Warnock faces striker dilemma for Preston trip

[Morris]

Me too! So if an explanation is available of why we have strikers that don't strike let alone score I am all ears. I do hope it isn't that old "hold it up and knock it down mularkey" though.

Taken from Stanley76 as he summed it up pefectly...

People still aren't getting it, even though its been stated on here many times:

Strikers dont score regularly for QPR because of the system we play (4-2-3-1), not because they're necessarily $hit strikers. Then as soon as they don't score for a few games, QPR fans, true to type, immdediately lose patience and start moaning/groaning at them, which in turn, sows seeds of doubt into the player's mind and he loses his confidence; which as we all know is fatal for a striker.

In our system, its our attacking midfielders job to score the goals, and the strikers main job to hold the ball up, be a target man and bring others into play.

Its not the way we do it but playing 4-4-2 you'd find the strikers would weigh in with more goals. Its the system, not the player.

Capiche?

[stanley75]

Taken from Stanley76 as he summed it up pefectly...

People still aren't getting it, even though its been stated on here many times:

Strikers dont score regularly for QPR because of the system we play (4-2-3-1), not because they're necessarily $hit strikers. Then as soon as they don't score for a few games, QPR fans, true to type, immdediately lose patience and start moaning/groaning at them, which in turn, sows seeds of doubt into the player's mind and he loses his confidence; which as we all know is fatal for a striker.

In our system, its our attacking midfielders job to score the goals, and the strikers main job to hold the ball up, be a target man and bring others into play.

Its not the way we do it but playing 4-4-2 you'd find the strikers would weigh in with more goals. Its the system, not the player.

Capiche?

Tosh.

Our strikers don't go a few games without scoring they don't score at all.

Hello - we play a system better described as 4 4 1 1. The distinction trying to be drawn at the back could be for whiteboard purposes only.

Sorry to have a slighgt pop as it is even your post but the rest descends into cliches

Clarke did not score at Wednesday coz hi is shite. Miller similar at Baggies and also unfit. Hulse we picked up crocked and he has got worse. That is why they don't score - they are variously shite or sick

Capiche?

[DelTrotter]

Tosh.

Our strikers don't go a few games without scoring they don't score at all.

Hello - we play a system better described as 4 4 1 1. The distinction trying to be drawn at the back could be for whiteboard purposes only.

Sorry to have a slighgt pop as it is even your post but the rest descends into cliches

Clarke did not score at Wednesday coz hi is shite. Miller similar at Baggies and also unfit. Hulse we picked up crocked and he has got worse. That is why they don't score - they are variously shite or sick

Capiche?

We have played 4-2-3-1 all season. Even the official website says it:

"Paddy Kenny was in goal for the R's in a 4-2-3-1 formation, behind a back four of Walker, Hall, Kaspars Gorkss and Clint Hill.

Connolly and Faurlin were just in front of the defence, while Jamie Mackie, Taarabt and Clarke were deployed in attacking midfield roles.

Hulse headed the R's attack up front."

http://www.qpr.co.uk/page/MatchRepor...~51855,00.html

[Yousef]

HH and Miller please

[stanley75]

We have played 4-2-3-1 all season. Even the official website says it:

"Paddy Kenny was in goal for the R's in a 4-2-3-1 formation, behind a back four of Walker, Hall, Kaspars Gorkss and Clint Hill.

Connolly and Faurlin were just in front of the defence, while Jamie Mackie, Taarabt and Clarke were deployed in attacking midfield roles.

Hulse headed the R's attack up front."

http://www.qpr.co.uk/page/MatchRepor...~51855,00.html

Whiteboard nonsense. They may try to line up at kick off like this but answer me this then - who is the 2 as distinct from the 3 as distinct from the 1?. I can't see it and I've seen every ball kicked and I can#t see this distinctiion. We play with two centre halves with backs who mainly stay back but are meant to press on - more so when Walker was here. That#s a back 4 inm my world. Derry ( ever present but seemingly invisible in the above formation) sits in fromt of them usually with the 3 more attacking midfielders sat a little higher up. Then we have Adel roaming about and whoever he is playing behind. That's the Rangers I've been watching anyway. Hopw this is meant to explain why our strikers do not score escapes me - they are not doping the "assist thing" either so ythe knock down story osd just that.

[Ric-Roc]

Their is no defending Hulse whether he holds the ball up or not he doesn't score & he has missed many many many chances.

Not good enough.

[stainrodisalegend]

plse, you are a perfectly adequate and regular poster but plse don't try to patronise me by denying that I might just about understand what system I've been watching all season: the big man up top is meant to hold the ball up and bring in the on-rushing attacking midfield players who are then meant to score the lion share of the goals. Obviously.

BUT

1) Just because you play with a loan striker/ target man there is nothing written down that says he is somehow exempt from scoring responsibility. He is, after all, the most advanced player on the pitch. As someone pointed out the other day, Drogba scores a few. Naturally I'm not expecting a similar return from Hulse but I would expect more than one in 16: wouldn't you?

2) I don't think Hulse is that good at holding the ball up or bringing others into play either. Helguson, with the exeption of his last game, has been much better. Hulse hasn't even looked good in the air (his supposed strength) evidenced by all the chances he missed against Bristol.

3) He is also extremely imobile so as our own manager said - and I imagine even a guru of your standing might respect his opinion - that no one was there to get on the end of any of the crosses. I imagine Hulse was, at the very least, one of those he had in mind.

