Captain

[GreenSam]

I never said our survival was due to Chadwick, I wrote we would have been relegated without him, which we would have.

His performance in the 2nd half v Bristol Rovers for a start, scoring 1 and setting up 2 goals when we were 2 nil down and getting battered.

He brought strength up front and was streetwise in winning free kicks and breaking up play for a young and inexperienced sid that didn't know any better.

Now we have different and more in form options it might be in vogue to criticise him and call him all names under the sun, but cast your minds back to when his loan ended from Stockport - I seem to remember most of pasoti pleading with Brent to sign him permanently.

I don't agree with personal abuse of him or calling him bad names at all, but I entirely disagree that we would have gone down without him. I think better strikers could have done what he did in his loan spell and over a longer period of time. He did very well in that second half at Rovers granted, but it didn't transcend anything that a genuinely good League Two striker could have done and he could have done it over the whole season not just his loan spell.

Even if we hadn't won that Rovers game, that's one isolated game and aside from that Chadwick did very little to contribute in my view. A better striker could have done more.

Chadwick contributed more in real terms than Feeney (or any other Argyle forward) in the second half of the season - by real terms I mean goals and assists.

And as for theorising another striker would have done better, there is no way of knowing that. The strikers you are thinking of - were they in demand at the time, and come as cheap as Chadders, allowing us to bring in Purse, Blanch, Wotton and MacDonald? Madjo for example would have been impossible at that time and for these reasons.

I think if any striker gets enough chances over a period of time he's bound to score- after his initial purple patch, which I agree was good, he scored 2 in 14 after his loan was made permanent. That's not good even by our standards. Did he get many assists? I can't remember them.

As for other striker doing better in his 14 permanent games, I know this may sound harsh but I don't think many could have done much worse. He didn't score many goals, he didn't provide many assists and he didn't offer much more to the side at all after he signed for us permanently, in my opinion. He had a fantastic loan spell granted but that's it. We may have to disagree on that.

 

[argobenz]

If anyone saw him last night and think he is worth keeping I would be interested in why?

 

[BadBoy]

I never said our survival was due to Chadwick, I wrote we would have been relegated without him, which we would have.

His performance in the 2nd half v Bristol Rovers for a start, scoring 1 and setting up 2 goals when we were 2 nil down and getting battered.

He brought strength up front and was streetwise in winning free kicks and breaking up play for a young and inexperienced sid that didn't know any better.

Now we have different and more in form options it might be in vogue to criticise him and call him all names under the sun, but cast your minds back to when his loan ended from Stockport - I seem to remember most of pasoti pleading with Brent to sign him permanently.

I don't agree with personal abuse of him or calling him bad names at all, but I entirely disagree that we would have gone down without him. I think better strikers could have done what he did in his loan spell and over a longer period of time. He did very well in that second half at Rovers granted, but it didn't transcend anything that a genuinely good League Two striker could have done and he could have done it over the whole season not just his loan spell.

Even if we hadn't won that Rovers game, that's one isolated game and aside from that Chadwick did very little to contribute in my view. A better striker could have done more.

Chadwick contributed more in real terms than Feeney (or any other Argyle forward) in the second half of the season - by real terms I mean goals and assists.

And as for theorising another striker would have done better, there is no way of knowing that. The strikers you are thinking of - were they in demand at the time, and come as cheap as Chadders, allowing us to bring in Purse, Blanch, Wotton and MacDonald? Madjo for example would have been impossible at that time and for these reasons.

I think if any striker gets enough chances over a period of time he's bound to score- after his initial purple patch, which I agree was good, he scored 2 in 14 after his loan was made permanent. That's not good even by our standards. Did he get many assists? I can't remember them.

As for other striker doing better in his 14 permanent games, I know this may sound harsh but I don't think many could have done much worse. He didn't score many goals, he didn't provide many assists and he didn't offer much more to the side at all after he signed for us permanently, in my opinion. He had a fantastic loan spell granted but that's it. We may have to disagree on that.

2 in 14 was better than Feeney last season I bet, but then he's not on the haters list right now after banging in a couple of penalties.

 

[Mazza26]

Haters list? Ah but don't you see, that at least proves that we are not all blinkered. Feeney hardly scores goals so he should be disliked, BUT we do at least see lots of work being done from him, taking defenders away to give space to our other players, holding the ball up, link up play etc...

With regards to Hourihane, i've seen an improvement from him this season, and it was no suprise he was handed the captains armband.

 

[argobenz]

Haters list? Ah but don't you see, that at least proves that we are not all blinkered. Feeney hardly scores goals so he should be disliked, BUT we do at least see lots of work being done from him, taking defenders away to give space to our other players, holding the ball up, link up play etc...

With regards to Hourihane, i've seen an improvement from him this season, and it was no suprise he was handed the captains armband.

