The Fish 10963 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 "We don't need another CB" "Perch is like a new signing" Who "should" we buy ??? I'd go for Dann, I think we could lure him here and I think he'd be a ready made Taylor replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake Bells tits 1 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 We wil probably sign ridgewell and maiga, and finish 10th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9942 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 "We don't need another CB" "Perch is like a new signing" Who "should" we buy ??? I'd go for Dann, I think we could lure him here and I think he'd be a ready made Taylor replacement. D'ya think he'd be happy to sit next season ??. I reckon best we can hope for is a young "up and comer" and Colo and Williamson fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10963 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I think he'd reckon he could usurp Taylor and I think that there's no harm in two players fighting for the same position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noelie 103 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Am I SO stupid I don't understand why BenArfa didn't set foot on the pitch when we were in dire straits at 2-1 down 3-2 down. Obertan is a wimp. As weak as our defense was the game was there to be won if Pardoo had shown some sense. I don't think it made any sense to switch Raylor to the right side when he had formed some sort of pairing with Jonas. Santon had a promising first game. When you are behind, Stroller is not the energetic firebrand going for broke. Well done Gosling, you were just ducky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 "We don't need another CB" "Perch is like a new signing" Who "should" we buy ??? I'd go for Dann, I think we could lure him here and I think he'd be a ready made Taylor replacement. Why would Blackburn sell him six months after buying for a relatively large fee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10963 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 "We don't need another CB" "Perch is like a new signing" Who "should" we buy ??? I'd go for Dann, I think we could lure him here and I think he'd be a ready made Taylor replacement. Why would Blackburn sell him six months after buying for a relatively large fee? Because they're going down and need the cash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 22147 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 What a shit result. Not a massive surprise though given the injuries and the two full backs playing at centre half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Pardew conceded. "Our squad has been stretched to the limit. Just 3 first team regulars not available. When that's the limit, its clear what the problem is. Sort it in January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9942 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Pardew conceded. "Our squad has been stretched to the limit. Just 3 first team regulars not available. When that's the limit, its clear what the problem is. Sort it in January. Far too simplistic. It's 3 first team regulars PLUS their first choice replacements all concentrated in the most critical area of the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Pardew conceded. "Our squad has been stretched to the limit. Just 3 first team regulars not available. When that's the limit, its clear what the problem is. Sort it in January. Far too simplistic. It's 3 first team regulars PLUS their first choice replacements all concentrated in the most critical area of the team. plural? Who, in addition to Williamson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9942 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) Pardew conceded. "Our squad has been stretched to the limit. Just 3 first team regulars not available. When that's the limit, its clear what the problem is. Sort it in January. Far too simplistic. It's 3 first team regulars PLUS their first choice replacements all concentrated in the most critical area of the team. plural? Who, in addition to Williamson? Williamson for the CB's, Guthrie is/has been Tiote's replacement. In most squads 4th Choice Cb (for example) would be a kid or a utility player (a'la Perch), in that we are no different to anyone else. Obviously, Pardew doesn't seem to rate any of our CB "kids". You don't expect and cannot plan for losing your top 3 at any position, not with equivalent "quality" anyway. Few have a real "quality" 4th choice CB, that's why they're 4th choice. Do you believe it is only we who would struggle if left with 4th and 5th choice CB's on the park and a 3rd choice centre midfielder ?? Really ?? If we do buy a CB in Jan, it will (and should) be a young "up and commer" to pressure Williamson for "first reserve", relegating Perch further down the pecking order. If you want to buy a "name", or in other words a new 1st/2nd choice, you are guaranteeing the need to sell whoever they replace (Taylor or Colo) because they or the new guy ain't going to want to be bench warmers. We will not, and should not, buy "quality" 4th and 5th choices (you would hope to have some half decent kids at that level) - you can't anyway given there's a 25 man squad limit, a reasonable quality first reserve at each position takes 22 of your 25, that leaves you 3 squad positions to play with, plus under 21's. How do you carry 5 good CB's without staying light somewhere else ???? (not even touching on how could you keep 5 good CB's happy) That is the reality. Edited December 11, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) you've been banging on about 3 players in one position all week. It's not. It's 2 positions. Colo out Perch in. That's the quality we have next in line, good enough? Taylor out, Williamson in. Good enough? With Williamson injured also, we have 1 position stretched to fill with a reserve or a utility player. Happens to teams up and down the league all season. We've not been having any particularly bad luck with injuries at all. Edited December 11, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9942 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) you've been banging on about 3 players in one position all week. It's not. It's 2 positions. Colo out Perch in. That's the quality we have next in line, good enough? Taylor out, Williamson in. Good enough? With Williamson injured also, we have 1 position stretched to fill with a reserve or a utility player. Happens to teams up and down the league all