Creighton or Worley?
-
- Puberty
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:18 pm
- Location: Wales
Creighton or Worley?
I've nothing to add to the main analysis of yesterday's game - a bizarre game, where we played exceptionally well and didn't deserve to lose. We'll play worse than that this season and get three points. All the cliches.
The only thing that really struck me yesterday was whether we might have benefited from having Creighton as centre-back instead of Worley.
Now, I like Worley. Wilder clearly does too. He has a decent enough touch, and looks like a promising player for the future.
But for me, Creighton - although something of a blunt instrument - is the better player. He and Worley both win aerial balls all day long, but Creighton probably communicates better with those around him, commands the box more and sticks tighter to his man. I'm guessing, but I think Ryan Clarke is happier with Creighton on front of him for exactly that reason.
For me, we probably wouldn't have conceded two yesterday with Creighton there. I know Wilder is keen to push the "young team who'll grow" line, and he's right in a lot of ways. But I think Creighton, for now, gives us that bit more protection in defence.
What do other RO-ers think?
The only thing that really struck me yesterday was whether we might have benefited from having Creighton as centre-back instead of Worley.
Now, I like Worley. Wilder clearly does too. He has a decent enough touch, and looks like a promising player for the future.
But for me, Creighton - although something of a blunt instrument - is the better player. He and Worley both win aerial balls all day long, but Creighton probably communicates better with those around him, commands the box more and sticks tighter to his man. I'm guessing, but I think Ryan Clarke is happier with Creighton on front of him for exactly that reason.
For me, we probably wouldn't have conceded two yesterday with Creighton there. I know Wilder is keen to push the "young team who'll grow" line, and he's right in a lot of ways. But I think Creighton, for now, gives us that bit more protection in defence.
What do other RO-ers think?
I agree. I think Worley will be a good defender in a few years, maybe even next year, but I do think that he's lacking the necessary experience to cope with some of the more wily 4th div strikers. He also has a tendency to stand back off his man and move forward to attack the ball, which more often than not results in him conceding a free kick. Creighton, on the other hand, gets right up his man's arse and often does enough to prevent him winning it in the air. Although Worley does seem to be quicker and better in the tackle.
I voted Creighton, but the real answer is probably "dunno".
I voted Creighton, but the real answer is probably "dunno".
-
- Brat
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:14 pm
-
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
I prefer Worley.
Much more mobile than Beast. Better passer. Equally good in the air. At least as strong on the ball, and less flustered under pressure with the ball.
I agree that Beast does get tighter and has more experience, but I think the pace of the div 4 strikers tips the scales in favour of Worley.
Much more mobile than Beast. Better passer. Equally good in the air. At least as strong on the ball, and less flustered under pressure with the ball.
I agree that Beast does get tighter and has more experience, but I think the pace of the div 4 strikers tips the scales in favour of Worley.
-
- Toddler
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:55 am
- Location: Oxford
-
- Brat
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:10 pm
It's obvious to see Worley is the better player. Has everything that Creighton has, but also more pace, better distribution, and far less likely to be turned inside out.
Worley has played just three games for us and is settling in and if I remember correctly Creighton had a shocker (for 85 minutes) in his debut for us. After a few more games when he has settled in then I'm sure this thread will be forgotten.
Worley has played just three games for us and is settling in and if I remember correctly Creighton had a shocker (for 85 minutes) in his debut for us. After a few more games when he has settled in then I'm sure this thread will be forgotten.
-
- Grumpy old git
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm
I voted Worley, despite the fact I've never seen him play(!)
I like the fact that Wilder's trying to keep a settled line-up, and think we should stick with it for a while, especially if performances have been as encouraging as others suggest.
Also, while I like Creighton's commitment and attitude, I always thought he was a little limited against decent forwards (or Steve Basham), even at Conference level.
I like the fact that Wilder's trying to keep a settled line-up, and think we should stick with it for a while, especially if performances have been as encouraging as others suggest.
Also, while I like Creighton's commitment and attitude, I always thought he was a little limited against decent forwards (or Steve Basham), even at Conference level.
-
- Grumpy old git
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 12:23 pm
- Location: Nowhere near Treviso
Re:
Well, presumably it isn't "obvious" given that the votes, as I type are evenly split and one of the Worley votes is by someone who has never seen him play!"Long John Silver" wrote:It's obvious to see Worley is the better player.
I think he will be (barring serious injury or other meltdowns) a better player than the Beast and is more naturally gifted. As to whether he is already a better player, I am less convinced: and it asks a lot of Wright and Worley, both relatively inexperienced, to marshall a defence, with Batt's defensive positioning also often a bit questionable.
-
- Puberty
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:18 pm
- Location: Wales
Interesting points on both sides, and I think the closeness of the voter indicates that there are strong cases to be made for each.
I think there probably is some truth that Worley will eventually be the much better player - and clearly he needs to play games so he can progress. I suppose also that now is the time to give him that chance - arguably, in a season of consolidation, we can afford a few mistakes.
But I still think that Creighton would be my first choice for as long as we could potentially finish in the play-offs this season. Worley can be good cover, and can get games, but the focu ought to be on achieving in the present for as long as that remains possible.
I think there probably is some truth that Worley will eventually be the much better player - and clearly he needs to play games so he can progress. I suppose also that now is the time to give him that chance - arguably, in a season of consolidation, we can afford a few mistakes.
But I still think that Creighton would be my first choice for as long as we could potentially finish in the play-offs this season. Worley can be good cover, and can get games, but the focu ought to be on achieving in the present for as long as that remains possible.
-
- Brat
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 11:43 am
Tough call, which reflects the sort of decisions CW has to make in just about every position. And that has to be good.
There are cases for both players, at the moment Worley edges it- but a loss of form etc and there's a ready made replacement.
I voted Creighton, just in case he reads these boards and takes it personal!!
There are cases for both players, at the moment Worley edges it- but a loss of form etc and there's a ready made replacement.
I voted Creighton, just in case he reads these boards and takes it personal!!
UTM.
-
- Puberty
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:18 pm
- Location: Wales
Re:
"YeOx" wrote:I voted Creighton, just in case he reads these boards and takes it personal!!
There is a serious point there. If you were an opposition centre-forward, and you walked out and saw that Creighton was marking you, there'd definitely be more of a fear factor. I know Worley's no midget, but Creighton's physical presence has to be a massive psychological boost when defending set pieces etc. In that respect, I think we missed him on Saturday.
-
- Dashing young thing
- Posts: 531
- Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:44 am
- Location: Manchester
Re:
By that rational though, we'd have Creighton and Worley, which would mean no room for our best defender. A nippy striker will not fear the Beast at all because they simply won't bother challenging him in the air and just look to outpace him at will."Joey's Toe" wrote:"YeOx" wrote:I voted Creighton, just in case he reads these boards and takes it personal!!
There is a serious point there. If you were an opposition centre-forward, and you walked out and saw that Creighton was marking you, there'd definitely be more of a fear factor. I know Worley's no midget, but Creighton's physical presence has to be a massive psychological boost when defending set pieces etc. In that respect, I think we missed him on Saturday.