What is the point of Molango?

[Lammy]

What was the point of offering this bloke a contract? McGhee clearly has no intention of EVER playing him.

If you can't even get on the bench when we have no attacking options left since the defender that was picked ahead of him got injured then what is the point?

I understand that we missed Virgo. BUT he is just one player and should not be the be all and end all. our squad is not THAT small. Leeds' squad is smaller.

If we are unable to put goals away at one end then we should have concentrated on stopping them at the other. A point is better than nothing.

I saw no reason to change the back four or midfield because Virgo is injured. This is Crewe we are talking about not Wigan! A 4-4-2 would have been much harder to break down and with either Robinson or Molango alongside Knight would have created some chances at least to nick a goal. We rarely score more than one goal even with Virgo!

It's as though McGhee is having a tantrum and out to prove a point as to how badly we need a new striker. When Virgo is injured or suspended he totally changes the shape and starts playing EVERYONE out of formation!!

Why not keep the shape and put Hinch up front or even Cullip? But Hammond?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Titanic]

Do you have any idea what Molango is paid ??

I would guess it's pretty much peanuts compared to any decent, experienced Div 1 / Championship striker.

 

[bhafc4eva]

Do you have any idea what Molango is paid ??

I would guess it's pretty much peanuts compared to any decent, experienced Div 1 / Championship striker.

In my eyes he's a waster and im sure some of the youth team players must be rubbing their hands when they see the likes of him in the team/squad. How hard can it be?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

He's young, he's talented, he's promising, and I heard he's not expensive.

As McGhee said, when he signed him, 'One for the future'.

I find this very heartening - McGhee is looking to the long-term, not just at instant success. Which says something about McGhee's commitment to the Club.

 

[Marc]

McGhee was quoted early on as saying "He's one for the future", so maybe he'll get a run out midway through next season then

Purely based on my own form of crystal ball reading speculation...but I reckon he's just not big enough yet so McGhee has ordered inthe Haggis to BEEFCAKE him up abit and chuck him in the gym 24/7 so that in 12months he returns like Arnie in Predator and ready to DESTROY some fragile defences....in League 1!

 

[lincs seagull]

We should be playing him looked good against reading play him for god sake a stiker is better than a centre half in the long run.

 

[Lammy]

He's young, he's talented, he's promising, and I heard he's not expensive.

As McGhee said, when he signed him, 'One for the future'.

I find this very heartening - McGhee is looking to the long-term, not just at instant success. Which says something about McGhee's commitment to the Club.

Whilst I applaud that centiment I have some concerns.

1) Are we really in a sound enough financial position to be signing players for the future? We have a fairly successful youth scheme at the club that has produced McPhee and Robinson so why do we need to buy more players for the future?

2) If he WAS only intended as a future investment why was he put in the first team straight away? It wasn't until the Virgo experiment that he was dropped. Sounds me more like McGhee thought he was ready when he got him in but has since delclared him one for the future when it was clear he wasn't fitting in with his plans.


The point I'm making is if he is not good enough to even make the bench when it seems we had totally run out of striking options then what is the point?

 

[caz99]

Whilst I applaud that centiment I have some concerns.

1) Are we really in a sound enough financial position to be signing players for the future? We have a fairly successful youth scheme at the club that has produced McPhee and Robinson so why do we need to buy more players for the future?

2) If he WAS only intended as a future investment why was he put in the first team straight away? It wasn't until the Virgo experiment that he was dropped. Sounds me more like McGhee thought he was ready when he got him in but has since delclared him one for the future when it was clear he wasn't fitting in with his plans.


The point I'm making is if he is not good enough to even make the bench when it seems we had totally run out of striking options then what is the point?

here here i am pleased someone said this, i was too scared because of the constant battering you seem to get from some of NSC if you dare to criticise the club or manager.

 

[fatboy]

Whilst I applaud that centiment I have some concerns.

1) Are we really in a sound enough financial position to be signing players for the future? We have a fairly successful youth scheme at the club that has produced McPhee and Robinson so why do we need to buy more players for the future?

2) If he WAS only intended as a future investment why was he put in the first team straight away? It wasn't until the Virgo experiment that he was dropped. Sounds me more like McGhee thought he was ready when he got him in but has since delclared him one for the future when it was clear he wasn't fitting in with his plans.


The point I'm making is if he is not good enough to even make the bench when it seems we had totally run out of striking options then what is the point?

He was signed as one for the future. He will not be on much money.

We had no one else to play for the first couple of games, therefore we had to play someone - Molango was chosen. He clearly is not viewed at being better than Virgo (five goals scored) so McGhee persists with picking Virgo.

 

[Lammy]

He was signed as one for the future. He will not be on much money.

We had no one else to play for the first couple of games, therefore we had to play someone - Molango was chosen. He clearly is not viewed at being better than Virgo (five goals scored) so McGhee persists with picking Virgo.

And when Virgo is not available?

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Can we really afford to " one for the future"? Surely the priority is to safeguard our stautus in this league. That meant getting somone in who can score a few goals. As I've said many times before on this site, I am a fan of McGhee but to go into the campaign without a recognised goalscorer at this level was foolish.

In the meantime, get Steve Claridge in for a few games and see how it goes.

 

[fatboy]

And when Virgo is not available?

Well one of the games was Sunderland away where playing a negative formation with only Knight up front was probably best.

With regard to Saturday, the question that needs to be addressed is was Molango fit to play?

