Eddie Johnson vs Warren Feeney

With all due respect to Eddie Johnson as I know he was a player well liked by our supporters because he never stopped trying, but he wasn't the best of footballers when he came to CCFC (nor when he left for that matter). I too liked Eddie and was bouncing when he scored his first ever goal.

But, the question is, what does he have that Warren Feeney doesn't?? Feeney is a much better striker than Johnson, has scored goals in the Football League and at international level yet Johnson made many appearances last year, albeit off the bench, and Feeney has hardly had a sniff. And our striker force keeping both Johnson last year and Feeney this year out of the side is exactly the same - Bothroyd, Chopra and McCormack.

I think it's definitely the case of Dave Jones not liking Feeney on a personal level as he's bombed him out of the side. At the moment, our attacking triumvate are producing poor performances and not a whole lot of goals either, so why not give Feeney a try?? I believe it was Feeneys hard work and chasing that led to Chopras goal against Bristol City in the Cup. He at least offers us something different, but Jones seems too stubborn to give him a chance.

Why, when in January, other clubs come in with bids for a player, do you say "No, we need him for cover" then limit him to maybe three games as substitute, and have him rotting on the bench. By letting him go you would have not only given Feeney a chance to resurrect his career that has faltered under Jones, but taken x amount a week of the wage bill. Then, maybe stick an academy player to sit on the bench and give him first team experience.

It's just a waste of talent and poor, poor man management.

Steve Thompson, Neil Alexander, Darren Purse even Paul Parry have fallen foul of Dave Jones, and ultimately their CCFC careers have met their end, but somehow Mark Kennedy, who happened to have a less than average year last year is offered a new two-year deal and is being picked regularly at left back despite having no inclination of how to tackle or defend against any one with speed/ability/boots. And not only that, for a winger, his crossing is terrible. Yet he still is at the club playing games.

Furthermore, how can anyone say Feeney is shit when they've never really seen him play. A handful of substitute appearances isn't enough to condemn or for that matter, praise anyones ability. A judgement can only surely be made after a decent run in the team, which Feeney never has had, nor is likely to have. The only thing I, or any of us, can judge about Feeney is his track record at other clubs and at international level. I just hope that next season he doesn't come back to haunt us.

Feeney played when he was at the club on loan, and we've let players like Mark Howard, Malvin Kamara, Luigi Glombard and Dave go on less appearances than Feeney's made.

I won't defend either side on this one, but I really don't think Feeney should've arrived at the club in the first place.

Eddie scored 2, despite having the same treatment as Warren. Although am I right in thinking the two games in which he scored he started in? That probably tells you all you need to know.


Also, let's not forget about young Josh Magennis. I really like the lad, he's fast as f**k and just needs to sort out his control and he'll be great at this level.

Feeney played when he was at the club on loan, and we've let players like Mark Howard, Malvin Kamara, Luigi Glombard and Dave go on less appearances than Feeney's made.

I won't defend either side on this one, but I really don't think Feeney should've arrived at the club in the first place.

Eddie scored 2, despite having the same treatment as Warren. Although am I right in thinking the two games in which he scored he started in? That probably tells you all you need to know.


Also, let's not forget about young Josh Magennis. I really like the lad, he's fast as f**k and just needs to sort out his control and he'll be great at this level.

Eddie Johnson was a sub for both games.

Eddie Johnson was a sub for both games.

Touché. In which case I think I can justifiably say Eddie Johnson would get in the Northern Irish squad and that he's a better striker than Warren Feeney. I mean look at David Healy, he was scoring for fun for NI but was absolute shite (and still is) at club level.

Feeney played when he was at the club on loan, and we've let players like Mark Howard, Malvin Kamara, Luigi Glombard and Dave go on less appearances than Feeney's made.

I won't defend either side on this one, but I really don't think Feeney should've arrived at the club in the first place.

Eddie scored 2, despite having the same treatment as Warren. Although am I right in thinking the two games in which he scored he started in? That probably tells you all you need to know.


Also, let's not forget about young Josh Magennis. I really like the lad, he's fast as f**k and just needs to sort out his control and he'll be great at this level.

Wether Feeney should have arrived in the first place or not, it was Dave Jones who thought he was good enough to bring him in, after paying Luton a decent fee, then decided on what must be personal reasons not to utilise him. Eddie didn't start many games, but at least he got 15-20 minutes a game from the bench (Eddies first goal came off the bench after 20 minutes when Jay went off injured after scoring against Doncaster). Feeney doesn't even get that.

If you've got the option on the bench - use it!!

Eddie Johnson was a sub for both games.

Touché. In which case I think I can justifiably say Eddie Johnson would get in the Northern Irish squad and that he's a better striker than Warren Feeney. I mean look at David Healy, he was scoring for fun for NI but was absolute shite (and still is) at club level.

What is your justification for that?? As much as I liked Eddie Johnson, there were times when I wondered if he ever knew how to play at all. Feeney is much more talented than Eddie, although they both brought different qualities. Eddie had speed and was good in the air, Feeney has good control, a good touch and experience of getting goals.

eddie made an impact though. was it crystal palace where he came on and won everything in the air etc? also he was always a threat due to his pace, defenders watched out for it

i'm not saying he was a good striker. but with eddie he had pace, he was strong, he was surprisingly good in the air. these made a difference to us when he came on, teams sat back, he'd win a header and we'd make a chance etc.

what difference does feeney make when he comes on? i haven't noticed anything

eddie made an impact though. was it crystal palace where he came on and won everything in the air etc? also he was always a threat due to his pace, defenders watched out for it

i'm not saying he was a good striker. but with eddie he had pace, he was strong, he was surprisingly good in the air. these made a difference to us when he came on, teams sat back, he'd win a header and we'd make a chance etc.

what difference does feeney make when he comes on? i haven't noticed anything

He made a difference against Bristol away, and he looked very lively against Blackpool when he came on for Magennis. Other than that he hasn't had a chance unles you count the one or two minutes snippets of action he's had. I doubt even Wayne Rooney could make a difference in the time Feeney gets.

(Although as most women would tell you, I can make an impact in a few minutes )

Eddie Jonhson, tried his best but in My oPinion completely hopeless but at least given a chance.
Warren Feeney NEVER BEEN GIVEN A CHANCE SO HOW CAN I COMMENT.