Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Scott Fraser - pg 36 - left by mutual consent
Comments
-
The bloke can't tackle, but we have much bigger problems in this team.0
-
Was really excited when we signed him , okay his stint at Ipswich didn't work out but that's just football for you. Just not really sure where you play him to get the best of him , ironically it's probably in a 433 where he can get on the ball and look to create. Very tidy player on the ball but bar that one goal at Accy he doesn't seem to get in and around the box enough. 3 goals and 3 assists this season for someone that's meant to be the main creative spark isn't great.0
-
Charltonised….0
-
He’s a problem but not the biggest one - no forwards and no centre halves covers that .FishCostaFortune said:Fraser is the least of our problems. He’s clearly a talented player who is calm on the ball in tight spaces, and is able to link up defence to attack when things are going well for us.
Sadly due to poor recruitment, and lack of consistency in coaching structure, we are so unbalanced across the whole pitch that even though we have pockets of talent overall we are just not competitive enough.Edit - I qualify that by stressing that I mean on the pitch.0 -
Goals and assists come when you have a good team... we don't. He'd no doubt score and assist more if we had a Taylor or Kermorgant up front. Instead we mainly have Stockley who's gone backwards and doesn't look the same player, he doesn't even win headers like he used to.MarcusH26 said:Was really excited when we signed him , okay his stint at Ipswich didn't work out but that's just football for you. Just not really sure where you play him to get the best of him , ironically it's probably in a 433 where he can get on the ball and look to create. Very tidy player on the ball but bar that one goal at Accy he doesn't seem to get in and around the box enough. 3 goals and 3 assists this season for someone that's meant to be the main creative spark isn't great.1 -
Fraser might not be one of the main problems but for me he needs to contribute more in terms of goals and assists from open play. Held onto the ball for too long yesterday a couple of times when wingers needed to be released
0 -
Would be interested to hear what Scott thinks his best position is. I don't personally think he is best utilised as an out an out central midfielder. He certainly doesn't have the engine for it imo.He looked better there in a flat 4-4-2, but was still blowing out of his after 70mins.His most productive season was for MK Dons the year he tore us a new arsehole at The Valley, pretty sure he was playing further forward then, possibly as a 10?He is far from our biggest issue. Clearly has a touch of class and on his day is a match winner. Unfortunately, to get the best out of players like Fraser you need the right players around him.2
-
Clem_Snide said:Would be interested to hear what Scott thinks his best position is. I don't personally think he is best utilised as an out an out central midfielder. He certainly doesn't have the engine for it imo.He looked better there in a flat 4-4-2, but was still blowing out of his after 70mins.His most productive season was for MK Dons the year he tore us a new arsehole at The Valley, pretty sure he was playing further forward then, possibly as a 10?He is far from our biggest issue. Clearly has a touch of class and on his day is a match winner. Unfortunately, to get the best out of players like Fraser you need the right players around him.
He thinks of himself as an attacking midfielder, I'd assume he probably means as a 10. At the very least, as the sides licensed "playmaker".
As @Cafc43v3r is always saying, in league one you're going to get players who are good at one thing, asking Dobson to be Pirlo and Fraser to get box to box and get stuck in is going to hinder them. Fraser has done well with the defensive side as Leuth says, but the guys got obvious fitness issues, going all action for the first 45 and he's knackered second half. Suddenly, he doesn't look so effective 🤷🏻♂️
2 -
Even if he did have the funds that Ipswich have spent, I still don't believe he would deliver a promotion winning squad. We have to many flaky type of players and TS insisting we play open tippy tappy style football will not adhere to clawing our way out of this division, unless you are going to recruit from the best in this division plus some from the division above. That hasn't and won't happen.Scoham said:Fraser has his weaknesses but he’s not the problem. He might not be the player we hoped but he could be part of a top 6 squad. We’re at that point where everyone is being dragged down but as we’ve seen in relegation squads of the past some players will go on to do well elsewhere.