If there's anything else I can explain for you, just let me know. Cheers.

No reply from Morris to this or indeed the points raised by other posters. Don't wish to be harsh as realise he's obviously only a lad and he's probably busy with his homework, which perhaps some of us can help him with if he's struggling with that, too.

Capiche?

[stanley75]

Didn't realise this topic/thread had history but I agree with every word of SiaL post in the quote box above. A lone striker that does not score is not a striker at all. Or he is a shite one. No goal of any kind (actual or assisted) is coming off our "1" up front.

[80sCasual]

Didn't realise this topic/thread had history but I agree with every word of SiaL post in the quote box above. A lone striker that does not score is not a striker at all. Or he is a shite one. No goal of any kind (actual or assisted) is coming off our "1" up front.

Totally agree, and you could say the opposite of this was Gary Lineker, who scored loads, mostly from the six yard box. He was a striker.

[Morris]

No reply from Morris to this or indeed the points raised by other posters. Don't wish to be harsh as realise he's obviously only a lad and he's probably busy with his homework, which perhaps some of us can help him with if he's struggling with that, too.

Capiche?

Sorry for not replying immediatly Stainrod, but I can't spend my day refreshing a messageboard all the time waiting for replys, so I can then reply straight away. Obvioulsy you can..

Secondly, haven't had to do homework for a good 5 years now, so thats another one of your posts that has been shot down.


Cheers.

Whiteboard nonsense. They may try to line up at kick off like this but answer me this then - who is the 2 as distinct from the 3 as distinct from the 1?. I can't see it and I've seen every ball kicked and I can#t see this distinctiion. We play with two centre halves with backs who mainly stay back but are meant to press on - more so when Walker was here. That#s a back 4 inm my world. Derry ( ever present but seemingly invisible in the above formation) sits in fromt of them usually with the 3 more attacking midfielders sat a little higher up. Then we have Adel roaming about and whoever he is playing behind. That's the Rangers I've been watching anyway. Hopw this is meant to explain why our strikers do not score escapes me - they are not doping the "assist thing" either so ythe knock down story osd just that.

Derry Faurlin (2)


Routledge Taarabt Smith (3)


Hulse (1)


It's not rocket science really is it mate? It's even on the official report after every game we play, as someone has already pointed out.




EDIT: Also Stanley75, I tried to read your whole post but the last 2 lines appear to be written in some form of Latin so unfortunatly I can't reply to it all.

[Ric-Roc]

Still not good enough. 1 goal in 17 games & stacks of misses, some absolute sitters.

If we had any half decent striker at the club he wouldn't even be in the squad.

[stanley75]

Sorry for not replying immediatly Stainrod, but I can't spend my day refreshing a messageboard all the time waiting for replys, so I can then reply straight away. Obvioulsy you can..

Secondly, haven't had to do homework for a good 5 years now, so thats another one of your posts that has been shot down.


Cheers.





Derry Faurlin (2)


Routledge Taarabt Smith (3)


Hulse (1)


It's not rocket science really is it mate? It's even on the official report after every game we play, as someone has already pointed out.

Look - I can't be asked with this tbh - it started as a debate about why ouir strikers don't score (a point totally overlooked now it seems) and has become some kind of kiddie tactical teach in. But I will, sadly, rise to the bait one more time as seeinmg something so silly sort of gauls (plus the tone makes it sound as if you think you know what you are talking about which is clearly not even close)

So.. Put the QPR website to one side for one moment (I have answered that already) nd tell me that you really think Faurlin and Derry operate in the same territory, and that Taarabt has been playing in the middle of two wingers behind (say) Hulse as the lone striker. Is that what you are trying to say Rangers shape up like?

If so, I refer you to my earlier "tosh" comment.

[vblockranger]

how about a striker that can hold up the ball and bring midfielders into play....and can hit a barn door as well as!!! the novelty of it!

[Morris]

Look - I can't be asked with this tbh - it started as a debate about why ouir strikers don't score (a point totally overlooked now it seems) and has become some kind of kiddie tactical teach in. But I will, sadly, rise to the bait one more time as seeinmg something so silly sort of gauls (plus the tone makes it sound as if you think you know what you are talking about which is clearly not even close)

So.. Put the QPR website to one side for one moment (I have answered that already) nd tell me that you really think Faurlin and Derry operate in the same territory, and that Taarabt has been playing in the middle of two wingers behind (say) Hulse as the lone striker. Is that what you are trying to say Rangers shape up like?

If so, I refer you to my earlier "tosh" comment.

Now now, Stan, it's all about opinions. Just because mine is different, don't say it is wrong.

Secondly, Derry and Faurlin our clearly our 2 holding midfielders, with for eg, Routledge and Smith on the wings with Taarabt "in the hole" free to roam wherever he wants to. These 5 play behind a lone striker, im sure you will agree.

This is most certainly a 4-2-3-1 formation, with lots of movement from the attacking midfield 3 to interchange positions.

I noticed Adel started on the wing and Smith was more central at one point vs Forest, but the formation stayed the same.

Hulse probably should have a few more goals, granted, but he does do a good job for the side, in a thankless role for most strikers at this level.

[stanley75]

how about a striker that can hold up the ball and bring midfielders into play....and can hit a barn door as well as!!! the novelty of it!

Ahh back on topic - yes, that would be more than novel.