hopper_182
Active member
- Sep 25, 2008
- 651
Dicker is fine, but he is not a leader. And Murray certainly is not a leader. Cullip was a leader; Horton was a leader; Wilson was a leader. Even Minton was more of a leader than anyone we have at the moment. That is, for me, the critical difference. We have a good group of pros who seem to be playing well, but we lack someone who can up the tempo, or slow it down, and get everyone playing the way they should be.
If we are talking about a leader then yes, you're completly right. We do need a leader, i dont think we found a replacement for Hammond when he went. But now, untill january at least, we cannot bring in anybody. As far as the people we have got at the moment, i think the most likely to change a game is either Dicker or Murray. Even with only 10 men i thought there was a clear difference when Murray came on, and we looked much more dangerous in attack. Although we did have 3 strikers on so this may have had an impact too.