Worst Players | Page 3 | Vital Football

Worst Players

This was harder than finding favourites because some are bad because they were made bad by tactics, formations or just being out of their depth so here we go.
Jamal Lowe, Neil Morton, Paul Dalglish, Leon Clarke, Noel Hunt, Kayne Woolerey, Ryan Tunnicliffe, Andrew Taylor, Conor Sammon, Solomon Olembe, Sammy Odelusei, Daniel DeRidder, Caleb Folan, Jordi Hiwula Mayifilla, Marlon King, Josh McEchran, Josh Laurent.
 
Last edited:
jeffs right said:
This was harder than finding favourites because some are bad because they were made bad by tactics, formations or just being out of their depth so here we go.
Jamal Lowe, Neil Morton, Paul Dalglish, Leon Clarke, Noel Hunt, Kayne Woolerey, Ryan Tunnicliffe, Andrew Taylor, Conor Sammon, Solomon Olembe, Sammy Odelusei, Daniel DeRidder, Caleb Folan, Jordi Hiwula Mayifilla, Marlon King, Josh McEchran, Josh Laurent.
Click to expand...
Another stinker Michael O'Neill.
 
‘Dynamite Don Cowie’ is one mentioned earlier in the thread .....and he’s one that used to infuriate me in that he didn’t do anything good on the pitch, but I don’t actually recall him doing anything bad ....I never saw him do ANYTHING .....at all.
Meandered around at a slow trot as if he was some kind of on pitch 4th official.....sort of ‘on the pitch’ ...but under no circumstances was he to get involved in the play.
 
NorthernSoul said:
Not sure why so many are selecting players that didn't get a chance. Who knows with a proper opportunity how they may have done. We had soke club legends who after half a dozen games looked poor but once they got up to speed and settled well the rest is history. Gomez being the perfect example of this

Delort signed for us and had been injured all pre season. Was clearly no where near fit enough to start. Yet was starting 4 games in quick succession and was way off the pace. Never started again. How is 4 games enough to say he had a chance? Since then he's had a great record, over 10m in transfers I believe. 2 years after leaving heavily linked with a France national team call up.

Boselli. Started 6 games. 5 at the beginning of his Wigan career. Had just signed from Argentina. Was clearly going to take time to adapt. Never got given that time. Since then scored a lot of goals and was capped by a very strong Argentina side.

For me considering a half a dozen match spell with us was the anomaly in their careers, I think it was our bad management not a bad player.
Click to expand...

I remember vividly we were playing Riera and McManaman as a pair up front and it was working very well with Riera being perfect the foil for Macca who scored something like 4 in his first 5 games.

Then we bought Delort who was tiny and banged him up front immedietely on his own in a league known for being very physical and pumped long balls at him. We dropped Riera and never played him again, and put McMannaman on the wing where his form and goals dried up and never put him back up front. It was mind numbing stupidity - if we carried on with Riera and Macca as a pair and eased Delort in as a sub maybe things could've gone a lot different. Delort was certainly set up to fail as was everything under Rosler that season! But at the same time Delort certainly didn't show a faint glimpse of anything in his brief time on the pitch for 3m you'd think there would have been something but he looked so lightweight and out of his depth - he made soft arse Josh Windass look like a bruiser!
 
Last edited:
I remember that time KDZ, and as you say, Riera was starting to look good.

At the start of your second para, I presume you mean Delort ................... and though I don't disagree with what you say re the tactics, he certainly wasn't tiny. He was a decent sized unit from what I recall. Looking on wiki, 6.0ft to Riera's 6.1ft.

Definitely a mistake from Rosler that one.

Edit - Crusat was the tiny one .......but he was under Bob wasn't he?
 
moonay said:
I remember that time KDZ, and as you say, Riera was starting to look good.

