FlippinEck 3,717 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 The only time he and we looked dangerous is when we played the ball on the deck but we just werent doing that enough, the only time boyd won headers was at throw ins and he won a few of them and any other time he was outjumped or fouled, punting the ball up aimlessly not even anywhere near boyd and expecting him to beat two big brutes when nacho novo showed there are other ways of beating these donkeys was just stupid, and to RELY on that for so long when we were crying out to finally try lafferty upfront, just made us look stupid and desperate, boyd has proved if he gets the right service he can score but we have 3 centrebacks playing across the back 4 and 3(maybe even 4) centre mids playing across midfield and its starting to show. we have the quality in there but we need to get players in the right positions to give us a better end product Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I agree in some ways but i think Lafferty should have been brought on for Novo rather than Headless. Boyd certainly had a bad game thats for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfc_no1fan 13 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Should he have even started? If Naismith and Lafferty were fully fit, wouldnt they be ideal for these games? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,717 Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 Should he have even started? If Naismith and Lafferty were fully fit, wouldnt they be ideal for these games? Lafferty has just come back from injury and naismith is still getting back into the shift of things, maybe a bit too early and boyd is a proven scorer versus dundee UTD, Lafferty did well to come on against a tiring team right enough to score after missing that sitter we had good spells where all players played well then the final ball let us down, pretty much sums us up a lot, especially when we have no consistant crosser into the box Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Should he have even started? If Naismith and Lafferty were fully fit, wouldnt they be ideal for these games? Yes and i'd start him the next game as well. No point dropping him after one bad game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersendal 0 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 He needs to take a long hard look at his performance today, really was poor offered nothing. When lafferty came on the whole team looked more urgent and enthusiastic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfc_no1fan 13 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Should he have even started? If Naismith and Lafferty were fully fit, wouldnt they be ideal for these games? Yes and i'd start him the next game as well. No point dropping him after one bad game. It's not just 1 bad game though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,717 Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 He needs to take a long hard look at his performance today, really was poor offered nothing. When lafferty came on the whole team looked more urgent and enthusiastic almost like up at pittodrie when boyd and novo came on? not sticking up for boyd, he was poor today, but I would say it was more down to our teams approach to the game as we did look dangerous when we played the ball on the deck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSuedeSambas 54,231 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I don't buy into this "it's because of the way that we were playing" arguement. I would if Boyd was 5'9 and 10 stone, but he isn't. Dods and Kenneth are both big guys, but at 6'0 and 13 stone Boyd should be more than able to compete with them aerially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,717 Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 I don't buy into this "it's because of the way that we were playing" arguement. I would if Boyd was 5'9 and 10 stone, but he isn't. Dods and Kenneth are both big guys, but at 6'0 and 13 stone Boyd should be more than able to compete with them aerially. and he did, he either won the ball, and the header went nobody because miller was nowhere to be seen, boyd was playing up front on his own today btw, or he was fouled or he lost out, lafferty came on won a couple of headers and any other header he lost he never even jumped either, infact he rarely jumps, maybe its because hes so tall? if you continue to lump the ball up to someone who isnt winning the headers why keep doing it? they kept going with the least effective route when we knew what the most effective route was Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntled_bear 157 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I don't buy into this "it's because of the way that we were playing" arguement. I would if Boyd was 5'9 and 10 stone, but he isn't. Dods and Kenneth are both big guys, but at 6'0 and 13 stone Boyd should be more than able to compete with them aerially. and he did, he either won the ball, and the header went nobody because miller was nowhere to be seen, boyd was playing up front on his own today btw, or he was fouled or he lost out, lafferty came on won a couple of headers and any other header he lost he never even jumped either, infact he rarely jumps, maybe its because hes so tall? But Eck Miller didn't come on til 40 odd minute, so either it was Novo fault or he didn't win anything til after Miller come on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,717 Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 I don't buy into this "it's because of the way that we were playing" arguement. I would if Boyd was 5'9 and 10 stone, but he isn't. Dods and Kenneth are both big guys, but at 6'0 and 13 stone Boyd should