Who are your worst Port Vale central midfielders?

[RailwayRowdy]

In terms of actual ability, Anthony Griffith will take some beating.

He couldn’t control the ball, he  couldn’t pass, he didn’t score, he fouled a lot and consequently had a poor disciplinary record. His contribution to the team in an attacking sense was nil.

Yes he tried. But I could show you hundreds of players on Wolstanton Marsh who would try ! 

You need more than effort to be a pro footballer. Griffith simply didn’t have it. 

[RobC]

Boyd, levi Reid in addition to those already listed. 

Gore was awful, as was rocastle. 

[Warren]

2 hours ago, RailwayRowdy said:

In terms of actual ability, Anthony Griffith will take some beating.

He couldn’t control the ball, he  couldn’t pass, he didn’t score, he fouled a lot and consequently had a poor disciplinary record. His contribution to the team in an attacking sense was nil.

Yes he tried. But I could show you hundreds of players on Wolstanton Marsh who would try ! 

You need more than effort to be a pro footballer. Griffith simply didn’t have it. 

Griff played 235 games for Port Vale including 38 at League 1 level. He was an effective player at League 2 / League 1 level when the manager gave him one simple instruction. Play according to your ability which means close down, get tackles and blocks in and give the ball to a player who is better at passing. He was not pretty but there is no way at all he should be getting discussed here.

[The Kalamazoo Kid]

2 hours ago, RailwayRowdy said:

In terms of actual ability, Anthony Griffith will take some beating.

He couldn’t control the ball, he  couldn’t pass, he didn’t score, he fouled a lot and consequently had a poor disciplinary record. His contribution to the team in an attacking sense was nil.

Yes he tried. But I could show you hundreds of players on Wolstanton Marsh who would try ! 

You need more than effort to be a pro footballer. Griffith simply didn’t have it. 

That won't be a popular view on here, but I can see where you're coming from.

Griffith was at his best and most effective for us during the start of his first spell, when Sinnott first signed him - in fact, he seemed to win MOTM in pretty much every home game for those first few months - but that was more of a damning statement of just how poor we were attacking-wise - that a defensive, destructive midfielder was our stand-out player game after game.

As we got better as a team/squad, Griffith's limitations were shown up more and more, and for me he became such a liability that I couldn't stand seeing his name on the team-sheet. But I certainly appreciated him when we weren't doing so well, so I wouldn't class him as anything like the worst.

One central midfielder that I didn't rate at all was Paul Hartley, who I thought of as "the nearly man" - he'd nearly make a tackle, or nearly provide a decent pass, or nearly get on the end of a cross, etc. But he ran around a lot, which seemed to fool a lot of people, and he somehow got voted Player of the Season - surely the worst player to ever win that award?! (though, as with Griffith's many MOTMs mentioned above, it was more of a statement of just how crap we were at that time!)

As others have said on these "worst" threads, I reckon a minimum of 10 games played should be applied to any "successful" candidates.

[eh up nah]

2 minutes ago, The Kalamazoo Kid said:

That won't be a popular view on here, but I can see where you're coming from.

Griffith was at his best and most effective for us during the start of his first spell, when Sinnott first signed him - in fact, he seemed to win MOTM in pretty much every home game for those first few months - but that was more of a damning statement of just how poor we were attacking-wise - that a defensive, destructive midfielder was our stand-out player game after game.

As we got better as a team/squad, Griffith's limitations were shown up more and more, and for me he became such a liability that I couldn't stand seeing his name on the team-sheet. But I certainly appreciated him when we weren't doing so well, so I wouldn't class him as anything like the worst.

One central midfielder that I didn't rate at all was Paul Hartley, who I thought of as "the nearly man" - he'd nearly make a tackle, or nearly provide a decent pass, or nearly get on the end of a cross, etc. But he ran around a lot, which seemed to fool a lot of people, and he somehow got voted Player of the Season - surely the worst player to ever win that award?! (though, as with Griffith's many MOTMs mentioned above, it was more of a statement of just how crap we were at that time!)

As others have said on these "worst" threads, I reckon a minimum of 10 games played should be applied to any "successful" candidates.

Harsley won player of the season the year we went down under sinnott.

Absolutely agree he is the worst player I've known win that award since I've been going.

Said on another thread that, along with the following season, is my worst vale side.

 

[Warren]

3 minutes ago, The Kalamazoo Kid said:

That won't be a popular view on here, but I can see where you're coming from.

Griffith was at his best and most effective for us during the start of his first spell, when Sinnott first signed him - in fact, he seemed to win MOTM in pretty much every home game for those first few months - but that was more of a damning statement of just how poor we were attacking-wise - that a defensive, destructive midfielder was our stand-out player game after game.

As we got better as a team/squad, Griffith's limitations were shown up more and more, and for me he became such a liability that I couldn't stand seeing his name on the team-sheet. But I certainly appreciated him when we weren't doing so well, so I wouldn't class him as anything like the worst.

