Here's hoping Vitti and Barrett switch places Saturday
Barrett's ability to get into dangerous positions should be able to create all sorts of chances for us, ala Steve Zakuani and Freddie Ljunberg at Seattle. But his woeful, dreadful, truly fucking awful finishing, to me, suggests he should move to the right forward position. He'll still get plenty of chances, but I think both Vitti and Dichio are better options in the middle.
I agree!Originally Posted by jloome
Chad's strength is his speed and work ethic. That is best used in creating space and drawing defenders which leaves poachers like Dichio with prime opportunities!
Chad has a poor finish. But he has talents that are useful up front. The question is whether the coaching staff can use him properly. Right now, he shouldn't be used interchangeably with Dichio.
Barrett's done some really good things off the ball which is why I am still behind him, but we might as well see if Vitti can get the ball in the net because after last night even Barrett must realize we need to switch it up. I hope goal difference doesn't come back and bite us in the ass.
He doesnt look where he's shooting. His eye is on the ball, not the keeper or the net. His head was down both times he got the breakaway wednesday, and if he lifted his fucking chin up he would have known where to bloody hit it.
I disagree. He gets more scoring opportunities then any other player on our squad. The scale will find a way to balance, and he'll bag a bunch.
There's nothing that leads us to believe that Vitti's positioning is anywhere near as good as Chads.
It's hard to be patient with a striker, but I'm not gonna give up on him just yet. He's got some goals in'em.
I'm hoping they bench him put Dichio in centre forward, play DeRo on the left and Vitti on the right. Bring Barrett on for Dichio if needs be in the second half, or sub off Guevara and bring Dero back while Barrett fills the hole in the left and the attack shifts to Vitti on the right. I'd also start Ibrahim there before Barrett on Saturday too.
Dichio unlocked DC's defence three times last season, we need him up front.
Yeah, I'd like to see Chad making runs on a tired out backline that has been dealing with Danny for 70 minutes.
i'd like them to try that. might fuckin' work!
Ibrahim's equally capable of collecting those passes and making runs like that, he has the speed, I think he would have buried at least one of those chances Barrett had and I'm pretty sure he'd score more than Barrett has given the same number of minutes and service.
Barrett should have buried that 2nd chance the other night, the clear break-away. He will never be the American Rooney at this rate.
im a propnent of this switch as well, im curious to see Vitti as an out and out striker thats been given the green light to score
Vitti has to go to CF because he was lost on the wing. I'm not ready to write Barrett off, but I think he should take a seat.
He has had nine games to get on track - it ain't working right now, and this is a professional sports team, not a self-esteem workshop.
Let's get him back in when the international callups start. He could play the wing in midfield when Guevara's gone, and you could move him forward later in the game by subbing Ibbe or Ricketts in for Dichio.
Last edited by ensco; 05-08-2009 at 06:40 AM.
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.
There are a couple issues I have with these suggestions (since there's been more than one in here).
First off, the only thing that's worse than Barrett's finishing is his crossing. Putting him out on the wing somewhat neutralizes the chances he can create.
Second, based on what I saw of the chances Barrett did get against Vancouver, I don't know that Vitti (and I'm sure Dichio) would have been able to create those chances. Vitti's strong on the ball, but doesn't have the same work rate and speed that Barrett does, especially in the wet weather.
Third, you don't pull a professional striker who's having finishing issue out of the lineup. While this isn't a self-esteem workshop, pulling Barrett and sitting him on the bench for no reason other than the fact that he hasn't scored is paramount to him being useless for us this year.
So long as we are winning and Barrett's fit, I say he plays. Whether on the wing or as an out-and-out I don't know. I think he creates more chances in the central role, but we could see him out wide.
As for Vitti, I think his best place is out wide on the left, but realistically, that's DeRo's best spot too. So you put your best player there, and that's DeRo.
Vitti is crap. I just don't see what the excitement is.
$280k for this?
Please......
I want to see them take turns at centre. One misses-out to the wing with them.
Seriously though both of them are driving us nuts with how many close chances they have and both look lacklustre or at least less productive on the wing.
Most good strikers do not look where they are shooting. They rely on their "pitch presence" to always have a good feel where the net is, how far away they are... The may occasionally take a quick peak, but more often they don't. Taking a quick peak causes a delay in shooting, the best ones know where the net is and get shots off quicker.
vitti and ibramhim
see what they can do together
I would try barret at right forward, but I seem to remember we did that a few games ago with vitti in the middle and vitti kept stepping on the ball.
Barrett on the left is a problem because he can't cross with his left foot to save his life, De Ro on the other hand...perrrrrfect.
Heard this for weeks, still waiting...
I concur.. Though Barret gets more chances than Vitti, I find that Vitti creates more chances for himself when he gets the ball. Plus he's hungry for that goal.. and i feel its gonna be a GOLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!
I'm in agreement, we need to try Vitti smack in the center of the park and have Barrett running like crazy on the wings.
Agreed, right now he should be played in the hole and wide, not at the top. The problem is that we do not have another striker that does what Dichio does. The moment you switch someone else in Dichio's slot we play differenlty, it may be what you wanton occasion, but not always.
I agree, let Barrett be a poacher from the wing.
as long as the passing is fluid and we keep posession, it shouldn't be a real problem
may give our attack a different dimension keeping it on the ground for vitti to chase
esp tomorrow's game b/c DC will most likely play 3-5-2, and more space to roam in the back
^ Agree, my concern is that we look a bit unfocused at times when Dichio is not on.
I'm not sold on vitti either; Barrett offers a lot more than him at the moment
Seriously the difference between Barrett and Vitti is Barrett gets WAY more service and for some reason is getting heaps of chances from the coaches. I don't understand why - Vitti has show much more of a predator's instinct and is a much better passer and player with the ball on his feet.
Put this into perspective. Vitti's first game with real service and chances was KC and he looked amazing - his one "one on none" this season (actually AND against Seattle) where he was offside he BURIED IT. Chad Barrett has had about TEN "one on nones" and finished one. If those chances were Barrett's, I'm sorry it would have gone over the crossbar, into the side-netting or right at the keeper.
No hate for anyone - I'd just like to see the goal ratio if Vitti was given the same amount of chances, or put in the same role as Barrett.
I was talking about this the other day, definitley would love to see Vitti get his chances as a primary striker. There is no one else on this team that offers the same type of agility on the ball he does and I think it could prove lethal....
all in cummins hands now I guess
I totally read this statement the wrong way...
What I have seen from Vitti in spurts, when playing with Dichio and particullarly in the second half against Kansas, I have not seen from any striker in the league. He needs time on the filed, and he needs time with Dichio, he will do great things.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