be more than able to compete with them aerially. and he did, he either won the ball, and the header went nobody because miller was nowhere to be seen, boyd was playing up front on his own today btw, or he was fouled or he lost out, lafferty came on won a couple of headers and any other header he lost he never even jumped either, infact he rarely jumps, maybe its because hes so tall? But Eck Miller didn't come on til 40 odd minute, so either it was Novo fault or he didn't win anything til after Miller come on. we were playing the ball on the deck though a lot more in that period, fleck was getting the ball out wide, novo was getting out wide and we were winning corners and boyd had a curling shot from the end of good play, unless you sat and counted every single header won and lost then the argument can go any way, im not disputing that he never lost headers or blaming it on entirely on anyone else Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvager 498 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Miller is brutal and Boyd has been off form recently too. Lafferty seemed to play well up front today and maybe we should try Lafferty with Naismith or Novo against forfar and see if they click? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntled_bear 157 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I don't buy into this "it's because of the way that we were playing" arguement. I would if Boyd was 5'9 and 10 stone, but he isn't. Dods and Kenneth are both big guys, but at 6'0 and 13 stone Boyd should be more than able to compete with them aerially. and he did, he either won the ball, and the header went nobody because miller was nowhere to be seen, boyd was playing up front on his own today btw, or he was fouled or he lost out, lafferty came on won a couple of headers and any other header he lost he never even jumped either, infact he rarely jumps, maybe its because hes so tall? But Eck Miller didn't come on til 40 odd minute, so either it was Novo fault or he didn't win anything til after Miller come on. we were playing the ball on the deck though a lot more in that period, fleck was getting the ball out wide, novo was getting out wide and we were winning corners and boyd had a curling shot from the end of good play, unless you sat and counted every single header won and lost then the argument can go any way The difference in Boyd performance with Novo and Miller as his partner was the same, he was dire today. I think alot of people today are just wanting to blame Miller for the sake of it, when infact they were both dire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,717 Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 The difference in Boyd performance with Novo and Miller as his partner was the same, he was dire today. I think alot of people today are just wanting to blame Miller for the sake of it, when infact they were both dire. All very well but this thread is about boyd being hooked earlier, there was no way we were going to sub miller off after bringing him on it didnt even look as if he was playing up front (miler) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper1989 0 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Boyd showed what he truly is -- a pish footballer. Now that Dundee UTD are one of the better teams, he wont be starting against them either. Broadfoot is a better footballer than Boyd. Skill-wise. That's saying something. I've actually seen Broadfoot beat a player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goianegra 4,686 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Should he have even started? If Naismith and Lafferty were fully fit, wouldnt they be ideal for these games? I'd like to see a Naisy and Lafferty duo sometime. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntled_bear 157 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 The difference in Boyd performance with Novo and Miller as his partner was the same, he was dire today. I think alot of people today are just wanting to blame Miller for the sake of it, when infact they were both dire. All very well but this thread is about boyd being hooked earlier, there was no way we were going to sub miller off after bringing him on it didnt even look as if he was playing up front (miler) Miller was drifting, Fleck, Davis was cutting in more centrally in Midfield at times we were all interchanging. Boyd just couldn't even get a grip of the basics today. Clyde summed up Boyd today after the game he was just huffing and puffing, IMO he'll be lucky to start in the OLDFIRM match. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntled_bear 157 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Boyd showed what he truly is -- a pish footballer. Now that Dundee UTD are one of the better teams, he wont be starting against them either. Broadfoot is a better footballer than Boyd. Skill-wise. That's saying something. I've actually seen Broadfoot beat a player. You should start a thread with that, it sounds like a classic to me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis 277 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Not one of Boyds better games I am concerned as to how long it took Walter to make the changes that seemed obvious Better late than never but it was a bit too close to never for my liking 2-0 and still moaning. Ach well. What can I say !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbm26896 995 Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 i thought he could have been replaced earlier he had a poor game Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayboleLoyal_atb 3,764 Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Yep, had a very poor game yesterday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts