Indeed, and any opposition manager worth his salt will have worked this out in advance and told his strikers to play around Creighton."JoeyBeauchamp" wrote: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.
Creighton or Worley?
-
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
-
- Grumpy old git
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 12:23 pm
- Location: Nowhere near Treviso
-
- Puberty
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:18 pm
- Location: Wales
Re:
Not sure about that. A good defence is about a good partnership - Creighton and Wright together offer strength and pace in equal measures. Wright and Worley, for me, is quicker but not as strong. All about balance, and that's why I prefer Creighton."JoeyBeauchamp" wrote:By that rational (sic) though, we'd have Creighton and Worley, which would mean no room for our best defender."Joey's Toe" wrote: 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.
-
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am