Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up

Hanson Thread! Hanson Out!

Should we offer Hanson a new contract?

  • Definitely yes

  • Definitely no

  • Yes but on less money


Results are only viewable after voting.

Clayton

Moderator
Jan 8, 2010
12,552
2,274
13,763
Exactly why both need replacing with better.
And if we do that then no problem.

But we need to get better people first rather than make out that dross like Vuckic and McNulty are the guys we're looking for to replace them.
 

Ricc

C&B Full Member
Oct 8, 2007
3,881
683
2,763
32
Shipley
Block B Bantam - there' s a man that knows his strikers.
 

Bob 'Lounge pants' fossil

Usual Suspect
C&B Member
May 16, 2013
4,756
839
3,763
Bradford
Opinions again.

However on this one I agree. He shouldn't be our automatic first choice striker.

yet he seems to be..... this is the crux of the point.

if fit he plays, regardless.

it shouldn't be like that and I want him gone so it removes this as an outcome
 

Clayton

Moderator
Jan 8, 2010
12,552
2,274
13,763
We do play a better style of football when he is not in.

How come all the targetmen that play against us all look a lot more mobile and get in the right positions.
We may play a prettier style of football but it's not any more effective really.

Probably because they're more mobile and get into better positions. The latter bit would be one of my main criticisms of Hanson.
 

Clayton

Moderator
Jan 8, 2010
12,552
2,274
13,763
yet he seems to be..... this is the crux of the point.

if fit he plays, regardless.

it shouldn't be like that and I want him gone so it removes this as an outcome
He plays because managers view him as the best option.

It's not his fault (therefore he doesn't deserve the derision) and when you look at the players who were competing for his place it's difficult to say the managers got it wrong.
 
Apr 3, 2012
739
35
1,578
33
Shelf
We may play a prettier style of football but it's not any more effective really.

Probably because they're more mobile and get into better positions. The latter bit would be one of my main criticisms of Hanson.
I cant argue with the last bit of that post your correct.

I think maybe the style of play with Alex Jones will prove different.
 

Bantam147

Usual Biscuits
C&B Member
Sep 13, 2008
8,869
1,954
2,763
It's not an opinion though. It's a fact.

He played the majority of games in a team who finished 5th last year and is currently playing in a team who are 4th.
It's also a fact that we scored fewer goals than any side who finished above 17th last season. A side widely recognised to lack in firepower. We've performed reasonably as a side because of our strength in defence and midfield, I.e in spite of Hanson and not because of him. Thankfully we now have owners with the awareness and means to invest in appropriate quality to address that deficiency
 

Bob 'Lounge pants' fossil

Usual Suspect
C&B Member
May 16, 2013
4,756
839
3,763
Bradford
We may play a prettier style of football but it's not any more effective really.

Probably because they're more mobile and get into better positions. The latter bit would be one of my main criticisms of Hanson.
I wouldn't expect it to instantly become effective, changing a teams style of play won't happen overnight and it will take time to bear fruit.
 

Bantam147

Usual Biscuits
C&B Member
Sep 13, 2008
8,869
1,954
2,763
He plays because managers view him as the best option.

It's not his fault (therefore he doesn't deserve the derision) and when you look at the players who were competing for his place it's difficult to say the managers got it wrong.
I actually agree. And that's the crux of it for me. My criticism of Hanson isn't so much aimed at Hanson himself. I think he's a pretty average league 2 standard target man, and performs as such.

My frustration is aimed more at the fact that he continues to be peddled as a central and key figure for a club that aspires to more. And despite the ample evidence to the contrary, some continue to insist that he IS the answer to a long standing equation that he's been central to.

