|
Hudson
Mar 7, 2016 18:34:51 GMT 1
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Mar 7, 2016 18:34:51 GMT 1
The way DW plays you also need pace at the back, yet he seems keen on offering a new contract to the least pacey player in the world! I think you do Cranie a disservice. Hes a good footballer. Comfortable on the ball, even has a trick or two, and has reasonable pace. Im sure if DW played him at right back and instructed him to get forward and put in crosses, then he could do it. I also think Dempsey looked ok in the role, both defensively and going forward considering it was largely new to him. Its down to priorities. If we have enough money then sure, bring in a great right back. But we don't have unlimited funds and IMO we have far more concerning positions to strengthen ahead of right back. We NEED another keeper. We NEED a left back. We NEED two centre backs. We NEED an attacking midfielder ( or two) We NEED a striker ( or two) You are right it is down to priorities and we are relatively well covered at right back. DW has stated that he doesn't want Cranie as a full back although he was very solid there early season. We are in a bit of a pickle with Davidson. Chance for DW to show some ruthlessness over the summer and get him moved on. Suspect he might start tomorrow though!
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 7, 2016 18:38:24 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 7, 2016 18:38:24 GMT 1
I see him as adequate back up to smith at right back. Thought he played really well there early in the season. Davidsons a left back. IMO in the defensive sense, Cranie played a lot better at right back than Davidsons done at left back. A lot better!
Maybe under Powell Cranies instructions were to keep position more and not get forward. Doesn't mean to say he couldn't do that if asked to under Wagner. He looks a reasonable athlete to me.
What you need if your full backs are pushing forward like that is fast centre backs who can cover if the opposition spring an attack. Which makes the idea of giving Hudson a new contract even more bizarre IMO. If theres one player we have who doesn't suit that system of play, its Hudson.
|
|
|
Post by morleyterrier on Mar 7, 2016 18:41:19 GMT 1
The way DW plays you also need pace at the back, yet he seems keen on offering a new contract to the least pacey player in the world! I think you do Cranie a disservice. Hes a good footballer. Comfortable on the ball, even has a trick or two, and has reasonable pace. Im sure if DW played him at right back and instructed him to get forward and put in crosses, then he could do it. I also think Dempsey looked ok in the role, both defensively and going forward considering it was largely new to him. Its down to priorities. If we have enough money then sure, bring in a great right back. But we don't have unlimited funds and IMO we have far more concerning positions to strengthen ahead of right back. We NEED another keeper. We NEED a left back. We NEED two centre backs. We NEED an attacking midfielder ( or two) We NEED a striker ( or two) You are right it is down to priorities and we are relatively well covered at right back. DW has stated that he doesn't want Cranie as a full back although he was very solid there early season. We are in a bit of a pickle with Davidson. Chance for DW to show some ruthlessness over the summer and get him moved on. Suspect he might start tomorrow though! Cranie, I like and he can play in more than one position for us. Davidson, I can't make my mind up, the jury is still out. He doesn't though deserve the shit he gets on here as he has had a couple of MOM performances. You cannot get them at this level of football and be shit.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 7, 2016 18:45:49 GMT 1
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Mar 7, 2016 18:45:49 GMT 1
Davidson has had some shocking games and we can't afford to have full backs who have shocking games. I've made my mind up :-)
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 7, 2016 19:12:31 GMT 1
Post by Sugy , Paignton Devon Terrier on Mar 7, 2016 19:12:31 GMT 1
Wagner will know exactly who he needs to bring in after being given time to assess all the current squad.
Hoyle mentioned recently that their will be money made available to strengthen the squad, but failed to mention how much.
Hoyle also mentioned that he wants to bring in ( quality players ) ,and it seems town have a coach in place who knows quality when he sees it. .
If town want to compete with the top 6 in this division , then surely they will need a far better defence " including keeper " than at present plus a quality strike partner for Wells who knows how to put a ball in the onion bag .
It seems promotion to the premier league will be the only realistic way for Hoyle to get some kind of return on his estimated £41.3 million investment in the club, and it goes without saying that he did not get where he is today by not taking a gamble.
