| That was not to shabby 17:33 - Aug 14 with 11122 views | Malintabuk |
Sitting in the back of my nephews car trying to get out of this massive car park with my brother who is mid 70s and I'm only 6 yrs behind him and we are like a couple of teenagers that has just pulled, funny what football can do to you
Like all of us the last months our football fix was satisfied by streams how different the game is live
First thing have to say what great support again today, the travelling Rs were Fantastic but there again unlike Tuesday we really did have something to sing about
Now the game
The back 3 for me today were immense and they looked so in command.
Seny apart from the one bad clearance was also in total command
The midfield. Well again on a stream you do wonder about Ball but in live action he is really impressive. For those old enough he is the later day version of Mick Leach, the perennial boo boy but he does all the unsexy work.
Chair was effective and first game back after illness he was OK..... Willock is a real handful and played well.... but JoJo was a Rolls Royce possibly the most influencial signing we have made in years
Dykes I'm sorry but he is not the answer. Even his goal was a mishit and would never had gone in otherwise. Hate saying it about a lad who clearly tries
So the team was great. We had a few tricky moments but really it was never in doubt
For me the turning point was that Dickie clearance. That would have made it 1-1 and with them on top that could have changed the game for them.
Now to my MOTM..... Dickie. Really can't say anything as well as North can on how good, how dominant and how skilful this lad is. I honesty thought with talk about Premier league we were perhaps biased.... but he is Premier class..... God I hope we can KEEP him
So we are moving Southwards.... now and a very happy car. Won't make my 2nd away game in 15 yrs this week so back to QPR+.... but I'm looking forward to it
RRRRRRRRRsssssss
|  | | |  |
| That was not to shabby on 15:31 - Aug 15 with 2739 views | Malintabuk |
Think I was the one that as possibly started this with Dykes so I think I should perhaps elaborate
If the worse thing about him is inconsistency then that can hopefully change. Last year before Christmas he was poor and the end of the season he did well. Now at the start of this he is not really firing.
OK it is only 3 games in and he never started the first but yesterday was the first time I've seen him live.
I have to say honestly he did not do a great deal apart from scoring. There is not a lot of movement from him. There were several times when the midfield were looking for him to make space and he never did.
When your the lone striker movement is a huge part of your game and does not seem to have that ability to create his own space
Again as the lone striker control and holding onto the ball is so important.... he does not do that well and his first touch is not great
Yes he works, yes he makes a lot of headers, and yes I think there is a chance of Inprovement and I really hope he does
But my nephew said something that may be true..... perhaps our football is not suited to his style
I hope he proves me wrong and rediscovers post new year. But he was our most ineffective player yesterday even with the goal | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 16:03 - Aug 15 with 2672 views | ParkRoyalR |
| That was not to shabby on 15:31 - Aug 15 by Malintabuk |
Think I was the one that as possibly started this with Dykes so I think I should perhaps elaborate
If the worse thing about him is inconsistency then that can hopefully change. Last year before Christmas he was poor and the end of the season he did well. Now at the start of this he is not really firing.
OK it is only 3 games in and he never started the first but yesterday was the first time I've seen him live.
I have to say honestly he did not do a great deal apart from scoring. There is not a lot of movement from him. There were several times when the midfield were looking for him to make space and he never did.
When your the lone striker movement is a huge part of your game and does not seem to have that ability to create his own space
Again as the lone striker control and holding onto the ball is so important.... he does not do that well and his first touch is not great
Yes he works, yes he makes a lot of headers, and yes I think there is a chance of Inprovement and I really hope he does
But my nephew said something that may be true..... perhaps our football is not suited to his style
I hope he proves me wrong and rediscovers post new year. But he was our most ineffective player yesterday even with the goal |
Yesterday was not one of his better all-round games but he was effective as:
1) Scored 2nd and likely match-winning goal through good movement
2) Assisted/was involved in build up for 3rd, good movement again (a previous weakness)
3) Great shot/movement which could have been match-winning if not for Ingram's save
Chair was arguably our most ineffective player (other than pass to Willock for 1st which was n't to his usual standard of passing) as we were more effective with our passing around the box, which is his forte, when he was replaced.
