TomRad85
Well-Known Member
I would. Win at home to worst away team in the league and you are level on points, 2 games in hand, far superior goal difference. Its theirs to fuck up.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
I would. Win at home to worst away team in the league and you are level on points, 2 games in hand, far superior goal difference. Its theirs to fuck up.I wouldn't go that far.
Our position is the best to be in, but we have to make it count.
Same as my reply to Earlsdon.No way.
Points on the board trump hypothetical points all day long.
Honestly I'd rather in be in Rotherhams shoes than ours right now. Hoping that's not the case after tomorrow night.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
And how would we afford having a squad full of championship level players?
It's inevitable that when you get promoted you take some players up with you who are not at the required level.
Well of course we wouldn't afford it but some of these are barely functional and contributing zero. Most weren't even close to the first team in L1.
I understand that we can't always get recruitment right but that's a lot of wages to be paying to players who are offering zilch and are not even making the bench.
Fuck badlan off will be a startAs Grendel said on another thread, recruitment hasn't really worked out this year. Hopefully we can stay up and get it right for next season.
As Grendel said on another thread, recruitment hasn't really worked out this year. Hopefully we can stay up and get it right for next season.
Disagree.
Only really Da Costa, Hilssner, Gyokeres haven't worked out.
And that may be a little harsh on Gyokeres. Plus Da Costa has looked OK at times (but woeful at others, granted).
Hamer, O’Hare, Ostigard have been excellent. James, Walker, McCallum have been good. Sheaf has been decent but injured a lot.
But how does our ratio compare to others? People are great at highlighting the handful of players signed from lower leagues for nothing who have been a success at other clubs, or clubs who have spent big money. Surely if we're declaring our recruitment department useless there needs to be a like for like comparison to others.Well your ratio looks bad because in your bad signings list you've included a keeper who was signed purely as a temporary backup, and two youngsters for the future.
Well your ratio looks bad because in your bad signings list you've included a keeper who was signed purely as a temporary backup, and two youngsters for the future.
You've also included McCallum who has been one of our better performers, certainly in recent months, and Giles who did fine but was recalled because we were desperate for a striker.
But how does our ratio compare to others? People are great at highlighting the handful of players signed from lower leagues for nothing who have been a success at other clubs, or clubs who have spent big money. Surely if we're declaring our recruitment department useless there needs to be a like for like comparison to others.
McCallum has been below par.
Giles got sent back.
The others might be youngsters but still use budget.
The ratio isn't a conspiracy. It is a list of the players we have signed. It doesn't look good because it isn't very good.
McCallum has not been below par.
I can't take your list seriously when you have him in the 'bad signing' category.
McCallum has been below par.
Giles got sent back.
The others might be youngsters but still use budget.
The ratio isn't a conspiracy. It is a list of the players we have signed. It doesn't look good because it isn't very good.
You can't take the list seriously because you don't have an argument against it.
McCallum is young and has been improving, but he's not really a left wing back you want to be starting with either, if you are serious. The fact we only have him on that side is poor too, which again, is a recruitment judgment decision.
I can understand people who try and defend the club on reasonable things, but trying to argue our recruitment has been decent, when it clearly hasn't been, is deluded.
Except I do have an argument against it. I listed 5 players that shouldn’t be on the bad signings list.
It’s a ridiculous list.
In fairness I wouldn’t place Walker as a question mark in that list.
Mccallum was a pointless signing as we’d already got cover
Giving James a tick is really debatable as he’s influenced nothing in terms of results and has been an expensive luxury
The real problem as well as I keep saying is we’ve got 5 players who are not going to feature next season whatever league on the payroll
Robins decision to offer Brandon Mason a new contract then in effect bomb him out a month later after the Rotherham game was bizarre as was signing players like Hillsner Da Costa and Jobello. It’s 3 Kevin Malaga’s in one
Surely jury is out on him? He has looked a good prospect, but hardly a roaring success yet.
What 5 players? You aren't making any sense whatsoever.
Surely jury is out on him? He has looked a good prospect, but hardly a roaring success yet.
It’s clear he’s marketable if we had to sell him and would be highly effective in league 1
I already said.
But to repeat…
Reid & Tavares – signed for the future. How can you say they’ve been and signings? Utterly ridiculous to call them bad signings.
Camp – Signed as a temporary number 2. Not sure what else you expected from him.
McCallum – One of our better players in the last few months. Had a better season than Dabo. I don’t understand how you could give Sheaf and Gyo a ? but McCallum a X.
Giles – Did absolutely fine for us. Recalled because we were desperate for a striker.
Read my post again:
"I have gone through the players and given my own verdict (I am sure people will agree/disagree at their own will which is fine). A tick has gone to a player who I think has made a positive impact on the first team following promotion. A cross for a player who has not. I have also added a strike for a player who I think the jury is still out on."
Also, you are trying to argue water isn't wet. How can you say Giles had a positive impact? It was a dumb move and he was also poorly managed. The striker who you claim we replaced him with, then didn't get a look in.
I guess relegation is a success for you as long as we finish above Wycombe, right?
It's a fucking ridiculous list.
Using Reid and Tavares as apparent proof of poor recruitment ffs. Just absurd.
And as for that last line, no idea what you're on about.
You haven't read my post whatsoever and you are making yourself look like an idiot again.
My list refers to all players we have recruited, and if they have had a positive effect on the first team in the championship. That is the list, and the number of additions that you could safely say have worked out (as the above criteria) is extremely low.
I know you don't like it, and I know you don't want any criticism put out. It's much easier to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend everything is rosey, but those are the facts.
That's fine but if you're going to use that criteria to judge, then only put players in your list who were bought in to meet that criteria.
Reid and Tavares weren't. Camp essentially wasn't.
All of a sudden your list looks a lot better and that's without mentioning the bizarre inclusion of McCallum as a bad signing.
Who's to say Reid and Tavares were used for this and that?
We have a budget, and that's a part of it. We went up a division and our strengthening doesn't seem to have been really effective.
Who's to say Reid and Tavares were used for this and that?
We have a budget, and that's a part of it. We went up a division and our strengthening doesn't seem to have been really effective.
Reid was signed as a first team player he’s played 20 games in the SPL and will be first choice next season
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?