I don't think Molango should have been selected as when I have seen him this season, quite frankly he has been poor. Obviously McPhee would have played if fit (and had Piercy been matchfit he could have done a job) but I would have had Robinson at least on the bench.

McGhee's tactics were clearly to get an early goal and then play 5-5-0 and defend for our lives. You can blame him for that but I don't think you can blame him for Molango not being good enough yet.

 

[Titanic]

In the meantime, get Steve Claridge in for a few games and see how it goes.

That simple, eh ? It's disappointing MM hasn't done it already then - he obviously isn't trying hard enough.

 

[Stinky Kat]

May be Mark McGhee needs to get his boots out of the cupboard

 

[fatboy]

Can we really afford to " one for the future"? Surely the priority is to safeguard our stautus in this league. That meant getting somone in who can score a few goals. As I've said many times before on this site, I am a fan of McGhee but to go into the campaign without a recognised goalscorer at this level was foolish.

In the meantime, get Steve Claridge in for a few games and see how it goes.

We had Knight, who everyone would have expected to have scored more goals by now. We had McPhee who would have played every game if fit.

I think maybe MM thought Molango and Robinson would have been better equipped to play at this level.

I think we can afford to sign one for the future; he won't be on much, if any, more than the youth team, is not much older than many of the youth team, and you would not say the youth team is a waste of money, would you?

Had we signed Molango on a shorter contract and he then left at the end of the season we would have wasted money on him.

 

[Lammy]

Can we really afford to " one for the future"? Surely the priority is to safeguard our stautus in this league. That meant getting somone in who can score a few goals. As I've said many times before on this site, I am a fan of McGhee but to go into the campaign without a recognised goalscorer at this level was foolish.

In the meantime, get Steve Claridge in for a few games and see how it goes.

To be fair Knight was supposed to be out recognised goal scorer. But at this level the defenders realise that they only need to give him the slightest nudge and he colapses in a ball.

I too am a fan of McGhee but I have some reservations about his ability to think on his feet. He has a style of playing that he likes. i.e. 4-4-2 with a big man up front to hold the ball up. When this system is up an running with the correct personel it tends to work ok. Not amazong but ok, enough at least to keep us up. However, if the opposition cotton on to this system and start to break it down he doesn't seem to have the ability to adapt. The same thing happens if you take away a piece from the puzzle. He needs to think of alternative solutions for these problems. Like I've said before, our squad is by no means small. It may not be Chelsea or Man Utd but we have ample options to shift things around a bit without having o resort to Harding playing in Midfield and Hammond up front!

 

[fatboy]

Why not keep the shape and put Hinch up front or even Cullip? But Hammond?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

but we have ample options to shift things around a bit without having o resort to Harding playing in Midfield and Hammond up front!

What makes you think Hinshelwood or Cullip would do any better up front than Hammond?

Harding considers his best position to be left midfield, and did start off playing in central midfield before someone started moaning about Mayo's performances and Harding was brought in at left back.

 

[Lammy]

What makes you think Hinshelwood or Cullip would do any better up front than Hammond?

Harding considers his best position to be left midfield, and did start off playing in central midfield before someone started moaning about Mayo's performances and Harding was brought in at left back.

My point is that we missed Virgo up front but why totally restucture the rest of the formation because of this? Our succsess this season has come from keeping it tight at the back and then trying to nick a goal. With Virgo gone that should just of diminished our chances of nicking a goal not open the floodgates.

If we had kept it tight at the back and Crewe had scored first then by all means make some rash changes and experiment. But not right from the outset.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

To be fair Knight was supposed to be out recognised goal scorer. But at this level the defenders realise that they only need to give him the slightest nudge and he colapses in a ball.

I too am a fan of McGhee but I have some reservations about his ability to think on his feet. He has a style of playing that he likes. i.e. 4-4-2 with a big man up front to hold the ball up. When this system is up an running with the correct personel it tends to work ok. Not amazong but ok, enough at least to keep us up. However, if the opposition cotton on to this system and start to break it down he doesn't seem to have the ability to adapt. The same thing happens if you take away a piece from the puzzle. He needs to think of alternative solutions for these problems. Like I've said before, our squad is by no means small. It may not be Chelsea or Man Utd but we have ample options to shift things around a bit without having o resort to Harding playing in Midfield and Hammond up front!

Agree totally about Harding - he's not a midfielder. His pace was needed at the back against Ashton and Rivers ( I was very impressed with them, especially Ashton). The point I suppose about Knight is the jury was out over him scoring at this level. So far you have to say the jury is looking like returning a negative verdict. That said, he's not been playing well ( thought he did ok on Saturday), confidence is low and of course, he's had no-one to play with.

What about Claridge then Lammy or even Dele Adebola from Cov?

 

[Lammy]

Agree totally about Harding - he's not a midfielder. His pace was needed at the back against Ashton and Rivers ( I was very impressed with them, especially Ashton). The point I suppose about Knight is the jury was out over him scoring at this level. So far you have to say the jury is looking like returning a negative verdict. That said, he's not been playing well ( thought he did ok on Saturday), confidence is low and of course, he's had no-one to play with.

What about Claridge then Lammy or even Dele Adebola from Cov?

We don't have any money though (even though we seem to be able to sign players for the reserves).

I agree we do need to sort out a permanent solution to Virgo. Virgo would be an ideal choice to cover or indeed replave Cullip at the back.

However, I'm realistic and realise that whilst we need a player for this role we don't seem to have any budget for players and there aren't many (if any) player of this mould that are affordable and available!