Not criticizing Chair as you are not Dykes, but Rangers fans (maybe most do) seem to have a habit of getting on a particular players back and then fitting the facts to support their argument (eg probably why Washington got nearly 100 games before most admitted he was not a championship level striker - might be why some are so keen to call-out Dykes early, so they're not wrong again).
Chair can be ineffective (although is key to our formation and how we play, as is Dykes) yet is never criticized, Dykes puts in a proper shift like he did yesterday and usual suspects (not yourself) are lining up to criticize. Simmo called it 100% right, lets all back him, see the positive in his play and give him the support he deserves. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 16:15 - Aug 15 with 2648 views | dmm |
I'm a little surprised you thought Chair was our most ineffective player yesterday, ParkRoyalR. Although not at his best - understandably so given he'd been unwell for a few days - I felt he provided much of what we'd missed in the previous two games; a good link between midfield and attack, and ball retention going forward. Plus those triangles between him, Willock and Wallace always cause defences problems even though they now know it's coming. He also got an assist for the first goal. |  | | |
| That was not to shabby on 17:03 - Aug 15 with 2590 views | ParkRoyalR |
| That was not to shabby on 16:15 - Aug 15 by dmm |
I'm a little surprised you thought Chair was our most ineffective player yesterday, ParkRoyalR. Although not at his best - understandably so given he'd been unwell for a few days - I felt he provided much of what we'd missed in the previous two games; a good link between midfield and attack, and ball retention going forward. Plus those triangles between him, Willock and Wallace always cause defences problems even though they now know it's coming. He also got an assist for the first goal. |
Yes, agree, but that's only down to the very high standards of all the other players yesterday, and Chair was coming back from illness,
You're right, even when not at his best or without scoring or making proper assists he is crucial to how we play (as we saw without him against Millwall and Orient) as is Dykes, which was the comparison I was trying to draw - If one does n't score he gets grief - if the other does n't get his corners over the 1st man or get his head up and spot the runners - no grief.
We're in a good place if they're our 2 weakest performers occasionally. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 17:10 - Aug 15 with 2574 views | gazza1 |
| That was not to shabby on 10:45 - Aug 15 by francisbowles |
I haven't seen more of the match than shown on Quest having been in the car during the game and listening on QPR+. So this is just an interested question, were you at the game or did you watch it on a stream? |
I watched it on a stream....... | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 17:15 - Aug 15 with 2562 views | gazza1 |
| That was not to shabby on 16:15 - Aug 15 by dmm |
I'm a little surprised you thought Chair was our most ineffective player yesterday, ParkRoyalR. Although not at his best - understandably so given he'd been unwell for a few days - I felt he provided much of what we'd missed in the previous two games; a good link between midfield and attack, and ball retention going forward. Plus those triangles between him, Willock and Wallace always cause defences problems even though they now know it's coming. He also got an assist for the first goal. |
Chair was decent yesterday, done a lot of work down the left hand side of the park, worked well with Willock and Wallace as has already been stated. First game of the season after an illness - decent enough. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 17:17 - Aug 15 with 2551 views | gazza1 |
| That was not to shabby on 15:31 - Aug 15 by Malintabuk |
Think I was the one that as possibly started this with Dykes so I think I should perhaps elaborate
If the worse thing about him is inconsistency then that can hopefully change. Last year before Christmas he was poor and the end of the season he did well. Now at the start of this he is not really firing.
OK it is only 3 games in and he never started the first but yesterday was the first time I've seen him live.
I have to say honestly he did not do a great deal apart from scoring. There is not a lot of movement from him. There were several times when the midfield were looking for him to make space and he never did.
When your the lone striker movement is a huge part of your game and does not seem to have that ability to create his own space
Again as the lone striker control and holding onto the ball is so important.... he does not do that well and his first touch is not great
Yes he works, yes he makes a lot of headers, and yes I think there is a chance of Inprovement and I really hope he does
But my nephew said something that may be true..... perhaps our football is not suited to his style
I hope he proves me wrong and rediscovers post new year. But he was our most ineffective player yesterday even with the goal |
I believe Dykes did start against Millwall and has started every game......not sure but I think he has played every minute of the season for us. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 17:17 - Aug 15 with 2550 views | dezzar |
Loved yesterday, match of the day , is the only way to spend your Saturday | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| That was not to shabby on 09:55 - Aug 19 with 2211 views | simmo |
|  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| That was not to shabby on 10:14 - Aug 19 with 2150 views | CiderwithRsie |
| That was not to shabby on 09:55 - Aug 19 by simmo |
|
But a week ago there were people on here still saying he was worst player on pitch, not sure he's good enough, "pre_Christmas Dykes" etc. etc.