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Mar 7, 2016 19:15:45 GMT 1
I see him as adequate back up to smith at right back. Thought he played really well there early in the season. Davidsons a left back. IMO in the defensive sense, Cranie played a lot better at right back than Davidsons done at left back. A lot better! Maybe under Powell Cranies instructions were to keep position more and not get forward. Doesn't mean to say he couldn't do that if asked to under Wagner. He looks a reasonable athlete to me. What you need if your full backs are pushing forward like that is fast centre backs who can cover if the opposition spring an attack. Which makes the idea of giving Hudson a new contract even more bizarre IMO. If theres one player we have who doesn't suit that system of play, its Hudson. Oh Davidson is a left back, thanks for clarifying that Forget Powell's instructions, just look at the way Cranie plays, his posture, running style, etc. I'd be amazed (but happy to be wrong) to see him bombing down the wing. Would be a decent option when trying to hold on to a lead late on or just the occasional game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 19:19:50 GMT 1
Hudson gets far too much stick on here in my opinion. Stats can lie but this season in league games we average 1.23 points per game when he plays and only 0.88 when he doesn't. Cranie 0.78 when he plays and 1.91 when he doesn't.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 7, 2016 20:14:29 GMT 1
Post by yellowbelly on Mar 7, 2016 20:14:29 GMT 1
Don't forget we have a Welsh under 21 centre back returning to the club at the end of the season. Judging by his success at Accrington he could be the best of our recent crop of under 21 graduate defenders.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 7, 2016 21:02:00 GMT 1
Post by shawsie on Mar 7, 2016 21:02:00 GMT 1
Davidson has had some shocking games and we can't afford to have full backs who have shocking games. I've made my mind up :-) He has.....but I'm not sure he's massively worse than husband whose inability to stop crosses coming in continues to cost us.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 7, 2016 23:21:00 GMT 1
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Mar 7, 2016 23:21:00 GMT 1
Davidson has had some shocking games and we can't afford to have full backs who have shocking games. I've made my mind up :-) He has.....but I'm not sure he's massively worse than husband whose inability to stop crosses coming in continues to cost us. Not sure - defending crosses is a bit of a team thing and I have sympathy with full backs who get caught out 2 v 1 (used to happen to Hunt a lot). Davidson, however, gets beaten one on one too much for me.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 0:29:11 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 8, 2016 0:29:11 GMT 1
Hudson gets far too much stick on here in my opinion. Stats can lie but this season in league games we average 1.23 points per game when he plays and only 0.88 when he doesn't. Cranie 0.78 when he plays and 1.91 when he doesn't. your right then. Stats can lie. Hes only missed 7 league games , so its not really a big enough sample to get an accurate comparison ( might have just been 7 tough games) Best way to judge a player is to watch them. Hudson is really poor.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 7:49:07 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by wtd on Mar 8, 2016 7:49:07 GMT 1
We don't desperately need another right back. Smith has been one of our better players for a while now, and in Cranie we have a ready made replacement whos also a good standard. Left back, then yeah, we need 2. Davidson isn't up to this level. Has the odd good game but too many poor ones to be the answer going forward. Think theres a young kid called Senior coming through who is very highly rated and could fill one of the left back slots. At centre back, letting Wallace go was a mistake IMO. Hes a better player than Hudson. He can run and is better in the air. Wallace had the odd mare but he also had some really good games and at his age, he was only going to improve- Hudson is only going to get even worse. Lynch hardy ever has a poor game anymore. Consistency used to be his main fault, but hes largely solved it now and Cranie is a solid competent and assured looking player. If we need a 'back up' then I find it astonishing that we would choose Hudson to be that ahead of Cranie! But overall i disagree that 'we look so crap in defence' in general. We actually restrict the opposition to relatively few chances. The difference is they take a good proportion of them whereas we don't of ours. Agree with a lot of that, but as much as Cranie may be a better player than Davidson, I don't know how you can see him as a better fullback in our system. He's adequate cover in a conventional 4:4:2, but i just can't see him regularly pushing high upfield the way we play. To some degree, I'm not even sure if what Smith and Davidson are being asked to do is exposing them, as opposed to it always being their error when we perceive they are out of position. The way we play now, the full backs have to be as fit as any player in the team to get up and down the way they need to. If they are not fit enough to play that system, then they are not the full-backs we need.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 8:37:54 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Headless Chicken on Mar 8, 2016 8:37:54 GMT 1
