Kris Boyd - The complete Record

[Super_Ally 0]

Boyd for not showing that he can do it against the bigger teams when he plays. WS can't be blamed for not picking him. It's obvious, everyone sees it that Boyd can't play the lone striking role in a 4-5-1.

 

Not this again. I'll let you into a little secret. All out striker are absolute crap in the lone striker role. In fact there aren't that many any good at it.

 

Drogba.

Torres.

 

Boyd struggles with out supprt. Really. Is that what we're saying. Because again most players do.

 

We tolerate 4-5-1 in Europe because it makes us harder to beat. But it also makes our striker more ineffectual.

[Gazza_8 233]

Not this again. I'll let you into a little secret. All out striker are absolute crap in the lone striker role. In fact there aren't that many any good at it.

 

Drogba.

Torres.

 

Boyd struggles with out supprt. Really. Is that what we're saying. Because again most players do.

 

We tolerate 4-5-1 in Europe because it makes us harder to beat. But it also makes our striker more ineffectual.

 

It's a valid point. WS prefers that formation in europe.

 

You're "little secret" isn't much of a secret. I wouldn't say all our strikers are crap in that position but some are certainly better than others.

[Super_Ally 0]

It's a valid point. WS prefers that formation in europe.

 

You're "little secret" isn't much of a secret. I wouldn't say all our strikers are crap in that position but some are certainly better than others.

 

The last part depends on whether you want your striker's to perform their primary role or be you first defender. Personally I think even Miller and Lafferty are shite as lone strikers and don't look forward to either fulfilling the role.

[craig 5,199]

The last part depends on whether you want your striker's to perform their primary role or be you first defender. Personally I think even Miller and Lafferty are shite as lone strikers and don't look forward to either fulfilling the role.

 

Both are better than Boyd in the role though. So they should get the nod when that formation is played. I think that is the point Gav is trying to make rather than we have someone who is excellent in that role.

[Super_Ally 0]

Both are better than Boyd in the role though.

 

That's a bit like saying a poke in the eye is better than a kick in the balls though.

 

Our options are crap and really crap. Excellent.

 

I'd prob still go Boyd in a 4-5-1. Sure maybe less chances. But more chance of taking them.

[maineflyer 0]

Well?:box:

 

So it's still a "wee" comment eh? Get someone else to goad me, you're not up to it.

[maineflyer 0]

You're not slow are you?

 

Still a yes from me and most likely still a yes from MF.

 

Correct, no change here.

 

Henceforth, my views on Walter Smith will be available for a small fee from my agent in these matters, the redoubtable Norris Cole.

[craig 5,199]

That's a bit like saying a poke in the eye is better than a kick in the balls though.

 

Our options are crap and really crap. Excellent.

 

I'd prob still go Boyd in a 4-5-1. Sure maybe less chances. But more chance of taking them.

 

I agree but, again, the point being made is not how good the options are but which is the best option of the ones we have.

 

I respect your views on most things S_A but I honestly, for the life of me, have no idea how you would think that Boyd would be our best option for that lone striker role in a 4-5-1 formation.

 

Miller has his shortcomings but, IMO, is far more effective in that role than Boyd is. Far more effective. His running of the channels gives an "out" and he will pull defenders with him, creating space. Boyd just doesn't have the mobility for it.

[maineflyer 0]

I agree but, again, the point being made is not how good the options are but which is the best option of the ones we have.

 

I respect your views on most things S_A but I honestly, for the life of me, have no idea how you would think that Boyd would be our best option for that lone striker role in a 4-5-1 formation.

 

Miller has his shortcomings but, IMO, is far more effective in that role than Boyd is. Far more effective. His running of the channels gives an "out" and he will pull defenders with him, creating space. Boyd just doesn't have the mobility for it.

 

Which is why we should (almost) never be fielding a 4-5-1 formation. Certainly never at home and never, as we've aften had to endure it, at home against bottom-six oppoosition. If 4-4-2 allows you to play you top striker, and to pair him with someone other than a crisp bag collector, then that might not altogether be a bad thing to do....... Walter?

[Bluedell 5,356]

The last part depends on whether you want your striker's to perform their primary role or be you first defender. Personally I think even Miller and Lafferty are shite as lone strikers and don't look forward to either fulfilling the role.

 

Miller has done it well for Scotland on occasions. Lafferty looked the part when he got moved to do it against celtic.

 

I'd have both in infront of Boyd as a lone striker.