season. We've not been having any particularly bad luck with injuries at all. Again too simplistic, making the situation fit your argument. You have your two first choice CB's and your first reserve who would fill in for either in the case of injury, then if your unlucky enough to lose all 3 you are into 4th and 5th choice, they are NOT going to be as good as your 1-3. Simple common sense would see that. PLUS how do you balance your squad. Yeah let's have 5 good CB's, then what happens if your midfield gets wiped out, you play a CB in midfield and the cry goes up "our squad is paper thin" we should have more midfielders. It's nonsense. As for the "not particularly bad luck with injuries" haven't looked at the stats anywhere but if you are right, I would suggest even if we have not had a significant number of injuries in the squad (compared to others) we have had an very unusual concentration of injuries in a particularly key area of the squad. If you don't see that, and I am completely wrong, what's the answer then ?? Edited December 11, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 22147 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) We've been really lucky with injuries all season until now, hence the unexpected good run. It's obvious to everyone that our squad is one of the weakest in the league. Good first team aye but the lack of quality in reserve is clear as day. This was always going to happen. It's just a surprise - and a relief - that we've already got so many points on the board before it did. The question now is whether mike is encouraged to invest in the team come January to plug the gaps in the hope we might grab a European spot or whether - as most of us suspect - he spends next to fuck all again, perhaps selling another key player or two along the way - as we're already more than half there to securing premier league status. I'd love for him to prove us wrong and show some ambition for once but he's done nowt to suggest he'll do otherwise. I expect no major signings in jan plus an offer we couldn't refuse for one of tiote or colo. Edited December 11, 2011 by Dr Gloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 you've been banging on about 3 players in one position all week. It's not. It's 2 positions. Colo out Perch in. That's the quality we have next in line, good enough? Taylor out, Williamson in. Good enough? With Williamson injured also, we have 1 position stretched to fill with a reserve or a utility player. Happens to teams up and down the league all season. We've not been having any particularly bad luck with injuries at all. Again too simplistic, making the situation fit your argument. You have your two first choice CB's and your first reserve who would fill in for either in the case of injury, then if your unlucky enough to lose all 3 you are into 4th and 5th choice, they are NOT going to be as good as your 1-3. Simple common sense would see that. PLUS how do you balance your squad. Yeah let's have 5 good CB's, then what happens if your midfield gets wiped out, you play a CB in midfield and the cry goes up "our squad is paper thin" we should have more midfielders. It's nonsense. As for the "not particularly bad luck with injuries" haven't looked at the stats anywhere but if you are right, I would suggest even if we have not had a significant number of injuries in the squad (compared to others) we have had an very unusual concentration of injuries in a particularly key area of the squad. If you don't see that, and I am completely wrong, what's the answer then ?? you are completely wrong and the answer is more strength in depth. It's not a case of having internationals on the bench, but Taylor should be the back up for an international in our team. You can't go on like this is unprecedented bad luck in one position when many have feared exactly this and warned about it. One in 3 of Stevies posts since the season began have been about Perch being league 1 quality and that inevitably fucking us up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 you've been banging on about 3 players in one position all week. It's not. It's 2 positions. Colo out Perch in. That's the quality we have next in line, good enough? Taylor out, Williamson in. Good enough? With Williamson injured also, we have 1 position stretched to fill with a reserve or a utility player. Happens to teams up and down the league all season. We've not been having any particularly bad luck with injuries at all. Again too simplistic, making the situation fit your argument. You have your two first choice CB's and your first reserve who would fill in for either in the case of injury, then if your unlucky enough to lose all 3 you are into 4th and 5th choice, they are NOT going to be as good as your 1-3. Simple common sense would see that. PLUS how do you balance your squad. Yeah let's have 5 good CB's, then what happens if your midfield gets wiped out, you play a CB in midfield and the cry goes up "our squad is paper thin" we should have more midfielders. It's nonsense. As for the "not particularly bad luck with injuries" haven't looked at the stats anywhere but if you are right, I would suggest even if we have not had a significant number of injuries in the squad (compared to others) we have had an very unusual concentration of injuries in a particularly key area of the squad. If you don't see that, and I am completely wrong, what's the answer then ?? the most simplistic and basic answer of all, is that going into a season with only approx 14 players or so and hoping to do well with such a small number is not good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17648 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Stoke City seem to have at least 4 experienced centre backs in their squad. And in almost all cases they have played for or been on the fringes of their national team squads at some stage of their careers. They may not all be brilliant, and I have my own opinions of them, but Pulis and his chairman have built the squad correctly. If we'd have had one of Shawcross, Huth, Woodgate or Upson yesterday just to head the ball away from the area when it came in then we may have got something. Who knows, its all conjecture. But we wouldve stood a better chance if Pardew had been allowed to address a glaring weakness in the squad after Campbell departed. We all knew we were weak in this posistion and Norwich didnt have to come up with anything more original than just lumping the ball into the area to put 4 past us. Two full backs in central defence, and the likes of Stoke can call on 4 