Cardiff City Forum



A forum for all things Cardiff City

Whittingham gone for good?

Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:28 am

I'm sure many of you agree in thinking his name and first half of this season has kept him in the squad. His free kicks & corners and even attemots on goal have seemed effortless and timid time & time and again. Personally I'd like to see him sit the next few games out as he has absolutely no influence on the pitch, and is the only player that doesn't get stuck in and work his nuts off. He used to get away with not putting the effort in as his pure class made up for this, but now he isn't giving anything to the team. I'd like to see somebody else step in and work for a place in the starting line up. He's been given many chances.

Re: Whittingham gone for good?

Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:32 am

Get stuck in? Thats all he seems to do is put in tackles and try cut passes out?

I can't believe the majority of fans who were moaning at the start saying he weren't being used to his strengths and now he is been poor people are saying hes not the same player?

Whittingham is not being used to his strengths.

We lost 1 game and why drop him? We have gone on a good run.. why drop him?

Re: Whittingham gone for good?

Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:32 am

He's shattered and low on confidence. I don't mean shattered as in match fit shattered, I mean shattered as in long term shattered. He's been busting his balls for so long this season that he has nothing left to give.

Give him a break of a game or two after the Wolves game and then see how we do. He's still a top player and a few games don't change that.

Re: Whittingham gone for good?

Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:31 pm

what a load of tripe hes been busting a gut for us playing to deep and not having the chances he had earlier in season

Re: Whittingham gone for good?

Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:37 pm

This type of post is just simply breathtaking :shock:

We've lost 2 in 18 and averaging 2 points a game that will take us to 92 points for the season if we maintain that :ayatollah: Now you're saying Malky is wrong in how he plays Whitts or Whitts should be dropped :?

I dread to think what some of you lot will be saying if we do go up and we're striving just to get to the 40 point mark to stay up :laughing6:

Re: Whittingham gone for good?

Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:42 pm

piledriver64 wrote:This type of post is just simply breathtaking :shock:

We've lost 2 in 18 and averaging 2 points a game that will take us to 92 points for the season if we maintain that :ayatollah: Now you're saying Malky is wrong in how he plays Whitts or Whitts should be dropped :?

I dread to think what some of you lot will be saying if we do go up and we're striving just to get to the 40 point mark to stay up :laughing6:


Am I speaking of the team as a whole? No. Read the post and shut up. If you think Whittingham as in individual is earning the right to play in a City shirt judging by his latest say 10 or more performances, then continue to stay at home watching the news for updates on the scores.

Re: Whittingham gone for good?

Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:07 pm

BlueDredd wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:This type of post is just simply breathtaking :shock:

We've lost 2 in 18 and averaging 2 points a game that will take us to 92 points for the season if we maintain that :ayatollah: Now you're saying Malky is wrong in how he plays Whitts or Whitts should be dropped :?

I dread to think what some of you lot will be saying if we do go up and we're striving just to get to the 40 point mark to stay up :laughing6:


Am I speaking of the team as a whole? No. Read the post and shut up. If you think Whittingham as in individual is earning the right to play in a City shirt judging by his latest say 10 or more performances, then continue to stay at home watching the news for updates on the scores.


Oh look out, another key board warrior :roll:

Firstly don't tell me to "shut-up" just because I have a different opinion of you knobhead :evil:

Secondly I haven't missed a home game for two and a half seasons and seen 18 away games in that time so I'm as much qualified to put forward my opinion as you clearly think you are dispite what you try to allude to. Whittingham is sometimes less obviously effective nowadays but the one thing over the last 18 months that cannot be faulted is his willingness to change his game and make tackles, cover and generally be more of a continuity player rather than always look for the killer ball. Therefore he is doing what he does for the good of the group rather than himself, are you seriously saying that if Malky thought the overall team peformance of the team would be improved by changing Whitts role he wouldn't do it :?

Now whether any of that is good, bad or indifferent for the team or Whitts himself is a matter of opinion. However my opinion is that a team in our position ain't doing too much wrong and therefore these knee-jerk posts after just our second defeat in 18 games are unmerited.

Re: Whittingham gone for good?

Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:10 pm

What a load of bollocks he put in some terrific balls 1st half last night, ansd but for a great save by the keeper 1st half he nearly smashed one into the top corner from 20 yards.

2nd half Malky had him playing on the toes of the centre halfs ffs, with little movement in front of him at times he was forced to play hoofball.

Re: Whittingham gone for good?

Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:15 pm

Whitts always gets stuck in and all our play goes through him at some point. Yes his free kicks have dried up but how anyone can state he's low on confidence when they dont even know him is ludicrous.

Re: Whittingham gone for good?

Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:36 pm

Mario Polotelli wrote:What a load of bollocks he put in some terrific balls 1st half last night, ansd but for a great save by the keeper 1st half he nearly smashed one into the top corner from 20 yards.

2nd half Malky had him playing on the toes of the centre halfs ffs, with little movement in front of him at times he was forced to play hoofball.

Well said! I thought Whitts did well last night. He wanted the ball, he worked hard and on another day he would have scored at least 1.