Parkinson did some great things for us. But he couldn't spot a striker for love nor money. Defenders? Yeah. Midfielders? Yeah. Need to get the players pumped and working hard, the man for the underdog in a cup tie and the man to instil a long since departed work ethic and team spirit? Absolutely. But the man to get you goals and recruit/coach talented forwards? Never. He had the opportunity; funds from exceptional cup runs, promotion and the sale of Wells provided resource to bring in effective forwards. Instead he handed Hanson a lucrative contract and continued to build a strike force around him. And so, despite being limited, he HAS been the best we've had up to now. Which isn't his fault but is 100% the problem. A problem which we now seem willing and able to solve.
 

Clayton

Moderator
Jan 8, 2010
12,552
2,274
13,763
It's also a fact that we scored fewer goals than any side who finished above 17th last season. A side widely recognised to lack in firepower. We've performed reasonably as a side because of our strength in defence and midfield, I.e in spite of Hanson and not because of him. Thankfully we now have owners with the awareness and means to invest in appropriate quality to address that deficiency
Agree. However if you ever suggest that Hanson helps the midfield or the defence then you are derided despite it also being accepted as the main strength of the TEAMS. That's not in spite of him, he's just as much a part of it as anybody else.

I do see the point though that we could swap him for a striker who is more potent in front of goal but offers less assistance to the other areas. I get that. However, as with all trade off it is possible that what you gain from the additional goals you lose from other areas and you are no better off overall. At one point we will (and should) take that risk however it shouldn't just be a case of 'any old striker will do' to achieve it.
 
Jul 6, 2013
1,174
114
1,008
I actually agree. And that's the crux of it for me. My criticism of Hanson isn't so much aimed at Hanson himself. I think he's a pretty average league 2 standard target man, and performs as such.

My frustration is aimed more at the fact that he continues to be peddled as a central and key figure for a club that aspires to more. And despite the ample evidence to the contrary, some continue to insist that he IS the answer to a long standing equation that he's been central to.

Parkinson did some great things for us. But he couldn't spot a striker for love nor money. Defenders? Yeah. Midfielders? Yeah. Need to get the players pumped and working hard, the man for the underdog in a cup tie and the man to instil a long since departed work ethic and team spirit? Absolutely. But the man to get you goals and recruit/coach talented forwards? Never. He had the opportunity; funds from exceptional cup runs, promotion and the sale of Wells provided resource to bring in effective forwards. Instead he handed Hanson a lucrative contract and continued to build a strike force around him. And so, despite being limited, he HAS been the best we've had up to now. Which isn't his fault but is 100% the problem. A problem which we now seem willing and able to solve.
Great post.
 
Oct 11, 2008
380
81
1,078
pontefract
And still nobody comes up with the name of a realistic replacement for the type of player he is. I am not blind to his limitations and not do I think he is the best player we have, I would be quite happy to replace him if we can but untill we do he is in my squad. Taking Saturdays game as an example when Jones went off what where the alternatives, push the winger up top. If we find ourselves chasing the game and need to mix it up and apply pressure what do we do, put Vince up as a forward?. Can we get better, yes but so far we haven't and to say he is easily replaceable is a phalacy.
 

Hobhead

Usual Suspect.
C&B Member
Jun 22, 2013
7,566
473
1,993
And still nobody comes up with the name of a realistic replacement for the type of player he is. I am not blind to his limitations and not do I think he is the best player we have, I would be quite happy to replace him if we can but untill we do he is in my squad. Taking Saturdays game as an example when Jones went off what where the alternatives, push the winger up top. If we find ourselves chasing the game and need to mix it up and apply pressure what do we do, put Vince up as a forward?. Can we get better, yes but so far we haven't and to say he is easily replaceable is a phalacy.
It not a fallacy, it's my opinion.

As for naming names, who would've named Jamie Proctor last season and what derision would have greeted them if they had? And yet in he came, fresh from Fleetwood Town's reserves and took Jim's place under a manager who rated him so highly that he'd openly stated he'd play him at 70% fit. He's very replaceable.

I predict that (particularly under this new regime), if and when Jim goes, he'll be improved upon and in very little time next to nobody will regret him leaving.