Jamie Mackie

[Juggling Monkey]

It's a bit of a shame when these threads turn to comparisons, pointing out the weak points in another City player's game to highlight someone's strengths...

Anyway, it's too easy to say "Mackie runs all day but can't score goals" and leave it at that. He's young, enthusiastic and if you're taking notice you can see that he is clearly improving in all sorts of ways.

Last season we saw him emerge a stronger, feistier player than his first season here, able to stand up to defenders, and we saw his confidence grow as he began to attack defenders. He's probably our best player for beating a man. In the later part of last season, we saw Mackie starting to pick a few passes too.

From what I've seen so far this season he's a little more aware of his position, is winning more headers (controlling high balls forward), and has made a few more decent passes.

On sheer stats, it's not enough final balls, not enough shots on target, not enough goals. But on a game-by-game basis, he's one of our most consistently improving players.

Mackie shouldn't keep a better player on form out of the starting line-up, but he should get the match practice he deserves to keep on improving.

I'm in two minds about playing him out wide. I think he deserves more of a chance to develop into a striker first.

 

[CREDYGRECIAN]

I agree regarding Stansfields lack of goals 1 in 7 is poor by anybodys standards but when you take into account he's set up up over half of Citys goals this season with crosses , cut backs or winning pens - again on Tuesday he did brilliantly to work an angle and stand up a cross for Logan to head home...id always put him infront of Mackie..firstly because he will score more goals over a season then him and he will create more goals for others which if your not scoring yourself is the 2nd best thing.

Nobody can knock Mackie for workrate - but workrate with no end product is worthless and for me Mackie despite his obvious effort and love of the club doesnt produce enough either goals or assist wise - which in the end of the day is what he is paid for not to run around a lot.

 

[Poultice]

Strange that Tis does not seem to agree with all the anti Mackie slop on here.

In Tis we trust.

 

[brumgrecian]

Really don't think Mackie is good enough to be a regular starter as he has been so far this season.

True, he works and works, but as many have said, very very little end product. True we want him to develop, but regularly in place of someone (Elam) who is proven at this level, I think not.

For me, often even when he does go on a run past a few players, his head is down and he seems to end up in a position whereby he has no options.

He is a useful squad player but no more at this time.

If we persist with this formation I really think Elam should be given a go considering both the impression he has made off the bench and his goalscoring record from midfield last year.

Also, like Credy says, got to stick with Stansfield due to his all round contribution. Also, he may have missed some chances, but at least he has been in the right place at the right time to miss them - something we can't say about Mackie.

 

[Bittners a Legend]

I think I said a while back that Mackie seemed to be becoming the new scapegoat on here, taking over from Paul Jones and Andy Taylor.

Personally I think that Jamie's start to the season has been distinctly under-whelming and certianly he has room to improve his performances, something I'm sure he would admit to himself.

However I cannot understand all this anti-Mackie stuff at all. Since he came to us, as Juggling Monkey eluded to, we have seen a consistent improvement in his play. Criticisms that used to aimed at him no longer can be because he has improved in those areas - his decision making, running at players etc - and the one that remains is his lack of goals. It is a criticism which cannot be denied on a very simple and superficial level, 1 in 7 so far is poor for a striker. However, it has been said before and I'll say it again, people really under-estimate, or just ignore, his contribution to the TEAM. And that is where there is a deep-lying difference between Mackie and our other strikers. Jamie seems to worry less about his goal-scoring statistics and more about the team. It is often Mackie who drops in and helps in midfield, it is Mackie who chases down and hurries defenders, it is Mackie who runs at defenders and runs them ragged. He is clearly a pain to defend against. We have seen us a score several goals at the end of games - it has been noted that this is due to our superior fitness, which I would agree with, however it can also be attributed to the fact that Mackie exhausts defenders over 90 minutes.

The boy is young and I don't buy into this rubbish about him not being a natural striker. I think that Mackie is actually hampered by the fact he plays alongside people such as Stansfield who are considered natural goalscorers. Clearly he has ability and clearly Tisdale believes in him.

Whether Jamie will go on to prove the doubters wrong remains to be seen, but certainly he is good enough and determined enough to and I for one would be absolutely delighted to see him do so.

 

[Bittners a Legend]

Also, like Credy says, got to stick with Stansfield due to his all round contribution. Also, he may have missed some chances, but at least he has been in the right place at the right time to miss them - something we can't say about Mackie.

Sorry but I don't think you can justify Stansfield being the better player this season based on the fact that he has missed more chances than Mackie. I also don't buy into the allround contribution thing, if you compare by that then I think Mackie's all round contribution is much greater than Stansfield's.

Either you compare Adam and Jamie simply by goals, in which case they both have 1 in 7, or you compare them by a proper all-round contribution in which case I would suggest that Mackie gives you more than Stansfield. If Stansfield had scored more goals then I would agree with you, but so far I'd say they have both been disappointing.

 

[CREDYGRECIAN]

All round contribution ?...

so assists & creating goals are not important ? of course it is...Stansfield has certainly contributed more to getting City goals then Mackie has - nobody can deny that.

 

[davidjenkin]

So do you agree that some specialist coaching might help?

Only if we give him a contract extension first! If he can put the ball in the net he will be in great demand in January and a big club would move in and snap him up on a free at the close season. Regular finishing would make him the complete player in my opinion. His close skill is excellent, his pace and energy bafflingly high, his first touch is normally very good, he is winning more in the air, and if he scores 50% of his potential chances then he will be off to a league club unless we go up ourselves - if this happens then I dont want it to be for free or for peanuts, but a fair price.

 

[Bittners a Legend]

All round contribution ?...

so assists & creating goals are not important ? of course it is...Stansfield has certainly contributed more to getting City goals then Mackie has - nobody can deny that.

Well actually I can deny it. All round contribution is more than just goals and assists. Of course they are important, I'm not denying that but if you read my other post then you will see that I mention Mackie as more of a team player than Stansfield. I think Mackie contributes far more to the team than Stansfield, in terms of tracking back, rushing defenders and generally being a pain in the arse. Stansfield doesn't do that. That's why I think that Mackie, at the moment, contributes more all-round. If Adam was scoring regularly then it would be fine to say that his contribution to the team doesn't matter, however he hasn't done so.

 

[CREDYGRECIAN]

Id personally take assists and goal making over work rate any day of the week -

Jamie is all heart nobody can question or knock him for that - and thats great but id rather have a player who is contributing in us creating chances and scoring goals like Stans has.