As someone said, if he's our worst player we're in a good place. He keeps scoring and we keep winning. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 10:25 - Aug 19 with 2136 views | nix |
| That was not to shabby on 10:14 - Aug 19 by CiderwithRsie |
But a week ago there were people on here still saying he was worst player on pitch, not sure he's good enough, "pre_Christmas Dykes" etc. etc.
As someone said, if he's our worst player we're in a good place. He keeps scoring and we keep winning. |
Absolutely this [Post edited 19 Aug 2021 14:51]
|  | | |
| That was not to shabby on 10:39 - Aug 19 with 2109 views | BazzeR |
Another pleasing stat from the Boro game was the ratio of 5 shots on target to 7 shots taken.
7 shots taken is low in comparison of our usual high teens when the team clicks but last night was an excellent result of being ruthless when chances are presented. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 10:47 - Aug 19 with 2079 views | dmm |
| That was not to shabby on 10:39 - Aug 19 by BazzeR |
Another pleasing stat from the Boro game was the ratio of 5 shots on target to 7 shots taken.
7 shots taken is low in comparison of our usual high teens when the team clicks but last night was an excellent result of being ruthless when chances are presented. |
Yes, I noticed that stat too and thought it revealed Warburton's preference for working the ball into good scoring positions rather than shooting early.
We all like a long range goal, and have the players who can score them, but that success ratio sort of supports his approach. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 11:04 - Aug 19 with 2041 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Apols for the possible Spackers.
|  |
| |
| That was not to shabby on 11:18 - Aug 19 with 2006 views | ParkRoyalR |
| That was not to shabby on 11:04 - Aug 19 by BrianMcCarthy |
Apols for the possible Spackers.
|
Was impressed with his movement and arc'ing run to open himself up to receive Willock's pass, very Austin-esque and not sure we were seeing that movement before Austin arrived mid-season. Likewise trying to get across his man for the 1st which forced the interception and OG. Seems to have quite a few facets to his game and if he can bring them all together consistently, will be a top Championship striker. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 22:41 - Aug 19 with 1846 views | QPRMendoza |
| That was not to shabby on 11:04 - Aug 19 by BrianMcCarthy |
Apols for the possible Spackers.
|
It really is amazing how much grief Dykes gets when you see the recent stats. He was always going to need time to adjust. Quite clearly Warbs, given his post match interview, holds him in very high regard. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 08:29 - Aug 20 with 1698 views | gazza1 |
| That was not to shabby on 22:41 - Aug 19 by QPRMendoza |
It really is amazing how much grief Dykes gets when you see the recent stats. He was always going to need time to adjust. Quite clearly Warbs, given his post match interview, holds him in very high regard. |
I am not a 'stats man'.....they can be very misleading indeed.
As for Dykes, imho, it is clear that he is quite a limited player. His touch, on too many occasions, are that of a park player, his movement can be very poor, his decision making is often wrong......but he puts in a shift - works hard, appears to have a good attitude and a likeable character and more, a good team member and has scored a few times which is what I would expect from a 'main striker'.
I believe that MW holds all of his players in 'very high regard' otherwise they would not be at the Club (or involved). | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 08:51 - Aug 20 with 1671 views | nix |
| That was not to shabby on 08:29 - Aug 20 by gazza1 |
I am not a 'stats man'.....they can be very misleading indeed.
As for Dykes, imho, it is clear that he is quite a limited player. His touch, on too many occasions, are that of a park player, his movement can be very poor, his decision making is often wrong......but he puts in a shift - works hard, appears to have a good attitude and a likeable character and more, a good team member and has scored a few times which is what I would expect from a 'main striker'.
I believe that MW holds all of his players in 'very high regard' otherwise they would not be at the Club (or involved). |
Stats on their own can be misleading but as part of an overall picture can be enlightening.