One central midfielder that I didn't rate at all was Paul Hartley, who I thought of as "the nearly man" - he'd nearly make a tackle, or nearly provide a decent pass, or nearly get on the end of a cross, etc. But he ran around a lot, which seemed to fool a lot of people, and he somehow got voted Player of the Season - surely the worst player to ever win that award?! (though, as with Griffith's many MOTMs mentioned above, it was more of a statement of just how crap we were at that time!)

As others have said on these "worst" threads, I reckon a minimum of 10 games played should be applied to any "successful" candidates.

Griffs final spell at the club was at League 1 level and so he was playing at a level I don't think he was good enough to be at really. Also, I thought somewhere along the line he had gone mad on the weights and I respect the effort but I thought it adversely affected his mobility and gave him the mindset to make more marginal challenges using his increased strength. So none of that was good, and it fits with your idea that as the team got better he looked worse but for a different reason. Still Griff commands total respect with me; he gave loyal and committed service and was a reasonable player at the level because of that commitment.

[Brian]

Going to put in a word to defend Ross Davidson. I suspect he and Richman were chairman’s picks, at a time when Vale wasn’t quite as well run as now. Put your best 2 kids in, and hope one works out, so we can sell him.

both of them went onto have solid careers (at a lower level), and maybe could have done a job for us with better management. Also, I never saw either of them give less than 100%.

Btw, anyone remember Ashley Dodd?

[Rampant Zebra]

Ashley Dodd, forgot about him... That Paulo Tavares stood out for me as a poor midfielder.

[Jacko51]

Bill Bentley.  I was never sure of his role because he didn't stop goals, he didn't make goals and he didn't score goals.  He had a habit of shooting from miles out and sending the ball into orbit.  Every time he did it my better half used to say "He'll never score!"  And he never did!

[eh up nah]

Ashley Dodd, bloody hell!

George O'Callaghan wasn't great either 

[JRC]

41 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

Bill Bentley.  I was never sure of his role because he didn't stop goals, he didn't make goals and he didn't score goals.  He had a habit of shooting from miles out and sending the ball into orbit.  Every time he did it my better half used to say "He'll never score!"  And he never did!

I was think of Bill Bentley but couldn't remember if he was a fullback who played a few games in midfield or vice versa. If he played mostly for us in midfield him and Rocastle.

[The Kalamazoo Kid]

1 hour ago, eh up nah said:

Harsley won player of the season the year we went down under sinnott.

Absolutely agree he is the worst player I've known win that award since I've been going.

Said on another thread that, along with the following season, is my worst vale side.

 

Harsley.......so bad that I forgot his actual name! 😄

[Essex Vale]

I think even mentioning Anthony Griffith and Bill Bentley in this thread is, to be frank, utterly ridiculous. For me Adnan Ahmad, Craig Rocastle, are the two that immediately spring to mind

[Jacko51]

13 minutes ago, Essex Vale said:

I think even mentioning Anthony Griffith and Bill Bentley in this thread is, to be frank, utterly ridiculous. For me Adnan Ahmad, Craig Rocastle, are the two that immediately spring to mind

Explain Bentley’s role in the team, EV, please.  Agree that Griffiths does not deserve consideration here. 

[Joe B]

5 hours ago, RailwayRowdy said:

In terms of actual ability, Anthony Griffith will take some beating.

He couldn’t control the ball, he  couldn’t pass, he didn’t score, he fouled a lot and consequently had a poor disciplinary record. His contribution to the team in an attacking sense was nil.

Yes he tried. But I could show you hundreds of players on Wolstanton Marsh who would try ! 

You need more than effort to be a pro footballer. Griffith simply didn’t have it. 

Outrageous view.

Many midfielders have had excellent careers without contributing in an attacking sense; Claude Makelele, Sergio Busquets, N'Golo Kante, Gennaro Gattuso, Fernandinho. (I'm obviously not comparing Griff to them, before anyone starts). To be as reductive as this, to suggest that midfielders HAVE to contribute offensively to be rendered effective, is nonsensical. These players had specific roles which allowed other aspects of the team to flourish. What about attacking midfielders who can't defend? I don't think Louis Dodds ever won a header/tackle, so therefore he is bad, by this logic.

I was never a massive fan of Griff, but he had a very specific job and did it very decently; high stamina, excellent positional sense, aggression, leadership, and a great tackle. Read any account of his time at the club and it is obvious he was a leader in the dressing room; intimidating to the opposition, and a source of motivation to his team mates. There's a reason that Micky Adams, with 3 promotions under his belt at that point, was so keen to bring him back for the run in.

There's no doubt he was exceptionally limited, but if we're going by the metric of 'he can't do certain things so he is bad', then Tom Pope is a also rubbish; he can't run, can't dribble, isn't the best passer, can't cross, can't take a set piece, doesn't have high levels of stamina. However, Pope uses his limited skillset (strength, heading, finishing, awareness) to carve out a great career.

Literally can't believe I'm sat here defending promotion-winner, player of the year winner, 200+ appearance maker Anthony Griffith in a discussion involving the likes of Neil McKenzie. Ability in football isn't solely 'does he have technical ability with the football'.