At the start of your second para, I presume you mean Delort ................... and though I don't disagree with what you say re the tactics, he certainly wasn't tiny. He was a decent sized unit from what I recall. Looking on wiki, 6.0ft to Riera's 6.1ft.

Definitely a mistake from Rosler that one.

Edit - Crusat was the tiny one .......but he was under Bob wasn't he?
Click to expand...

Crusat was tiny (I thought he actually looked good in his 2 or so appearances and never understood why he never got a chance after paying 3m or so). But i also Delort looked small - I remember him standing next to centre halves and thinking he'll never be able to physically compete with anyone not so much just height but physically he looked noticably smaller. Maybe I'm totally misremembering but I always love my strikers to have some height and I remember being concerned when I saw him line up for the first time against his marker.

If he was 6ft I am stunned as he played as if he was 5'7. But I've noticed some players play as if they are bigger than they are like McCollouch was under 6 ft but played as if he was 6'2 while others play as if they were smaller than they were Delort certainly falls into the latter if he was 6ft. Suprised at that.
 
moonay said:
I remember that time KDZ, and as you say, Riera was starting to look good.

At the start of your second para, I presume you mean Delort ................... and though I don't disagree with what you say re the tactics, he certainly wasn't tiny. He was a decent sized unit from what I recall. Looking on wiki, 6.0ft to Riera's 6.1ft.

Definitely a mistake from Rosler that one.

Edit - Crusat was the tiny one .......but he was under Bob wasn't he?
Click to expand...
Thing is the one up top disease had set in then and the obvious thing of playing them both together wasnt considered just like not playing Fortune with Holt prior to that and nowadays Garner with Moore.
 
jeffs right said:
Thing is the one up top disease had set in then and the obvious thing of playing them both together wasnt considered just like not playing Fortune with Holt prior to that and nowadays Garner with Moore.
Click to expand...
Fortune wouldn't have scored playing up front for barca 😉🤣
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
Crusat was tiny (I thought he actually looked good in his 2 or so appearances and never understood why he never got a chance after paying 3m or so). But i also Delort looked small - I remember him standing next to centre halves and thinking he'll never be able to physically compete with anyone not so much just height but physically he looked noticably smaller. Maybe I'm totally misremembering but I always love my strikers to have some height and I remember being concerned when I saw him line up for the first time against his marker.

If he was 6ft I am stunned as he played as if he was 5'7. But I've noticed some players play as if they are bigger than they are like McCollouch was under 6 ft but played as if he was 6'2 while others play as if they were smaller than they were Delort certainly falls into the latter if he was 6ft. Suprised at that.
Click to expand...
Agree about Crusat, there was definitely a decent little winger waiting to show through, but if memory serves me right, he picked up a serious knee injury and didn't recover before his contract expired. Shame that, it'd have been good to see if he could have delivered on that early promise
 
Hampton said:
Fortune wouldn't have scored playing up front for barca 😉🤣
Click to expand...

To be fair Fortune was a Heskey / Moore type - the work horse who needed a strike partner to turn their graft into goals. I remember a few games early on under Coyle when we had 2 up front Fortune looked a really good player and he caused Man City no end of problems. I think he gets massive unfair critasism - he was excellent at holding the ball, a good team player, was strong and quick - he just had no killer instinct in front of goal - but that is the way he was his whole career he's the foil for the number 9.

We bought Fortune knowing what he was good and bad at and then like so many others around that time we didn't play to his strengths but exposed his weaknesses too often. Heskey is fondly remembered for his time here but if we played him up front on his own nearly every game like we did with Fortune people would've said Emile was crap too. If we played Fortune up front in a pair every week we'd maybe remember him more fondly. He could've been an asset if used up front doing the running for Waghorn who suffered being a goal scoring lone front man who wasn't that physical. Waghorn needed a foil to do his battling for him - Fortune and him would've been a good fit - but Waghorn was always used as a lone striker which he was not strong enough to play or a winger which he was not quick enough to play neither of which suited him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.