Zebroski final piece of striking Jigsaw

SteMerritt · Post by **SteMerritt** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:06 pm

&quotJim Smith as reported on This Is United&quot wrote:U's boss Jim Smith told the Oxford Mail that if he could sign 20-year-old Zebroski, he would be happy with the strikers he's got, considering the wage constraints within which he has to work.

Oh Shit.

John Byrne's Underpants · Wed May 30, 2007 3:10 pm

To put it mildly!

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:19 pm

To be fair, Smith has a point. Bearing in mind Marv, Duffy and Yemi are all contracted for next season, he really doesn't need any more strikers. The big problem is Marvin is really useless, I'm happy enough with the other 3.

Encouraging for those who take an interest in the youths, Smith included Alex Fisher as one of the 5 strikers.

Resurrection Ox · Post by **Resurrection Ox** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:20 pm

&quotSteMerritt&quot wrote:
&quotJim Smith as reported on This Is United&quot wrote:U's boss Jim Smith told the Oxford Mail that if he could sign 20-year-old Zebroski, he would be happy with the strikers he's got, considering the wage constraints within which he has to work.
Oh Shit.

Er. Strikers are not the problem though. Wingers and full backs are.

GodalmingYellow · Post by **GodalmingYellow** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:34 pm

I find myself agreeing with ResOx for a change.

I think Smith has got this right. Or as right as he is able to given the mistake of signing Marvellous previously.

Left sided defenders (2 of) are a must. So is a left midfielder.

Myles Francis · Post by **Myles Francis** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:51 pm

The headline for this topic seem apt considering how our strikers fall to pieces in the box. Boom boom!!

Mooro · Post by **Mooro** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:53 pm

The one thing in his favour is that he is only 20, so has the potential to develop. If he was well into his 20s then I'd be more concerned, but if he continues to put in the effort and works hard on the other aspects of his game then he may prove a worthwhile investment.

His arrival is not the problem for me - the presence of Marvin instead of someone who could justify his wage IS!

Did Smith actually mention or mean Fisher as the 5th striker (rather than, say, Burgess), or is this Jon Murray confusing himself? I've only seen him a few times, is tall, but slight so will need to fill out a bit before he is a real threat, but he was on the bench for one of the FAT games last season, so Smith seems to like him (unlike Beechers).

He is also in the interesting position of being a year older than the others who are just starting their two year scholarship, as he initially opted to stay at school last summer, but has now signed up. This means he has a better chance of progressing before a decision has to made on hi

recordmeister · Post by **recordmeister** » Wed May 30, 2007 4:21 pm

&quotResurrection Ox&quot wrote:
&quotSteMerritt&quot wrote:
&quotJim Smith as reported on This Is United&quot wrote:U's boss Jim Smith told the Oxford Mail that if he could sign 20-year-old Zebroski, he would be happy with the strikers he's got, considering the wage constraints within which he has to work.
Oh Shit.
Er. Strikers are not the problem though. Wingers and full backs are.

Er. If Duffy had scored that one-on-one with the Exeter 'keeper, we would have gone to Wembley. This makes strikers a problem AS WELL AS defenders / wingers / et al...!

SteMerritt · Post by **SteMerritt** » Wed May 30, 2007 4:28 pm

1. dag &amp redbri 46 28 11 7 93 48 45 95
2. oxford united 46 22 15 9 66 33 33 81

Goalscoring was definately a problem last year. Of course sorting out the midfield and getting some width might mean more goals from the current lot. But the current striking line-up doesn't scream 'prolific' at you does it?

recordmeister · Post by **recordmeister** » Wed May 30, 2007 4:36 pm

&quotSteMerritt&quot wrote:1. dag &amp redbri 46 28 11 7 93 48 45 95
2. oxford united 46 22 15 9 66 33 33 81

Goalscoring was definately a problem last year. Of course sorting out the midfield and getting some width might mean more goals from the current lot. But the current striking line-up doesn't scream 'prolific' at you does it?

Yes- we also had the meanest defence in the whole divison and a hell of a goal difference that basically counted as a point. On the stats you would say the defence did a great job (the best job in the division) but it was the goal scorers that didn't...

Mally · Post by **Mally** » Wed May 30, 2007 4:47 pm

The biggest striker issue Jim and Patto have to solve over the summer is how to turn Duffer around. As previously posted on another topic his goal scoring record was:

First 18 games 12 goals.
Next 18 games 7 goals.
Last 18 games 2 goals.

If they can get him working hard and stop his constant moaning then there's a chance that he can get back to the striker he was at the start of the season. If not then he needs to be off-loaded fast so we can get somebody who can score goals for the whole season otherwise I can't see where the goals are going to come from.

Pe├▒a Oxford United · Wed May 30, 2007 4:56 pm

Fifty-four games is a lot. Perhaps he just went stale.

Mally · Post by **Mally** » Wed May 30, 2007 5:04 pm

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote:Fifty-four games is a lot. Perhaps he just went stale.

With the limiting budget of the wages cap we can't afford to carry players who go stale. Anyway he didn't play in all of the games.

You could argue that its a bit unfair to complain that he didn't score when he wasn't playing but the point is that if he isn't good enough to start games then he can't score goals and isn't worth his place in the squad

Pe├▒a Oxford United · Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm

Quite likely, but if he didn't play in all of those games then it's a bit iffy to present them as his statistics.

Operation Boarhunt · Post by **Operation Boarhunt** » Wed May 30, 2007 5:41 pm

The system that we used for the bulk of last season, and, from the look of the amount of central defenders we've kept on, will be using next season, demands full backs to push forward, as a midfield three gives no width. With Rufus on one side, this was never going to be fruitful as he didn't have the legs to get up that far and back, let alone beat a defender. And Anaclet on the other side has got to be one of the most frustrating players we've had - looks to have the ability but most games lacks confidence to just go for it and run at the defence. This I feel is the main reason why we struggle to score - the system that is in place will only work going forward if the wing backs are consistently good enough in attack. When Matt Robinson was in the side, I felt that the team looked to him as the main attacking outlet, which was not sucessful in his later years at the club as he started to lose his pace.

As much as i'm not trying to defend Duffy's whinging and mood swings, I don't think the service has been all that great to him considering how many weak teams we played last season. If we get a couple more decent full backs in the club, stick with the 5-3-2. If not we'll continue to struggle with goals unless there are 4 in midfield.

Rage Online

Zebroski final piece of striking Jigsaw

Zebroski final piece of striking Jigsaw

Re: Zebroski final piece of striking Jigsaw

Re: Zebroski final piece of striking Jigsaw

Re:

Re: