Rage Online

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 &quotyoung team who'll grow&quot 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 &quotdunno&quot.

I'm also a dunno. We do also have Day &amp Franks.

I agree I think Creights offers a bit more experience and nouse at the back. I was dissapointed how often there was a gap between Worley and Wright and their strikers got in between. I could see Wright telling him he had to talk more.

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.

The BEAST any day. No nonense old fashioned centre half. Get in there do the business, no messing. Worley leaves back exposed too much. Any Keepers dream to have a player like him in front of you. Harry needs a little bit more experience.

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.

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.

&quotLong John Silver&quot wrote:It's obvious to see Worley is the better player.

Well, presumably it isn't &quotobvious&quot 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!

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.

Voted Worley simply on the pace issue which is needed more at this level.

Better positioning and understanding with Wright will hopefully come with more games.

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.

Creighton for me now, as others have said Worley looks one for the future.
I like Creighton as he is what a centre half should be, tough no nonsense approach, BUT i do think Worley will become the better player.

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!!

&quotYeOx&quot 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.

&quotJoey's Toe&quot wrote:

&quotYeOx&quot 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.

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.