, Mohsni, Sawyer, Grant & maybe young Kane once he gains more confidence, are all capable of producing something out of nothing.

Just wondering what others think, are we a team of Mr Averages at this level or do we have the players who can turn a game?

 

[DTS]

If you compare it to the Tilly promotion winning side which had Gower and Eastwood then I would say he is about on the money.

Grant, Moshni and Hall are all talents I think and probably Sawyer too once he gets in the side but there not up there with the above two players who really for my mind were individuals talents the likes of which are rare at Roots Hall.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Yep, What DtS said about Gower and Eastwood.

Eastwood, at this level at least, could win a game for you on his own. Gower was about the only midfielder we had capable of unlocking a regimented defence with one pass, but Eastwood rarely needed a higher calibre of service. He'd pick the ball up 30 yards out, take it past a defender and arrow a shot into the bottom corner... He really didn't need much coaching at all and that showed when he left. We'd grown so accustomed to just letting Eastwood do what he did that, when we replaced him with other goalscoring forwards who relied on service, we didn't know what to do. We had a conveyor belt of forwards who struggled here, yet went on to better things, purely because we couldn't provide for them.

Mohsni isn't a game winner by any stretch. He's a resolute centre-half who, when in the team, gives you a good chance of picking up a point or three because he's likely to contribute towards a clean sheet. Ferdinand's another who isn't a game winner at all, but he's an integral part of the midfield as he links with the defence and provides an outlet. Grant and Hall both have the potential to contribute massively towards a win, but Hall showed at the weekend that he can't achieve it on his own as he was completely taken out of the game by Gladinson.

That said, football's a team game and teams tend to perform better on average than collections of individuals. Championship defenders knew how to deal with Eastwood, while our defenders had no idea how to deal with Championship forwards.

 

[Mick]

I quite like Luggy, but personally I think he's wrong on two levels. Firstly comments like that hardly help players confidence, and secondly I think in the likes of Hall, Mohsni, Sawyer, Grant & maybe young Kane once he gains more confidence, are all capable of producing something out of nothing.

Kane is a very tidy and industrious player, but is not going to turn a match. In fact he's played a lot of first team football of late and I think a Saturday off and a trip to Anfield on Monday might be a good move.

 

[Shrimpergonzo]

I think Luggy's right - none of the current squad are individual match-winners (in the mould of Collymore, Eastwood and to a lesser extent Gower). However they are a decent squad who when they play well will win more than they lose. I think he's 100% right.

 

[TTS]

I think its quite smart actually. Because if you highlight players that can "win" you games on their day, they can also be pointed at if you dont win. Ie if PS said "Hall is the player that can win us a game", you set the lad up if he has a poor game (which is always possible) and we lose, to feel the burden of that defeat ! Dalglish recently was asked the same question of Steve Clarke, in that, was he to credit for the recent improved defensive performances, Dalglish in the public domain said "no", again, because if Liverpool started leaking goals again, people would then say that it is now Clarkes fault , because he was given the plaudits when it was the other way.

 

[Firestorm]

I think its quite smart actually. Because if you highlight players that can "win" you games on their day, they can also be pointed at if you dont win. Ie if PS said "Hall is the player that can win us a game", you set the lad up if he has a poor game (which is always possible) and we lose, to feel the burden of that defeat !

You also draw more attention to that player and he ends up at the wrong end of a bad tackle, at least if he sneaks under the radar we may get 15 minutes of terrorising the oppostion before he is "neutralised" (Think Mitchell Cole at home to Swansea)

 

[Onion_Bag_Dave]

I think Luggy is about right really, we don't have anyone who constantly does anything special infront of goal, but we do have WINNERS which is a different thing in my opinion.
I would say Grant is capable of winning a game especially earlier on with some of his finishes at the start of the season, and possibly Ryan Hall now aswell who is starting to take the mold of Gower, JCR.
Give it time and we will have some match winners.

 

[Westcliff Shrimper]

Luggy is quite correct - we most certainly do have a "team" both on and off the pitch it seems, but do we have a lack of players who could run the game on their own. Is that a good or a bad thing? Not sure, but add a Collymore, an Eastwood or even a Gower or first-couple-of-seasons Barrett into this team and I think the play-offs would beckon...

This season should be considered a success if we:
a). complete all our fixtures.
b). finish in the top half of the table.
c). start work on the new stadium.

 

[Up the Shrimpers]

Kane is a very tidy and industrious player, but is not going to turn a match. In fact he's played a lot of first team football of late and I think a Saturday off and a trip to Anfield on Monday might be a good move.

But we also play Wycombe on Tuesday. I doubt Ferdinand will be left out of 2 first team matches just so he can play at Anfield. I wonder what he would prefer?

 

[MK Shrimper]

Luggy is quite correct - we most certainly do have a "team" both on and off the pitch it seems, but do we have a lack of players who could run the game on their own. Is that a good or a bad thing? Not sure, but add a Collymore, an Eastwood or even a Gower or first-couple-of-seasons Barrett into this team and I think the play-offs would beckon...

This season should be considered a success if we:
a). complete all our fixtures.
b). finish in the top half of the table.
c). start work on the new stadium.

As Meatloaf said, 2 outta 3 ain't bad...

 

[Mick]

As Meatloaf said, 2 outta 3 ain't bad...

Hmmm ..................... if we do b) then we must have done a).

So that's 1 out of 2.

Sorry. Taking a well supported side with "one of the highest playing budgets" and simply finishing in the top half is not a success.

Okay it might be better than we feared, it might be a relief, but a success? I don't think so. Don't confuse the lack of a complete disaster with success.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Taking a well supported side with "one of the highest playing budgets" and simply finishing in the top half is not a success.

Okay it might be better than we feared, it might be a relief, but a success? I don't think so. Don't confuse the lack of a complete disaster with success.

I guess that depends on your viewpoint, compared to where we were last season and the uncertainty and mass exodus I'd call finishing top half this season a distinct success.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I guess that depends on your viewpoint, compared to where we were last season and the uncertainty and mass exodus I'd call finishing top half this season a distinct success.

Agreed. Not a few weeks ago people were certain the relegation was on the cards. A few wins and it's promotion time. The crazy mixed up world of Southend United.

 

[Mick]

I guess that depends on your viewpoint, compared to where we were last season and the uncertainty and mass exodus I'd call finishing top half this season a distinct success.

Not being dead, but merely being ill, doesn't make you healthy. Finishing 12th is only a success if that's what you are aiming for; so maybe it is after all?

 

[Westcliff Shrimper]

I guess that depends on your viewpoint, compared to where we were last season and the uncertainty and mass exodus I'd call finishing top half this season a distinct success.

Exactly my point...