Agree with a lot of that, but as much as Cranie may be a better player than Davidson, I don't know how you can see him as a better fullback in our system. He's adequate cover in a conventional 4:4:2, but i just can't see him regularly pushing high upfield the way we play. To some degree, I'm not even sure if what Smith and Davidson are being asked to do is exposing them, as opposed to it always being their error when we perceive they are out of position. The way we play now, the full backs have to be as fit as any player in the team to get up and down the way they need to. If they are not fit enough to play that system, then they are not the full-backs we need. No matter how fit they are, without teleportation they are going to occasionally have problems getting back when a move breaks down. This touches on athleticism, which is the main reason I can't see Cranie fulfilling the role.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 8:47:07 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Baby Ate My Eight Ball on Mar 8, 2016 8:47:07 GMT 1
Don't forget we have a Welsh under 21 centre back returning to the club at the end of the season. Judging by his success at Accrington he could be the best of our recent crop of under 21 graduate defenders. Has Joe Wright been doing that well at Accrington? Genuine question. According to Wikipedia he's only played 16 games, so about half of their matches.
|
|
|
Post by royrace on Mar 8, 2016 9:01:23 GMT 1
Hudson gets far too much stick on here in my opinion. Stats can lie but this season in league games we average 1.23 points per game when he plays and only 0.88 when he doesn't. Cranie 0.78 when he plays and 1.91 when he doesn't. Those stats tell you all you need to know about our options at centre back and the effectiveness of Hudson. I like Crainie as a player but the fact remains we are MUCH more solid when Hudson plays. He's nowhere near as bad a some on here make out despite his lack of athleticism. I don't remember Bruce and Pallister being very quick but they did ok, there are many other examples. Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 9:06:44 GMT 1
Post by kennyk2 on Mar 8, 2016 9:06:44 GMT 1
Hudson gets far too much stick on here in my opinion. Stats can lie but this season in league games we average 1.23 points per game when he plays and only 0.88 when he doesn't. Cranie 0.78 when he plays and 1.91 when he doesn't. Although I'm quite happy to extend Hudson's contract, this is all a bit meaningless. I think from a statistical point of view this might be thrown out simply because of the "causation and correlation" problem.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 9:31:23 GMT 1
Post by captainblack on Mar 8, 2016 9:31:23 GMT 1
I see him as adequate back up to smith at right back. Thought he played really well there early in the season. Davidsons a left back. IMO in the defensive sense, Cranie played a lot better at right back than Davidsons done at left back. A lot better! Maybe under Powell Cranies instructions were to keep position more and not get forward. Doesn't mean to say he couldn't do that if asked to under Wagner. He looks a reasonable athlete to me. What you need if your full backs are pushing forward like that is fast centre backs who can cover if the opposition spring an attack. Which makes the idea of giving Hudson a new contract even more bizarre IMO. If theres one player we have who doesn't suit that system of play, its Hudson. Oh Davidson is a left back, thanks for clarifying that Forget Powell's instructions, just look at the way Cranie plays, his posture, running style, etc. I'd be amazed (but happy to be wrong) to see him bombing down the wing. Would be a decent option when trying to hold on to a lead late on or just the occasional game. I agree with you on this one Condescending Terrier Cranie does not strike me as a natural right back at all though he has looked reasonably solid when he has had to cover that position . I am sure by now DW knows where he will have to strengthen the squad in the summer . It could be one of the most exiting transfer windows we have had for a while.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 9:38:53 GMT 1
Hudson gets far too much stick on here in my opinion. Stats can lie but this season in league games we average 1.23 points per game when he plays and only 0.88 when he doesn't. Cranie 0.78 when he plays and 1.91 when he doesn't. your right then. Stats can lie. Hes only missed 7 league games , so its not really a big enough sample to get an accurate comparison ( might have just been 7 tough games) Best way to judge a player is to watch them. Hudson is really poor. Don't think you can ignore the 26 matches he has played. That would give us 56 points and be comfortably safe most seasons. Not forgetting Wagner rates Hudson. I trust his judgement above any supporter, including me!