I'm sure you can say about any of our players that at times their movement/touch/decision making can be poor, or they would be playing in the Prem. Personally I think having a good attitude and working hard are pretty important. His movement is good enough at times to get goals, as in the Middlesbrough goal. He only has to move well a couple of times a match for it to count. I think you're also unfairly dismissing his involvement in the build up to goals, which I think shows a footballing instinct that was lacking in others, like, say, Conor Washington.
I think Warburton has shown that he's happy to move people on if they're not quite right or if he can't see that they'll improve enough. He rates Dykes because despite his current limitations he's clearly improving, showing he can learn, and working hard to get better.
As a PP said, you've decided you don't rate him and it seems like you're looking for evidence to support your view of him while discounting anything positive. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 09:23 - Aug 20 with 1627 views | gazza1 |
| That was not to shabby on 08:51 - Aug 20 by nix |
Stats on their own can be misleading but as part of an overall picture can be enlightening.
I'm sure you can say about any of our players that at times their movement/touch/decision making can be poor, or they would be playing in the Prem. Personally I think having a good attitude and working hard are pretty important. His movement is good enough at times to get goals, as in the Middlesbrough goal. He only has to move well a couple of times a match for it to count. I think you're also unfairly dismissing his involvement in the build up to goals, which I think shows a footballing instinct that was lacking in others, like, say, Conor Washington.
I think Warburton has shown that he's happy to move people on if they're not quite right or if he can't see that they'll improve enough. He rates Dykes because despite his current limitations he's clearly improving, showing he can learn, and working hard to get better.
As a PP said, you've decided you don't rate him and it seems like you're looking for evidence to support your view of him while discounting anything positive. |
I do not have favourites.......they are all Rangers as far as I am concerned. Dykes is proper limited without question but most just look at the goals and whilst they win games there is also more to the game. Sorry but 'working hard & good attitude' are a givens and if they do not do that - the door should be open for them.
His goal at Boro, whilst the saying is 'you don't shoot, you don't score' - Joe gave him a big present there and why Joe is no longer a Ranger. The Boro penalty - clearly a bad decision from Dykes that cost us. I have seen him at our previous 3 matches this season and he has done very little indeed. Look at Norf's reports.......and the marks he has given Dykes.
I do not know if MW rates him but MW has very little options in the 'front runner' department and why I would have thought MW would have looked pre season for a striker but I presume his priorities lay elsewhere. Dykes will play if MW plays 2 forwards or if CA is not 100% fit, needs a rest or CA not playing well. There are no others.
Listen, I ain't got a problem if you 'rate' Dykes so please respect that I have issues (currently) with Dykes - he has a lot of limitations. I don't have to look very far for evidence why I do not currently think that he is a good player.
Who is PP? [Post edited 20 Aug 2021 9:26]
| | | |
| That was not to shabby on 10:27 - Aug 20 with 1567 views | ParkRoyalR |
| That was not to shabby on 09:23 - Aug 20 by gazza1 |
I do not have favourites.......they are all Rangers as far as I am concerned. Dykes is proper limited without question but most just look at the goals and whilst they win games there is also more to the game. Sorry but 'working hard & good attitude' are a givens and if they do not do that - the door should be open for them.
His goal at Boro, whilst the saying is 'you don't shoot, you don't score' - Joe gave him a big present there and why Joe is no longer a Ranger. The Boro penalty - clearly a bad decision from Dykes that cost us. I have seen him at our previous 3 matches this season and he has done very little indeed. Look at Norf's reports.......and the marks he has given Dykes.
I do not know if MW rates him but MW has very little options in the 'front runner' department and why I would have thought MW would have looked pre season for a striker but I presume his priorities lay elsewhere. Dykes will play if MW plays 2 forwards or if CA is not 100% fit, needs a rest or CA not playing well. There are no others.
Listen, I ain't got a problem if you 'rate' Dykes so please respect that I have issues (currently) with Dykes - he has a lot of limitations. I don't have to look very far for evidence why I do not currently think that he is a good player.
Who is PP? [Post edited 20 Aug 2021 9:26]
|
Gazza, Just out of interest did you rate Washington? If I'm honest I felt the way you do towards Dykes to Washington, as it was immediately evident to me he was playing at least one League above his level.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic after the Washington experience but, for a player who cost probably half was Washington did and is on probably half his wages, I see in Dykes a young player who has come late to the game who has so much potential and is better in every department than Washington, and arguably compares favourably to Hughill who cost £10m and kept McBurnie out of the Scotland team who cost £20m.