Good post, there's no comparison between the work rate although both have p*ss poor scoring records.

 

[GreenSam]

I never said our survival was due to Chadwick, I wrote we would have been relegated without him, which we would have.

His performance in the 2nd half v Bristol Rovers for a start, scoring 1 and setting up 2 goals when we were 2 nil down and getting battered.

He brought strength up front and was streetwise in winning free kicks and breaking up play for a young and inexperienced sid that didn't know any better.

Now we have different and more in form options it might be in vogue to criticise him and call him all names under the sun, but cast your minds back to when his loan ended from Stockport - I seem to remember most of pasoti pleading with Brent to sign him permanently.

I don't agree with personal abuse of him or calling him bad names at all, but I entirely disagree that we would have gone down without him. I think better strikers could have done what he did in his loan spell and over a longer period of time. He did very well in that second half at Rovers granted, but it didn't transcend anything that a genuinely good League Two striker could have done and he could have done it over the whole season not just his loan spell.

Even if we hadn't won that Rovers game, that's one isolated game and aside from that Chadwick did very little to contribute in my view. A better striker could have done more.

Chadwick contributed more in real terms than Feeney (or any other Argyle forward) in the second half of the season - by real terms I mean goals and assists.

And as for theorising another striker would have done better, there is no way of knowing that. The strikers you are thinking of - were they in demand at the time, and come as cheap as Chadders, allowing us to bring in Purse, Blanch, Wotton and MacDonald? Madjo for example would have been impossible at that time and for these reasons.

I think if any striker gets enough chances over a period of time he's bound to score- after his initial purple patch, which I agree was good, he scored 2 in 14 after his loan was made permanent. That's not good even by our standards. Did he get many assists? I can't remember them.

As for other striker doing better in his 14 permanent games, I know this may sound harsh but I don't think many could have done much worse. He didn't score many goals, he didn't provide many assists and he didn't offer much more to the side at all after he signed for us permanently, in my opinion. He had a fantastic loan spell granted but that's it. We may have to disagree on that.

2 in 14 was better than Feeney last season I bet, but then he's not on the haters list right now after banging in a couple of penalties.

I don't hate Chadwick at all, and I don't think many people criticising him do. I certainly think that after Chadwick's (very good) loan spell Feeney offered a lot overall. Yes, even then Chadders got more goals granted. He and Feeney both had poor scoring ratios during that timeframe (January-May 2012) but Chadwick's was slightly better fair enough.

I still feel Feeney's non goal scoring work helped to contribute to wins more than Chadwick did, albeit indirectly. His link up play, off the ball work and hold up work was crucial last season at times. Maybe he didn't score directly but he helped us retain and re-gain possesion- and it's impossible to score without the ball. Well, unless you're Brighton and Paul Connolly decides to chip his own keeper from 40 yards as he did that infamous day.

 

[briangreen]

I never said our survival was due to Chadwick, I wrote we would have been relegated without him, which we would have.

His performance in the 2nd half v Bristol Rovers for a start, scoring 1 and setting up 2 goals when we were 2 nil down and getting battered.

He brought strength up front and was streetwise in winning free kicks and breaking up play for a young and inexperienced sid that didn't know any better.

Now we have different and more in form options it might be in vogue to criticise him and call him all names under the sun, but cast your minds back to when his loan ended from Stockport - I seem to remember most of pasoti pleading with Brent to sign him permanently.

I agree he did contribute, it's easy to demean a player after the event, but we would have lost vital points if we hadn't had him.

 

[BadBoy]

I never said our survival was due to Chadwick, I wrote we would have been relegated without him, which we would have.

His performance in the 2nd half v Bristol Rovers for a start, scoring 1 and setting up 2 goals when we were 2 nil down and getting battered.

He brought strength up front and was streetwise in winning free kicks and breaking up play for a young and inexperienced sid that didn't know any better.

Now we have different and more in form options it might be in vogue to criticise him and call him all names under the sun, but cast your minds back to when his loan ended from Stockport - I seem to remember most of pasoti pleading with Brent to sign him permanently.

I don't agree with personal abuse of him or calling him bad names at all, but I entirely disagree that we would have gone down without him. I think better strikers could have done what he did in his loan spell and over a longer period of time. He did very well in that second half at Rovers granted, but it didn't transcend anything that a genuinely good League Two striker could have done and he could have done it over the whole season not just his loan spell.

Even if we hadn't won that Rovers game, that's one isolated game and aside from that Chadwick did very little to contribute in my view. A better striker could have done more.

Chadwick contributed more in real terms than Feeney (or any other Argyle forward) in the second half of the season - by real terms I mean goals and assists.

And as for theorising another striker would have done better, there is no way of knowing that. The strikers you are thinking of - were they in demand at the time, and come as cheap as Chadders, allowing us to bring in Purse, Blanch, Wotton and MacDonald? Madjo for example would have been impossible at that time and for these reasons.