TS has tried to build a promotion winning squad but doesn’t have the funds to compete with the likes of Ipswich.
The recruitment hasn’t been good enough to make up for that. Look at the money wasted - bringing in Stockley, Lavelle, Aneke, Schwartz, Kirk, signing up Inniss etc and then last summer deciding to become a high pressing possession team in which those players are completely unsuitable - all of them either lack the technical ability or the energy required to pass and press.
I hope we have a new owner soon who will decide on a strategy and do a better job of implementing it. If that involves a very specific style of play then fine, TS isn’t unusual in doing that, but if that’s the case then the funding and patience needs to be there. If either of those are more limited then we need a manager who will play whatever system gets the best from what he has.
Regarding Scott Fraser you can get away with one player of his style so I agree he could be part of a top 6 squad.0 -
Ipswich invariably played him out wide. I mean, can you imagine?wmcf123 said:
Although it didn’t go well for him at Ipswich . Maybe his season at MK Dons was his Nicky Ajose.Sillybilly said:
This. We seem to sign an awful lot of players with decent pedigrees elsewhere and quickly turn them into wasters. Can’t all be coincidental.cantersaddick said:
Starting to think we're the problem.cabbles said:I have to say, this one is another absolute fraud. I genuinely, in a weaker moment believed he was going to be one of the players that could help us build something when we signed him last season. It’s evident he’s only interested in picking up his grossly overpaid wages and nothing elseHe’s a low tempo footballer - no drive or energy . Ok passer but no better than that . Not our worst player but not a good one either .
0 - Sponsored links:
-
I do believe I read somewhere that Fraser has an asthma issue. He was also badly affected by Covid soon after signing, remember.Leuth said:Fraser is a good player. When we bossed it first half he was central to that. He does run out of puff but he's lovely on the ball. Him and Dobson as a pairing has been one of the few highlights of the season
That may well be a reason for his lack of intensity.
He's a neat and tidy passer, rarely gives the ball away, and with the vision and touch to pick a killer ball.
This season he's often been expected to do the engine room box to box, ball winning and press - and to give the bloke some credit, he's tried hard to adapt to that role.
I don't see that Fraser is the issue, just the way he's used.
But instead, why not set up a gameplan that gets the best out the player's creativity? MKD did.
6 -
And those goals and assists were all early in the season, when he was playing a more advanced role than he has been asked to do since.MarcusH26 said:Was really excited when we signed him , okay his stint at Ipswich didn't work out but that's just football for you. Just not really sure where you play him to get the best of him , ironically it's probably in a 433 where he can get on the ball and look to create. Very tidy player on the ball but bar that one goal at Accy he doesn't seem to get in and around the box enough. 3 goals and 3 assists this season for someone that's meant to be the main creative spark isn't great.
0 -
He played most of his best football at MK Dons as the left side of quite a flat midfield 3. Ipswich signed him on the back of his impressive stats to play as a 10. He failed because he isnt a 10.Oggy Red said:
I do believe I read somewhere that Fraser has an asthma issue. He was also badly affected by Covid soon after signing, remember.Leuth said:Fraser is a good player. When we bossed it first half he was central to that. He does run out of puff but he's lovely on the ball. Him and Dobson as a pairing has been one of the few highlights of the season
That may well be a reason for his lack of intensity.
He's a neat and tidy passer, rarely gives the ball away, and with the vision and touch to pick a killer ball.
This season he's often been expected to do the engine room box to box, ball winning and press - and to give the bloke some credit, he's tried hard to adapt to that role.
I don't see that Fraser is the issue, just the way he's used.
But instead, why not set up a gameplan that gets the best out the player's creativity? MKD did.
He isn't good enough to build a team around (if you want to be at the right end of the table) especially when you would be asking other players to play outside of their comfort zone to to do it. But that's the problem with all of our squad. There is no best team or system to suit this squad because however you shuffle it there are still massive holes. Filling one normally makes another.