Dykes goal the other night was 1st Class from his running line to opening his body up to swivel and shoot with real power from an acute angle. The pace of the shot beat Lumley and evened up his lucky save from Dykes's earlier effort.
Evidence wise his stats over the last 13 goals are also 1st Class and a fantastic return on our investment and I think even Clive would take these stats over his match report scores.
I reckon if both fit, MW will start Dykes ahead of Austin, could be wrong. I was a bit dubious on Willock after his first few games (too lightweight) and Wallace (too old / slow) but having seen the improvement in both (Willock's strength / conditioning - Wallace fitness) have total confidence in MW, so if he rates Dykes, that'll do me. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 10:31 - Aug 20 with 1554 views | Malintabuk |
Arguments about players and their abilities or lack of them is something that supporters do and have done over the years
The one common factor though is that we all want the best for QPR, well most of us do
The first spat I really noticed was with a one Keith Sanderson and it move onto Mike Leach and Tony Hazel and so on
I'm really in the minority camp of thinking Dykes is not that good. As I wrote in the OP he really does not seem to do enough to be a good striker. But we can't argue the fact in 3 games he has 2 goals
I will say now I'll glady take his performances as they are if he ends up scoring 18-20 this season | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 11:03 - Aug 20 with 1517 views | gazza1 |
| That was not to shabby on 10:27 - Aug 20 by ParkRoyalR |
Gazza, Just out of interest did you rate Washington? If I'm honest I felt the way you do towards Dykes to Washington, as it was immediately evident to me he was playing at least one League above his level.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic after the Washington experience but, for a player who cost probably half was Washington did and is on probably half his wages, I see in Dykes a young player who has come late to the game who has so much potential and is better in every department than Washington, and arguably compares favourably to Hughill who cost £10m and kept McBurnie out of the Scotland team who cost £20m.
Dykes goal the other night was 1st Class from his running line to opening his body up to swivel and shoot with real power from an acute angle. The pace of the shot beat Lumley and evened up his lucky save from Dykes's earlier effort.
Evidence wise his stats over the last 13 goals are also 1st Class and a fantastic return on our investment and I think even Clive would take these stats over his match report scores.
I reckon if both fit, MW will start Dykes ahead of Austin, could be wrong. I was a bit dubious on Willock after his first few games (too lightweight) and Wallace (too old / slow) but having seen the improvement in both (Willock's strength / conditioning - Wallace fitness) have total confidence in MW, so if he rates Dykes, that'll do me. |
No I did not rate Washington......Washington was a massive disappointment. Dykes scores goals.
I am not interested in finances because I do not know what they cost in transfer fees nor do I know what they earn in wages, bonuses, etc. It surprises me how so many know so much about players wages, etc because it is a very private affair and can be very emotive and cause friction within the group.
Pleased with his goal at Boro, very pleased and as I said previously 'don't shoot, don't score' but joe gave him an early Xmas present. I would have been unpleased if our keeper let that in.
I have said, rightly or wrongly, I am not a stats man. I watch players very carefully and Dykes is limited. OK you think he is better than CA, i am unsure about that. Question, If thsat is the case, why did he start CA ahead in the friendlies and in games last year?? I think CA is No1.
Re Willock, most improved player in the squad, when he came here he was not ready. His improvements have been excellent and well done to MW and his team and Willock himself, as well. Wallace was never as bad as so many thought and said on this very MB - he was and is a good wide player, excellent captain and proper decent team member for all of the squad. | | | |
| That was not to shabby on 11:23 - Aug 20 with 1480 views | Ashdown_Ranger |
Dykes is a late-comer to football and a work in progress.
He's easily at a decent Championship level and I expect him to get better through the season under Charlie's mentoring (maybe not the head-butting routine Chaz...).
Dykes goal 'mishit'? I don't think so. A great strike, if rather fortunate that Lumley didn't do better with it. But there was bugger-all else on, so he demonstrated a striker's instinct - if in doubt, wellie it at the goal...
Very happy to have Dykes in the team. [Post edited 20 Aug 2021 11:50]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