|
|
|
Post by wtd on Mar 8, 2016 10:12:37 GMT 1
The way we play now, the full backs have to be as fit as any player in the team to get up and down the way they need to. If they are not fit enough to play that system, then they are not the full-backs we need. No matter how fit they are, without teleportation they are going to occasionally have problems getting back when a move breaks down. This touches on athleticism, which is the main reason I can't see Cranie fulfilling the role.I'm agreeing with you. We do however play the system where the anchor midfielder can drop in-between the centre backs when both full-backs have pushed on in order to give us protection, adaptability and fluidity... and I'm all for that. Cranie wouldn't be my ideal full-back because he's ostensibly a defender. Smith could be the man, as long as he continues to improve his all-round game. I think getting in the right left-back is more of an immediate concern. Hudson can have twelve months for me,(not 2 years!), but only if we bring in another Lynch-esque centre-back. To go with Hudson as first choice next season would make me question our desire to really push on.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 10:47:07 GMT 1
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Mar 8, 2016 10:47:07 GMT 1
Hudson gets far too much stick on here in my opinion. Stats can lie but this season in league games we average 1.23 points per game when he plays and only 0.88 when he doesn't. Cranie 0.78 when he plays and 1.91 when he doesn't. Hardly impressive when you consider its 3 points for a win. If we are too really to progress, then we need far better than Hudson!
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 10:52:00 GMT 1
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Mar 8, 2016 10:52:00 GMT 1
Don't forget we have a Welsh under 21 centre back returning to the club at the end of the season. Judging by his success at Accrington he could be the best of our recent crop of under 21 graduate defenders. Has Joe Wright been doing that well at Accrington? Genuine question. According to Wikipedia he's only played 16 games, so about half of their matches. He's played 19 league games and has been a regular in recent months and Accrington are in the play off positions so he must have been doing well. He's missed the last couple of games through injury.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 10:58:18 GMT 1
Hudson gets far too much stick on here in my opinion. Stats can lie but this season in league games we average 1.23 points per game when he plays and only 0.88 when he doesn't. Cranie 0.78 when he plays and 1.91 when he doesn't. Hardly impressive when you consider its 3 points for a win. If we are too really to progress, then we need far better than Hudson! But it is better with him than without. Without 40 points and down. I know stats can be taken with a pinch of salt. Just ask yourself why does Wagner rate him, and Powell before that? They see/saw him day in day out (well Powell maybe three times a week). This season we go with what we have with the aim to stay up. Next season is a different matter. It would be disappointing if we haven't got a partner for Lynch already lined up. And a fully fit Lynch over next season is vital if we are to do well. Personally I would give him a twelve month contract and use him to fit in for injuries and suspensions.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 10:59:10 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 8, 2016 10:59:10 GMT 1
your right then. Stats can lie. Hes only missed 7 league games , so its not really a big enough sample to get an accurate comparison ( might have just been 7 tough games) Best way to judge a player is to watch them. Hudson is really poor. Don't think you can ignore the 26 matches he has played. That would give us 56 points and be comfortably safe most seasons. Not forgetting Wagner rates Hudson. I trust his judgement above any supporter, including me! I trust him too. Doesn't mean I agree with everything he does though. Think hes making a mistake with Hudson. I don't really care what stats say- all I see is an obvious weak link. A liability most games. We're lucky we have a CB as good as Lynch to carry him. I don't see his off field effect and he might be a great leader and character to have around - maybe Wagner sees that as being worth a new deal? But as a player? No, hes gone physically. Pallister and bruce weren't quick but they were Usain Bolt compared to Hudson. And both could get their feet off the ground when they jump!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 11:46:06 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 11:46:06 GMT 1
