wellfan09 Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Sutton for me. Does much more on a park than Higdon. Except score more goals... Which, with them both being strikers, is a fact which I believe ends this argument . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigeeze Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Higdon. More displined and actually prepared to run for a ball. sutton didn't seem interest in his last season and I never rated him anyway. (Tin hat on and dives behind sandbags) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Don't rate either too highly tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Really? Your command of the how the game is played astonishes. Bordering on clueless! Just bordering? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Sutton for me. Does much more on a park than Higdon. I would liek to see what you wrote about sutton. Anyone with time on their hands wanna dig up a few quotes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogsideloyal Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Except score more goals... Which, with them both being strikers, is a fact which I believe ends this argument . Not really. Kris boyd scored more spl goals than henrik larsson and chris sutton, doesnt make him a better striker. Man utd became a better team when van nistelrooy left despite him guaranteeing them goals. The only time sutton got a run of games in his correct position at motherwell was the last 5 months of last season and he was excellent in that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 The only time sutton got a run of games in his correct position at motherwell was the last 5 months of last season and he was excellent in that time. He was excellent because he had Jeffers making tons of space for him. If he was in our current team, 4-5-1 and 30 yards from the midfielders, I doubt he would have scored the 9 that Higdon has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogsideloyal Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 If he was in our current team, 4-5-1 and 30 yards from the midfielders, I doubt he would have scored the 9 that Higdon has. That we'll never know, but I think he probably would have. Like i mentioned earlier though theres much more to being a striker than just scoring goals. If we had sutton instead of higdon we would have won more corners and throw ins high up the park due to his high work rate and willingness to chase down balls that higdon wouldnt. Sutton was also great at winning free kicks which is important to us especially with hateleys delivery. Higdon has proved himself to be a decent top six striker, but my biggest complaint about him is often we get decent balls in the box and 9 times out of 10 hes caught flat footed and its an easy clearance for the defender, whereas sutton would more often than not be bursting a gut to get across the defender to the near post - like he did for his goals at dens park, rugby park and tannadice last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ML1 Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 That we'll never know, but I think he probably would have. Like i mentioned earlier though theres much more to being a striker than just scoring goals. If we had sutton instead of higdon we would have won more corners and throw ins high up the park due to his high work rate and willingness to chase down balls that higdon wouldnt. Sutton was also great at winning free kicks which is important to us especially with hateleys delivery. Higdon has proved himself to be a decent top six striker, but my biggest complaint about him is often we get decent balls in the box and 9 times out of 10 hes caught flat footed and its an easy clearance for the defender, whereas sutton would more often than not be bursting a gut to get across the defender to the near post - like he did for his goals at dens park, rugby park and tannadice last season. Really ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 He was excellent because he had Jeffers making tons of space for him. If he was in our current team, 4-5-1 and 30 yards from the midfielders, I doubt he would have scored the 9 that Higdon has. Spot on Weeyin. I remember a midweek game at Tannadice when Stuart McCall first took over. We lost 2-0 I think. The formation was 4-5-1 with John Sutton playing as a lone unsupported striker up front (does that sound familiar?). It was the day Mark Fitzpatrick left. He had an awful game and did absolutely nothing. When Jeffers played alongside him he found far more space and was far more effective. Case proven in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Spot on Weeyin. I remember a midweek game at Tannadice when Stuart McCall first took over. We lost 2-0 I think. The formation was 4-5-1 with John Sutton playing as a lone unsupported striker up front (does that sound familiar?). It was the day Mark Fitzpatrick left. He had an awful game and did absolutely nothing. When Jeffers played alongside him he found far more space and was far more effective. Case proven in my book. he was hardly the only one who was poor that night. not one outfield player played well. you can just as easily point to his performance in the win over celtic were jeffers was nowhere to be seen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.