|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 21:53:15 GMT
Charlie Adam used to boss games at Blackpool in the PL, scoring plenty of goals to boot. I've no idea if he still has it in him to reproduce that form, but the sad thing is, at Stoke, he'll never be given the chance. It begs the increasingly common question of why the hell was he brought in the first place? As usual, it all comes back to the manager. He bossed the second half at Wigan on his debut. Then the manager got him on the Training Ground.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 21:56:02 GMT
ok, he might be creative but you need to be able to run, not be usian bolt but at least mobile. tackle/block to win control of the ball. how he made it to the wing to put these crosses in ill never know you cant just have someone in the middle of the pitch smashing big balls around and doing nothing else. charlie adams stats when he has played suggest that he is one of our quickest players and covers a lot of ground, behind only the likes of walters and whatever winger is playing. he is good at getting up and down the pitch and is good at passing,crossing and shooting there are a lot of misconceptions about adam because he has looked out of place in the position tp has used him in Well said,all this bollocks about Adam being unfit and not being able to run is just that....bollocks. The lengths that some will go to to defend Pulis' crazy decision of playing him as a second striker never ceases to amaze me. They even trot out the he can't tackle bollocks as well,when we have the midfield maestro Glenn Whelan with his bone crunching well timed tackles ??? Stoke fans have been that starved of any creativity in the middle of the park under Pulis that a lot of them are shit scared to even imagine having one in there.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Jan 28, 2013 22:07:39 GMT
Pugsley ;D Mata plays much higher up the pitch and is 100000000x the player Adam is. Mark: Shawcross' job is to tackle, run, head and block. Unfortunately Adam's whole career hinges on his ability to pass and nothing else most other players in the squad have more than one aspect to their game. Alster that's asking a hell of a lot of the more rounded Whelan and is wasting the far superior N'Zonzi who shits all over Adam Its basically requiring N'zonzi and Whelan to do more or less what they do now but giving them a much closer outlet ball with a better eye for a killer ball should there be one available, which there should be much more often with a front three. Trouble is you need competent full backs or wide defenders who can cope without being constantly chaperoned by a winger largely ignoring his attacking role.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jan 28, 2013 22:34:10 GMT
Charlie Adam used to boss games at Blackpool in the PL, scoring plenty of goals to boot. I've no idea if he still has it in him to reproduce that form, but the sad thing is, at Stoke, he'll never be given the chance. It begs the increasingly common question of why the hell was he brought in the first place? As usual, it all comes back to the manager. Yes, but he didn't do that playing in a midfield two or playing behind the two main midfielders. In fact, the only time he's done the former was at Liverpool and he was laughably bad. He's only good if he's got two hard working midfielders behind him, every single thing goes through him (rather than to the full-backs to ping at the target man) and he's got attacking options swarming forwards all the time. Even then, I'm not convinced he's got it in him to go for anything like a full 90 minutes. When he does play, we seem to have a good opening 25 minute spell where he's involved in everything and then after that we really drop off.
|
|
|
Post by watcher on Jan 28, 2013 22:37:56 GMT
Charlie Adam used to boss games at Blackpool in the PL, scoring plenty of goals to boot. I've no idea if he still has it in him to reproduce that form, but the sad thing is, at Stoke, he'll never be given the chance. It begs the increasingly common question of why the hell was he brought in the first place? As usual, it all comes back to the manager. Yes, but he didn't do that playing in a midfield two or playing behind the two main midfielders. In fact, the only time he's done the former was at Liverpool and he was laughably bad. He's only good if he's got two hard working midfielders behind him, every single thing goes through him (rather than to the full-backs to ping at the target man) and he's got attacking options swarming forwards all the time. Even then, I'm not convinced he's got it in him to go for anything like a full 90 minutes. When he does play, we seem to have a good opening 25 minute spell where he's involved in everything and then after that we really drop off.[/quote So thats adam and palacios incapable of a full 90 mins? £11 miliion quids worth right there
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jan 28, 2013 22:40:31 GMT
Charlie Adam used to boss games at Blackpool in the PL, scoring plenty of goals to boot. I've no idea if he still has it in him to reproduce that form, but the sad thing is, at Stoke, he'll never be given the chance. It begs the increasingly common question of why the hell was he brought in the first place? As usual, it all comes back to the manager. Yes, but he didn't do that playing in a midfield two or playing behind the two main midfielders. In fact, the only time he's done the former was at Liverpool and he was laughably bad. He's only good if he's got two hard working midfielders behind him, every single thing goes through him (rather than to the full-backs to ping at the target man) and he's got attacking options swarming forwards all the time. Even then, I'm not convinced he's got it in him to go for anything like a full 90 minutes. When he does play, we seem to have a good opening 25 minute spell where he's involved in everything and then after that we really drop off.[/quote So thats adam and palacios incapable of a full 90 mins? £11 miliion quids worth right there Yep.
|
|