half decent ones, fuckin hell. The wheels havent come completely off though. We weren't as good as some were saying 6 or 7 weeks ago and we were never going to be as bad as some were suggesting pre season. It could be so much better if we'd have invested the Carroll money properly but we didn't and thats old news. Rome wasn't bulit in a day, but I don't think Ashley can be arsed to lay the foundations properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31199 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 the most simplistic and basic answer of all, is that going into a season with only approx 14 players or so and hoping to do well with such a small number is not good enough. Who are the 14 players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Stoke City seem to have at least 4 experienced centre backs in their squad. And in almost all cases they have played for or been on the fringes of their national team squads at some stage of their careers. They may not all be brilliant, and I have my own opinions of them, but Pulis and his chairman have built the squad correctly. If we'd have had one of Shawcross, Huth, Woodgate or Upson yesterday just to head the ball away from the area when it came in then we may have got something. Who knows, its all conjecture. But we wouldve stood a better chance if Pardew had been allowed to address a glaring weakness in the squad after Campbell departed. We all knew we were weak in this posistion and Norwich didnt have to come up with anything more original than just lumping the ball into the area to put 4 past us. Two full backs in central defence, and the likes of Stoke can call on 4 half decent ones, fuckin hell. The wheels havent come completely off though. We weren't as good as some were saying 6 or 7 weeks ago and we were never going to be as bad as some were suggesting pre season. It could be so much better if we'd have invested the Carroll money properly but we didn't and thats old news. Rome wasn't bulit in a day, but I don't think Ashley can be arsed to lay the foundations properly. spot on Paddock Lad. Do you still go in the Denton ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) the most simplistic and basic answer of all, is that going into a season with only approx 14 players or so and hoping to do well with such a small number is not good enough. Who are the 14 players? I said "14 players or so" max who are good enough to wear this shirt ewerk. Try doing a bit of hard assessment, and work them out. It's probably less than that tbh, depending on how good you think NUFC players ought to be. It's a squad game, everybody has injuries, most other clubs are better prepared for it, even Stoke. See Paddock Lads post. Edited December 11, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9942 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 you've been banging on about 3 players in one position all week. It's not. It's 2 positions. Colo out Perch in. That's the quality we have next in line, good enough? Taylor out, Williamson in. Good enough? With Williamson injured also, we have 1 position stretched to fill with a reserve or a utility player. Happens to teams up and down the league all season. We've not been having any particularly bad luck with injuries at all. Again too simplistic, making the situation fit your argument. You have your two first choice CB's and your first reserve who would fill in for either in the case of injury, then if your unlucky enough to lose all 3 you are into 4th and 5th choice, they are NOT going to be as good as your 1-3. Simple common sense would see that. PLUS how do you balance your squad. Yeah let's have 5 good CB's, then what happens if your midfield gets wiped out, you play a CB in midfield and the cry goes up "our squad is paper thin" we should have more midfielders. It's nonsense. As for the "not particularly bad luck with injuries" haven't looked at the stats anywhere but if you are right, I would suggest even if we have not had a significant number of injuries in the squad (compared to others) we have had an very unusual concentration of injuries in a particularly key area of the squad. If you don't see that, and I am completely wrong, what's the answer then ?? you are completely wrong and the answer is more strength in depth. It's not a case of having internationals on the bench, but Taylor should be the back up for an international in our team. You can't go on like this is unprecedented bad luck in one position when many have feared exactly this and warned about it. One in 3 of Stevies posts since the season began have been about Perch being league 1 quality and that inevitably fucking us up. So now you're saying Taylor and Colo aren't good enough, the same Taylor and Colo who proved one of the best Cb partnerships we've had in yonks should be broken up to for some pursuit of "strength in depth". Hilarious. The concern previosuly expressed was if Colo get's injured we're fucked, not if Colo, Taylor and Willaimson are fucked. Perch did not cost us the game yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31199 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 the most simplistic and basic answer of all, is that going into a season with only approx 14 players or so and hoping to do well with such a small number is not good enough. Who are the 14 players? "14 players or so" max who are good enough to wear this shirt ewerk. Try doing a bit of hard assessment, and work them out. It's a squad game, everybody has injuries, most other clubs are better prepared for it, even Stoke. See Paddock Lads post. I was just interested in your opinion as to who makes the grade. I reckon we have around 20/21 good enough for a mid-table PL squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 the most simplistic and basic answer of all, is that going into a season with only approx 14 players or so and hoping to do well with such a small number is not good enough. Who are the 14 players? "14 players or so" max who are good enough to wear this shirt ewerk. Try doing a bit of hard assessment, and work them out. It's a squad game, everybody has injuries, most other clubs are better prepared for it, even Stoke. See Paddock Lads post. I was just interested in your opinion as to who makes the grade. I reckon we have around 20/21 good enough for a mid-table PL squad. I'm not giving you my opinion, if I do, some big kid will just complain to admin. I think your assessment of us having 20/21 premiership players is absolutely hilarious and as deluded as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now