Don't think you can ignore the 26 matches he has played. That would give us 56 points and be comfortably safe most seasons. Not forgetting Wagner rates Hudson. I trust his judgement above any supporter, including me! I trust him too. Doesn't mean I agree with everything he does though. Think hes making a mistake with Hudson. I don't really care what stats say- all I see is an obvious weak link. A liability most games. We're lucky we have a CB as good as Lynch to carry him. I don't see his off field effect and he might be a great leader and character to have around - maybe Wagner sees that as being worth a new deal? But as a player? No, hes gone physically. Pallister and bruce weren't quick but they were Usain Bolt compared to Hudson. And both could get their feet off the ground when they jump! Don't think we will ever agree on this one Captain. Wagner will not be picking Hudson because he is a good lad to have in the dressing room. He will review games time after time on DVD. He will discuss selection with his staff. OPTA will show exactly distances covered, speeds, passing accuracy and much more. If the figures didn't stack up he would be left out. Last stat from me for a while: With Cranie 23 games we average 0.88 per match. Without Cranie 11 games we average 1.91 per match.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 11:47:20 GMT 1
Post by Torquayterrier on Mar 8, 2016 11:47:20 GMT 1
Hudson looked to have one of his poorer games in recent times at Derby and Lynch was missing, maybe no coincidence.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 11:59:51 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 8, 2016 11:59:51 GMT 1
I trust him too. Doesn't mean I agree with everything he does though. Think hes making a mistake with Hudson. I don't really care what stats say- all I see is an obvious weak link. A liability most games. We're lucky we have a CB as good as Lynch to carry him. I don't see his off field effect and he might be a great leader and character to have around - maybe Wagner sees that as being worth a new deal? But as a player? No, hes gone physically. Pallister and bruce weren't quick but they were Usain Bolt compared to Hudson. And both could get their feet off the ground when they jump! Don't think we will ever agree on this one Captain. Wagner will not be picking Hudson because he is a good lad to have in the dressing room. He will review games time after time on DVD. He will discuss selection with his staff. OPTA will show exactly distances covered, speeds, passing accuracy and much more. If the figures didn't stack up he would be left out.Last stat from me for a while: With Cranie 23 games we average 0.88 per match. Without Cranie 11 games we average 1.91 per match. I have no idea why Wagner keeps picking Hudson. It would concern me if a manager went on stats and figures over what is plain to see from just watching the games. If the opta stats claim Hudson is positive on any aspect of the game- speed, distance, passing, heading... Id question their worth. Aren't those figures more a case of how we do without Lynch- because those are mainly the games where Cranie has played? I rate Cranie but he isn't as good as Lynch and in particular he isn't able to bale out Hudson in the same way Lynch does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 12:14:10 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 12:14:10 GMT 1
Hudson looked to have one of his poorer games in recent times at Derby and Lynch was missing, maybe no coincidence. Lynch carries Hudson. He's better in the air than him, quicker and a better footballer. One thing I will give credit to Hudson for is the way the Lynch has improved, that experience seems to have rubbed off on Lynch.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 13:07:16 GMT 1
Post by Elioud on Mar 8, 2016 13:07:16 GMT 1
We don't desperately need another right back. Smith has been one of our better players for a while now, and in Cranie we have a ready made replacement whos also a good standard. Left back, then yeah, we need 2. Davidson isn't up to this level. Has the odd good game but too many poor ones to be the answer going forward. Think theres a young kid called Senior coming through who is very highly rated and could fill one of the left back slots. At centre back, letting Wallace go was a mistake IMO. Hes a better player than Hudson. He can run and is better in the air. Wallace had the odd mare but he also had some really good games and at his age, he was only going to improve- Hudson is only going to get even worse. Lynch hardy ever has a poor game anymore. Consistency used to be his main fault, but hes largely solved it now and Cranie is a solid competent and assured looking player. If we need a 'back up' then I find it astonishing that we would choose Hudson to be that ahead of Cranie! But overall i disagree that 'we look so crap in defence' in general. We actually restrict the opposition to relatively few chances. The difference is they take a good proportion of them whereas we don't of ours. What if Smith breaks down and is out for 3 months next season, no emergency loan window anymore! We need two players in every position and it's a season too soon for Hanson after viewing him in person. Dempsey has looked iffy there too, plus whilst Smith has done OK and has improved a lot over the last 4 months - he's not ideally suited to the way Wagner plays, as your full backs are hugely vital in attacking play. Smith is a limited full back. As for Wallace, he wasn't good enough and I doubt he'll ever be a Championship player - DW wouldn't have let him go if he had rated him. In fact one of the few that did was Ross Wilson, who loved his work ethic. He was still a poor Championship defender. We'll need 4 signings in defence this summer. Keeping Hudson on for another 12 months will probably be much cheaper than going out and trying to find or sign someone willing to be 2nd/3rd/4th choice.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Mar 8, 2016 15:45:24 GMT 1
Don't think we will ever agree on this one Captain. Wagner will not be picking Hudson because he is a good lad to have in the dressing room. He will review games time after time on DVD. He will discuss selection with his staff. OPTA will show exactly distances covered, speeds, passing accuracy and much more. If the figures didn't stack up he would be left out.Last stat from me for a while: With Cranie 23 games we average 0.88 per match. Without Cranie 11 games we average 1.91 per match. I have no idea why Wagner keeps picking Hudson. It would concern me if a manager went on stats and figures over what is plain to see from just watching the games. If the opta stats claim Hudson is positive on any aspect of the game- speed, distance, passing, heading... Id question their worth. Aren't those figures more a case of how we do without Lynch- because those are mainly the games where Cranie has played? I rate Cranie but he isn't as good as Lynch and in particular he isn't able to bale out Hudson in the same way Lynch does. Firstly can I say that I agree that I wouldn't renew Hudson's contract But I would respectfully suggest that YOUR views on Hudson's are slightly skewed though, earlier in this thread you stated that Hudson is the slowest professional footballer you have ever seen and I believe we have both watched Town for about the same length of time and whilst he clearly isn't the quickest he is far from the slowest too. You have banged this drum about Hudson for some time, initially I think everyone expected Hudson to have a greater impact than he had, myself included, I thought at first your view was one that meant one to your favourites in Gerrard could get back into the team and then you had that definition of an 'aerial challenge' debate to try and defend your argument. You have also stated on this thread that Hudson is really poor, an obvious weak link and a liability in most games. I disagree and put to you that in the two recent games when Hudson was suspended (Cardiff and Preston) we scored 3 goals but conceded 5 goals and thus got no points, in his first 2 games back (Forest and Wolves) he was very good and Town scored the same 3 goals but this time conceded none and got the maximum 6 points rather than the minimum of 0. These might be the sort of things Wagner sees. Wagner came to the club with fresh eyes and no preconceptions and Hudson has started every game that he has been available for in that time, this to me is very telling. Some more stats for you If what you say about Hudson is true, how come... In his 28 league games this season, we have conceded 35 goals at a rate of 1.25 goals per game with 8 clean sheets or 1 every 3.5 games. In the 7 leagues he has missed, we have conceded 13 goals at a rate of 1.89 goals per game with NO clean sheets. The same was true last season... In the 7 games before he signed we conceded 18 goals at a rate of 2.57 goals per game again with no clean sheets. In the 42 games after (Hudson started them all) we conceded 63 goals at a rate of 1.50 goals per game with 10 clean sheets or 1 every 4.2 games. It may be the case that someone's bias against a said player might, just might influence what their eyes 'choose' to see.
|
|
|
Hudson
Mar 8, 2016 16:03:21 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 8, 2016 16:03:21 GMT 1
stats stats stats doc. If you were able to actually watch the games you wouldn't rely on them the way you do IMO. Ive no idea how anyone can watch Hudson and think he is anything but a liability most games.
Hudson is indeed the slowest player Ive ever seen. I genuinely can't think of another one whos been slower or less mobile and that includes Boothy is his last throws when he couldn't bend his knees! Its actually embarrassing how slow he is.. how he can't jump off the floor without a big run up.. how it takes him an age to turn around.
Id be amazed if targeting him isn't a major part of every opposition side we plays tactics. On the floor, in the air... Hes one short of being the most booked player in the division and every one of them is the same- the ref finally loses patience with him rugby tackling his opponent to the floor after hes been spun for the umpteenth time.
the only positives I can think of about this player is that he probably has a good effect off the pitch with his attitude and that Lynch has had to up his game to new levels to carry him, and weve ended up with one of the best CBs in the championship as a result.
|
|