That's not a Fraser problem.2 -
I agree, I’m sure we’d have just wasted a larger amount of money. Bigger funding may though have seen a different approach. Part of the reason he used family members I imagine is thinking he could bring success doing things differently without spending as much as others.StrikerFirmani said:
Even if he did have the funds that Ipswich have spent, I still don't believe he would deliver a promotion winning squad. We have to many flaky type of players and TS insisting we play open tippy tappy style football will not adhere to clawing our way out of this division, unless you are going to recruit from the best in this division plus some from the division above. That hasn't and won't happen.Scoham said:Fraser has his weaknesses but he’s not the problem. He might not be the player we hoped but he could be part of a top 6 squad. We’re at that point where everyone is being dragged down but as we’ve seen in relegation squads of the past some players will go on to do well elsewhere.
TS has tried to build a promotion winning squad but doesn’t have the funds to compete with the likes of Ipswich.
The recruitment hasn’t been good enough to make up for that. Look at the money wasted - bringing in Stockley, Lavelle, Aneke, Schwartz, Kirk, signing up Inniss etc and then last summer deciding to become a high pressing possession team in which those players are completely unsuitable - all of them either lack the technical ability or the energy required to pass and press.
I hope we have a new owner soon who will decide on a strategy and do a better job of implementing it. If that involves a very specific style of play then fine, TS isn’t unusual in doing that, but if that’s the case then the funding and patience needs to be there. If either of those are more limited then we need a manager who will play whatever system gets the best from what he has.
Regarding Scott Fraser you can get away with one player of his style so I agree he could be part of a top 6 squad.0 -
No but I’m not sure what his position is . I bet he’s brilliant in small sided possession games, mind youOggy Red said:
Ipswich invariably played him out wide. I mean, can you imagine?wmcf123 said:
Although it didn’t go well for him at Ipswich . Maybe his season at MK Dons was his Nicky Ajose.Sillybilly said:
This. We seem to sign an awful lot of players with decent pedigrees elsewhere and quickly turn them into wasters. Can’t all be coincidental.cantersaddick said:
Starting to think we're the problem.cabbles said:I have to say, this one is another absolute fraud. I genuinely, in a weaker moment believed he was going to be one of the players that could help us build something when we signed him last season. It’s evident he’s only interested in picking up his grossly overpaid wages and nothing elseHe’s a low tempo footballer - no drive or energy . Ok passer but no better than that . Not our worst player but not a good one either .
0 -
Yes, he's a 75 minute player. But dammit he's OUR 75 minute player. And he's class5
-
LOOOOOLZ1
-
1 -
Superb goal0
- Sponsored links:
-
What a difference 3 halves of football make.3
-
Ctrl+C ... Ctrl+VScoham said:2 -
0
-
The Frasernaissance continues3
-
As someone who has generally be quiet positive towards Fraser, part of me does not necessarily think he is playing terribly different to how he has played in the past.I just think maybe being allowed to play further forwards and having a front 3 which is mobile and in form to work off is just making him shine a little more.If anyone has ever played a CCG - he feels a bit like the definition of a ‘win more card’.3
-
Won man of the match at the ground today1
-
Taking names of all the fans who didn’t rate him 2 weeks ago..1
-
people were well within their right to criticise him for not contributing enough going forward, although his position which garner played him had a lot to do with it. Now he’s moved further forward we’ve seen the real Scott FraserElliotCAFC said:Taking names of all the fans who didn’t rate him 2 weeks ago..1 -
That's the problem with some of our previous managers though, playing players out of position. Since Holden has given Fraser the, effectively, No. 10 role he has become the player we all hoped to see.000__Jaaaaay__000 said:
people were well within their right to criticise him for not contributing enough going forward, although his position which garner played him had a lot to do with it. Now he’s moved further forward we’ve seen the real Scott FraserElliotCAFC said:Taking names of all the fans who didn’t rate him 2 weeks ago..
I don't blame Fraser for his earlier performances, but I do blame Garner, square pegs round holes approach!2 -
Was like watching Jacko in his prime yesterday0
