Most liked posts in thread: Scannell

I think one of our problems was that we were playing it too much through Scannell.
As someone said we were not getting any goals from his crosses and he very rarely played the ball inside to Payne. He seemed a one trick pony, in that he ran down the wing and tried to get the ball in. As soon as he got his red and got an injury we were forced to play more centrally and that invited Payne more into the games.

 

Agreed.

I just wondered about the validity of those moments of brilliance, that's all.

 

Spot on

 

You are not living up to your user name then. Are you saying every other game he was 5 out of 10 or below which implies a bad game? Or are your scoring based on expectation and value for money?

 

5 out of 10 isn't bad considering performances were abysmal.

 

Hopefully Hopkin can have a similar effect on him, as McCall did with Marshall. If so he'd definitely be like a new signing.

 

The Puppies loved him as a player although he gets injured a fair bit.

 

Yeah, he ran the show against Burton. I am taking the view that he wouldn't have been fit, like the rest, but if he has chance to work under McElhone and Hopkin he will come good for us and produce performances like Burton more often (you only have to look at Miller and Akpan in the current team now to see contrasting performances). Wasn't he player of the year in the Championship for Palace or Town at one point? The ability is there.

 

Wasn't Yeates an outstanding Championship player at times?

Literally means nothing.

 

I thought Steven Davies was ok with us.

 

A bit injury prone and looked overweight to me, but as his career was mainly Championship and he couldn't command a regular place, having said that he score a few of important goals for us, I think most hoped he would be a regular starter and be up in the high teens for an ex Championship footballer.

 

Agree with you on his ability, but I always though his temperament was a bit suspect.
First time I saw him play was away at Swindon when we lost the first game of the season. He came on as a sub towards the end of the match. I remember him leaving a foot in on one of their players. It was totally unnecessary, got a booking, and could quite easily been a red.
Other memorable occasion was away at Coventry. Again, he came on as a sub and promptly stamped on a Coventry player, got himself sent off and left us with hardly any fit strikers for the play offs.
He has a nasty streak I am not keen on.

 

Fair comment. I'd forgotten that aspect. Still, he did well for Rochdale the following season when playing regularly. Maybe that side of him was exacerbated by frustration from not getting the game time he desired?

 

What would we have done with Scannell if he was injury free, play Gibson or Seedorf on the opposite wing?

Providing we can keep him fit it's absolutely integral we bring in a decent winger to compliment him.

 

Oh dear.......I find myself agreeing with BB

 

I think it means they have an ability to play a specific role, but it doesn't mean they are of a particularly high quality or possess the ability to massively impact games single handedly.

Teams may have looked at Big Jim when he bullied Mertesacker and sunk Villa and said that's a player, the reality is he had power but give him the ball 40 yards out or without playing to his one strength and suddenly that's a duff player.

I imagine Yeates and Scannell both had great supporting players who allowed them to focus on what they did best. It really doesn't mean they can do the same under different conditions, and thus far, neither have managed it bar a couple of performances.

 

Disagree. PP rarely played 2 out-and-out wingers. Nothing to stop him playing Scannell on one wing and shoring us up with someone like O’Brien on the other side.

 

Rather than playing O'Brien or someone else in an unfamilar role wouldn't it be better to just bring in another wide player?

 

If they are capable of performing the role at championship level, though, that is not meaningless, as you stated previously.

If they can perform it in the champ then they should be able to perform it in L1 for us. The fact he’s done it a few times for us already shows they can. Scannell won players POY in 14/15 at Huddersfield - suggesting he can sustain his form over a season.

Obviously, though, the player needs to have a hunger and desire to be motivated enough to still perform. Not all those dropping leagues do.

They also need to be playing in a system or style that enables them to shine.

Far too many have drawn conclusions on Scannell already when the last month should have shown us players are worth another go in the post-Rahic side - one that is working for each other and so much more creative.

The side Scannell played in was dog dirt. We didn’t make runs, we didn’t cross enough, we were overrun in midfield. Our GF was awful, our xG was dire. On any KPI used to track attacking performance we were dross- genuine relegation fodder.

In a team finally opening teams up Scannell could potentially be deadly. It might be that he’s more effective in a conventional 4-4-2..... time will tell....but what happened (or didn’t happen given we’re on about attacking output) under Rahic needs to be forgotten about.

His loan spell at Burton was curtailed by injury so keeping him sound needs to be our biggest worry IMO - not whether he has the ability to rip this league up.