The Lafferty Question

[wabashcannonball 0]

His versatility ensured he was a regular name on the Clarets team sheet, often appearing in an advanced role on the left-hand side of midfield.

 

http://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10413~34037,00.html

 

 

Maybe he's really a goalie, another scouting report claims he's a winger.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

As with all wingers who play so wide they sometimes find themselves a little short of service and because of this he should have been more demonstrative in his vocabulary and body language when he found himself in space.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/feb/19/newsstory.burnley

 

ETA ....I would have liked KL to be the next sensation, but as that is obviously not ever going to happen, time to cut our losses, he is excess baggage we neither need nor can afford.

Edited January 3, 2010 by wabashcannonball

[Danny 0]

Wabash's opinion that Lafferty's wages would be better spent on Boyd, when you consider what each is offering the team, seems like a fairly logical view point. Unless you are more worried about the success of KL than Rangers.

 

Actually, that's not the point he's making at all. He's using that as a guise to justify unfair criticism of Lafferty. It would be like playing Novo as a central midfielder, finding he's not very good there, then having fans giving him abuse calling him crap and saying he should be shipped out and his wages used on Boyd.

 

Yes, he's offering nothing in midfield, but it's because he's out of position.

 

If Kyle Lafferty was given a run up front and wasn't doing it, then I'd be in Cannon's court that he should be shipped out and his wages used elsewhere. But his basis for getting shot of him is unfair. And you seem to be backing him up.

 

Boyd has not really had "barren" spells. Check out the Boyd complete stats thread. That's just pure pish. You appear to say you disagree with my arguement that Boyd was offering something even when only scoring, yet I can't seem to figure out what your disagreement is? You seem to actually be agreeing.

 

My disagreement was as clear as day. I don't agree with you when you say he offered something initially, even if it was only goals. Because when he wasn't scoring, which happened more than once, he was a paperweight. Why the hell do you think Walter asked for more from him - asked him to work on the rest of his game? If he just scored goals in games then there really wouldn't have been an issue.

 

Burnley did play a lot on the left. ESPN merely listing him as a striker does not change that, unless i've missed some other point on that link.

 

Then you're just ignoring plain evidence because it doesn't back your view up. Which is fine. You claimed he was a left midfielder. He wasn't.

 

I'm suprised you're not Northern Irish as it is often fans from their who will staunchly defend Lafferty's performance when at present there is little to back up that point of view.

 

M8, I wish you'd see what my argument is rather than this gross misinterpretation of it. I am NOT defending his performance, I am criticising the abuse he's getting which ignores his best position. Lafferty will never be at his best on the left, or in one off games up front. He needs a run. That's what I am saying and I am surprised you can't understand that.

 

We all would prefer he came good (especially at his cost), but there is little forus to get behing atm.

 

Can anyone see what I am saying? Or is defence of anything related to Lafferty considered taboo around here!?

[Danny 0]

His versatility ensured he was a regular name on the Clarets team sheet, often appearing in an advanced role on the left-hand side of midfield.

 

http://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10413~34037,00.html

 

 

Maybe he's really a goalie, another scouting report claims he's a winger.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

As with all wingers who play so wide they sometimes find themselves a little short of service and because of this he should have been more demonstrative in his vocabulary and body language when he found himself in space.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/feb/19/newsstory.burnley

 

ETA ....I would have liked KL to be the next sensation, but as that is obviously not ever going to happen, time to cut our losses, he is excess baggage we neither need nor can afford.

 

So, wait, is he a left midfielder, an attacking midfielder, a left winger, an advanced left winging midfielding attacking striker, or is he maybe a Frenchman with bad breath.

 

During 2006, he received his first senior Northern Ireland call-up on a post-season trip to the USA to play friendly games against Romania and Uruguay. Lafferty scored his first Northern Ireland goal in an away friendly against Finland the following year.

 

He featured predominantly as the second striker alongside David Healy during Northern Ireland's Euro 2008 qualification group, and he scored his first competitive international goal in a 4ââ?¬â??1 victory over group minnows Liechtenstein. He then secured a 1ââ?¬â??1 draw away to Sweden, scoring Northern Ireland's equaliser in the second half.

