Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Stephens











Marshy

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2003
19,729
FRUIT OF THE BLOOM
Before the injurywasn't he our joint top scorer with Dunk, and I seem to remember quite a few people on here suggested him as an early contender for player of the season (albeit for a pretty poor season)?

I liken Crofts to CMS.
Runs around a lot in midfield but has no ability as a footballer.
Just my opinion ofcourse, some see it differently.

We seriously need to move on from Crofts with the likes of Ince and JFC.
 


GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,840
Gloucester
Corfts simply isnt good enough anymore, Ince and JFC are already better and will improve
Early on in the season, Ince came on as sub to shore things up at the game's end. As soon as he was fit, CH gave that job to Crofts instead, presumably because he thought he was better. I'll side with CH's judgement.
Ince's time may come.
 




Brighton TID

New member
Jul 24, 2005
1,741
Horsham
Crofts -ball winning midfielder
Ince -ball winning midfielder

Kayal -ball winning box to box midfielder
Stephens -ball winning box to box midfielder

That is the difference
 








Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,870
West west west Sussex
Crofts -ball winning midfielder
Ince -ball winning midfielder

Kayal -ball winning box to box midfielder
Stephens -ball winning box to box midfielder

That is the difference

Should we not expect more than 4 goals, combined, from 2 ball winning box to box midfielders?

As much as Stephens tries I don't think they are quite the ball winning box to box midfielders you portray.
Granted the current formation doesn't really free up one of them, thereby negating the 'Frank Lampardesque' box to box aspect you think sets them apart.
 


Brighton TID

New member
Jul 24, 2005
1,741
Horsham
Crofts is a ball winning box to box midfielder.

maybe, just didn't seem as dynamically mobile as kayal or stephens. could be a match fitness issue though.

i agree with a previous poster, ince should be absolutely DOMINATING the centre of the park with his physical presence. Also, he should be absolutely DOMINATING the box during set pieces. These are the areas where he should be a real asset to us, but currently is not. could be a match fitness issue though.
 


Mackenzie

Old Brightonian
Nov 7, 2003
33,574
East Wales
Corfts simply isnt good enough anymore, Ince and JFC are already better and will improve
You might be right, but judging him after one game following a years absence is very unfair. Could it be that you simply don't like the fellow?

If he is the same Crofts that he was, which is possible, then he'll be a big asset to the squad.
 




Brighton TID

New member
Jul 24, 2005
1,741
Horsham
Should we not expect more than 4 goals, combined, from 2 ball winning box to box midfielders?

As much as Stephens tries I don't think they are quite the ball winning box to box midfielders you portray.
Granted the current formation doesn't really free up one of them, thereby negating the 'Frank Lampardesque' box to box aspect you think sets them apart.

Their mobility is the reason why our 442 formation has been so successful. Taking your point, perhaps they are move box to 'edge' of box midfielders, either way, as a partnership they are very effective.
 


Marshy

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2003
19,729
FRUIT OF THE BLOOM
You might be right, but judging him after one game following a years absence is very unfair. Could it be that you simply don't like the fellow?

If he is the same Crofts that he was, which is possible, then he'll be a big asset to the squad.


I like him very much, he tries his hardest and thats all i ask for generally, but I just dont rate him as a footballer.
 


Albumen

Don't wait for me!
Jan 19, 2010
11,495
Brighton - In your face
Should we not expect more than 4 goals, combined, from 2 ball winning box to box midfielders?

As much as Stephens tries I don't think they are quite the ball winning box to box midfielders you portray.
Granted the current formation doesn't really free up one of them, thereby negating the 'Frank Lampardesque' box to box aspect you think sets them apart.

Still got the Stephens blinkers on? POTS so far and we look terrible without him.
 




TSB

Captain Hindsight
Jul 7, 2003
17,666
Lansdowne Place, Hove
maybe, just didn't seem as dynamically mobile as kayal or stephens. could be a match fitness issue though.

He probably isn't any more: age, fitness etc.
But mobile enough to be considered box-to-box I would say.
He'll need to be, anyway.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,705
Fiveways
maybe, just didn't seem as dynamically mobile as kayal or stephens. could be a match fitness issue though.

i agree with a previous poster, ince should be absolutely DOMINATING the centre of the park with his physical presence. Also, he should be absolutely DOMINATING the box during set pieces. These are the areas where he should be a real asset to us, but currently is not. could be a match fitness issue though.

I think he's as dynamic (or, at least, has been) as both Stephens and Kayal. I just don't think he's as good as either of them, and given his (and their) age(s), and his recent injuries, I'd be extremely surprised if that changed.
With you on Ince, he used to show signs of dominating the centre of the park, and his heading has always been poor in my book.
 


moggy

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2003
5,050
southwick
Is Stephens a confirmed non starter Saturday ?
 






Surf's Up

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2011
10,197
Here
We're in a bit of a Catch 22 with Crofts - he needs to get up to speed and back to his former self, if possible, but should we be allowing him to use our upcoming games to do this?
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here