I think if any striker gets enough chances over a period of time he's bound to score- after his initial purple patch, which I agree was good, he scored 2 in 14 after his loan was made permanent. That's not good even by our standards. Did he get many assists? I can't remember them.

As for other striker doing better in his 14 permanent games, I know this may sound harsh but I don't think many could have done much worse. He didn't score many goals, he didn't provide many assists and he didn't offer much more to the side at all after he signed for us permanently, in my opinion. He had a fantastic loan spell granted but that's it. We may have to disagree on that.

2 in 14 was better than Feeney last season I bet, but then he's not on the haters list right now after banging in a couple of penalties.

I don't hate Chadwick at all, and I don't think many people criticising him do. I certainly think that after Chadwick's (very good) loan spell Feeney offered a lot overall. Yes, even then Chadders got more goals granted. He and Feeney both had poor scoring ratios during that timeframe (January-May 2012) but Chadwick's was slightly better fair enough.

I still feel Feeney's non goal scoring work helped to contribute to wins more than Chadwick did, albeit indirectly. His link up play, off the ball work and hold up work was crucial last season at times. Maybe he didn't score directly but he helped us retain and re-gain possesion- and it's impossible to score without the ball. Well, unless you're Brighton and Paul Connolly decides to chip his own keeper from 40 yards as he did that infamous day.

Can't agree Feeney plays with his back to goal constantly loses possession, rarely wins a header and spends most of his time giving thumbs up signs to players who have passed his way only for him to fail to .retain posession again, yes he runs around a lot but I don't remember many assists and certainly few goals. Madjo is a better bet in my opinion than all our permanently signed forwards.

 

[argobenz]

I never said our survival was due to Chadwick, I wrote we would have been relegated without him, which we would have.

His performance in the 2nd half v Bristol Rovers for a start, scoring 1 and setting up 2 goals when we were 2 nil down and getting battered.

He brought strength up front and was streetwise in winning free kicks and breaking up play for a young and inexperienced sid that didn't know any better.

Now we have different and more in form options it might be in vogue to criticise him and call him all names under the sun, but cast your minds back to when his loan ended from Stockport - I seem to remember most of pasoti pleading with Brent to sign him permanently.

I don't agree with personal abuse of him or calling him bad names at all, but I entirely disagree that we would have gone down without him. I think better strikers could have done what he did in his loan spell and over a longer period of time. He did very well in that second half at Rovers granted, but it didn't transcend anything that a genuinely good League Two striker could have done and he could have done it over the whole season not just his loan spell.

Even if we hadn't won that Rovers game, that's one isolated game and aside from that Chadwick did very little to contribute in my view. A better striker could have done more.

Chadwick contributed more in real terms than Feeney (or any other Argyle forward) in the second half of the season - by real terms I mean goals and assists.

And as for theorising another striker would have done better, there is no way of knowing that. The strikers you are thinking of - were they in demand at the time, and come as cheap as Chadders, allowing us to bring in Purse, Blanch, Wotton and MacDonald? Madjo for example would have been impossible at that time and for these reasons.

I think if any striker gets enough chances over a period of time he's bound to score- after his initial purple patch, which I agree was good, he scored 2 in 14 after his loan was made permanent. That's not good even by our standards. Did he get many assists? I can't remember them.

As for other striker doing better in his 14 permanent games, I know this may sound harsh but I don't think many could have done much worse. He didn't score many goals, he didn't provide many assists and he didn't offer much more to the side at all after he signed for us permanently, in my opinion. He had a fantastic loan spell granted but that's it. We may have to disagree on that.

2 in 14 was better than Feeney last season I bet, but then he's not on the haters list right now after banging in a couple of penalties.

I don't hate Chadwick at all, and I don't think many people criticising him do. I certainly think that after Chadwick's (very good) loan spell Feeney offered a lot overall. Yes, even then Chadders got more goals granted. He and Feeney both had poor scoring ratios during that timeframe (January-May 2012) but Chadwick's was slightly better fair enough.

I still feel Feeney's non goal scoring work helped to contribute to wins more than Chadwick did, albeit indirectly. His link up play, off the ball work and hold up work was crucial last season at times. Maybe he didn't score directly but he helped us retain and re-gain possesion- and it's impossible to score without the ball. Well, unless you're Brighton and Paul Connolly decides to chip his own keeper from 40 yards as he did that infamous day.

Can't agree Feeney plays with his back to goal constantly loses possession, rarely wins a header and spends most of his time giving thumbs up signs to players who have passed his way only for him to fail to .retain posession again, yes he runs around a lot but I don't remember many assists and certainly few goals. Madjo is a better bet in my opinion than all our permanently signed forwards.

I wouldn't pick Feeney or Chadwick