 

Kyle Lafferty has today been revealed as Wolves` mystery third striker target according to a Midlands local paper, Express & Star

 

Wolves have apparantly made a preliminary approach to Burnley FC in an effort to bring the Northern Ireland international to Molineux. It would appear that Lafferty is being added to the striker wish-list along with Billy Sharp and Freddy Eastwood

 

We can all quote stuff Cannon.

[Super_Ally 0]

So in the "he only offered goals initially" there was no disagreement. You said you disagreed but then said the exact same as me.

 

 

Why is ESPN evidence that I am ignoring. Yet the numerous British based sources that state he often played as a wide midfielder are not evidence?

[wabashcannonball 0]

Actually, that's not the point he's making at all. He's using that as a guise to justify unfair criticism of Lafferty. It would be like playing Novo as a central midfielder, finding he's not very good there, then having fans giving him abuse calling him crap and saying he should be shipped out and his wages used on Boyd.

 

Yes, he's offering nothing in midfield, but it's because he's out of position.

 

If Kyle Lafferty was given a run up front and wasn't doing it, then I'd be in Cannon's court that he should be shipped out and his wages used elsewhere. But his basis for getting shot of him is unfair. And you seem to be backing him up.

 

 

 

My disagreement was as clear as day. I don't agree with you when you say he offered something initially, even if it was only goals. Because when he wasn't scoring, which happened more than once, he was a paperweight. Why the hell do you think Walter asked for more from him - asked him to work on the rest of his game? If he just scored goals in games then there really wouldn't have been an issue.

 

 

 

Then you're just ignoring plain evidence because it doesn't back your view up. Which is fine. You claimed he was a left midfielder. He wasn't.

 

 

 

M8, I wish you'd see what my argument is rather than this gross misinterpretation of it. I am NOT defending his performance, I am criticising the abuse he's getting which ignores his best position. Lafferty will never be at his best on the left, or in one off games up front. He needs a run. That's what I am saying and I am surprised you can't understand that.

 

 

 

Can anyone see what I am saying? Or is defence of anything related to Lafferty considered taboo around here!?

 

Personally as you obviously read my posts and then imagine they say something else, that suits your agenda with regard to the signing of an abject failure, who has been a waste of time and money, carry on..........tying yourself in knots. The money wasted on laugherty would have been better used keeping KB at Ibrox for the rest of his career. How much more simple would you like it put.

[Danny 0]

So in the "he only offered goals initially" there was no disagreement. You said you disagreed but then said the exact same as me.

 

Then we're misunderstanding each other. And it will only aggravate my headache.

 

Why is ESPN evidence that I am ignoring. Yet the numerous British based sources that state he often played as a wide midfielder are not evidence?

 

So what you're effectively saying is none of the evidence is valid? If I'm ignoring yours and you're ignoring mine, what's the point?

 

Let us just move on - we got a great point today and that's all I really want to think about for now

[wabashcannonball 0]

So, wait, is he a left midfielder, an attacking midfielder, a left winger, an advanced left winging midfielding attacking striker, or is he maybe a Frenchman with bad breath.

 

 

 

 

 

We can all quote stuff Cannon.

 

But,....you can't quote local newspapers, Bluedell doesn't allow it. :devil:

[Danny 0]

Personally as you obviously read my posts and then imagine they say something else, that suits your agenda with regard to the signing of an abject failure, who has been a waste of time and money, carry on..........tying yourself in knots. The money wasted on laugherty would have been better used keeping KB at Ibrox for the rest of his career. How much more simple would you like it put.

 

Like I say, I am done here. I have no agenda, my point is as plain as can be, and I have no wish to get into this any more.

 

I have my view, and I respect your right to yours.

 

We got a point today, I'm just going to dwell on that now.

[Bluedell 5,679]

But,....you can't quote local newspapers, Bluedell doesn't allow it. :devil:

 

It's allowed. It's just not very convincing when you have to go to an article that's over a year old by a journalist (that most on here have never heard of before) that isn't "local" to try and back up your view that Lafferty is a midfielder.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Like I say, I am done here. I have no agenda, my point is as plain as can be, and I have no wish to get into this any more.

 

I have my view, and I respect your right to yours.

 

We got a point today, I'm just going to dwell on that now.

 

OK m8 have a good one, a point is a point in anyones language even mine, no hard feelings, be a bit boring if we all agreed on everything, Nothing would please me more if your opinion turns out to be right, I just don;t think we have that sort of time now, anyway no harm done enjoyed our debate, thanx.