G STAR RAM Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I've actually said countless times that Theo was a steal at 150,000 and have indeed praised Clough for his capture (along with Ward). Both of those players scored goals and created chances - I'll try and find a post later if it means that much to you. On a flip side, find me a post where I've attacked Clough for playing him please or said anything bad towards Theo. It doesn't mean sod all to me to be quite honest. I just find it quite funny that now that we have sold Theo people have decided that he was the saviour and was worth £xxx,xxx more that we got for him, yet when he was here he was useless and we had wasted money on him. Not saying them quotes necessarily belonged to you but that seemed to be the general concensus of opinion to me. Just for the record, I once used the phrase that 'Theo would never be a footballer as long as I had a hole in my arse'. Saw a few signs of improvement from time to time but generally would stick by what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I was wrong all along, Theo Robinson is a fantastic footballer, and a great asset to any club - will play in the premier league one day. He scored goals but he wasn't deadly in front of goal, never created squat, couldn't pass, couldn't shoot from afar.. couldn't offer anything yet he got by because he scored goals - just because he scored 2 goals at doncaster, doesn't change how good of a footballer he is - it's a ridiculous mindset to have. He is what he is, and what he is.. is poor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcdcfc28 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Tell Hull and Cardiff that... They both built teams where their strikers failed to score in the vast majority of games... 4 games in and the wrist slashers are out in force... Good insight that, kudos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I was wrong all along, Theo Robinson is a fantastic footballer, and a great asset to any club - will play in the premier league one day. He scored goals but he wasn't deadly in front of goal, never created squat, couldn't pass, couldn't shoot from afar.. couldn't offer anything yet he got by because he scored goals - just because he scored 2 goals at doncaster, doesn't change how good of a footballer he is - it's a ridiculous mindset to have. He is what he is, and what he is.. is poor! Think you are missing the point, the fact that he has scored 2 for Doncaster means he would also have scored against Leicester and Blackburn if he played and we would have 3 more points. Bet Morgan was rubbing his hands when he realised he was not going to have to put up with the trickery and skill of Robinson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcdcfc28 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 So if he goes on to score say 15-20 goals at a poor Doncaster side, that won't take away the "poor footballer" tag you've given him? Can't have been that poor if he made nearly 100 first team appearances under Nigel Clough. Why was he signed to a permenant contract if he's such a poor player anyway? Why did he score goals in a very average side and why is he doing it again now at a even poorer side in Doncaster? So surely Nigel is the one you should be critiising if he signed such a limited footballer and continued to play him for over two and a half years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I don't think we are saying Robinson is some god (that's johnny Russell), just he would have still been useful and he seems to have the knack to do the most difficult thing which is score a goal. Are salmon and Bennett better options to bring on when we need a goal? To be fair to him 2 in 2 at his new club isn't bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Think you are missing the point, the fact that he has scored 2 for Doncaster means he would also have scored against Leicester and Blackburn if he played and we would have 3 more points. Bet Morgan was rubbing his hands when he realised he was not going to have to put up with the trickery and skill of Robinson. Well his goal was pretty good against Leicester last season. It was about the only time he ever had a wonderful first touch though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 So if he goes on to score say 15-20 goals at a poor Doncaster side, that won't take away the "poor footballer" tag you've given him? Can't have been that poor if he made nearly 100 first team appearances under Nigel Clough. Why was he signed to a permenant contract if he's such a poor player anyway? Why did he score goals in a very average side and why is he doing it again now at a even poorer side in Doncaster? So surely Nigel is the one you should be critiising if he signed such a limited footballer and continued to play him for over two and a half years. You've seen him play, have you not. What he does at Doncaster doesn't change the fact of what he was here, I thought he dug deep and worked hard - if he goes on to do well, good luck to him. Will I ever want him back at Derby, not a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastKentRam Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I cannot believe how backwards some people are when it comes to football. Have Nigel Clough's constant excuses and drivel corrupted your brain power or what? Let me explain something quite simple. Goals win games. If a player has an allround decent game but doesn't score and a different player as an average game but does score, then one has had a positive effect on the game and one hasn't. Sadly, endeavour alone wins nothing. As someone else said, the player with the all round game could be creating situations which lead to more overall goals than the player who has a poor all round game but scores himself. Your simplified view of it is pretty backward. But I agree with the point, I'd rather have Theo than Sammon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I cannot believe how backwards some people are when it comes to football. Have Nigel Clough's constant excuses and drivel corrupted your brain power or what? Let me explain something quite simple. Goals win games. If a player has an allround decent game but doesn't score and a different player as an average game but does score, then one has had a positive effect on the game and one hasn't. Sadly, endeavour alone wins nothing.unless that player who doesn't score the goal puts the Cross, pass, cut back has the shot parried by the goalie to the guy who's scored. Then they've both had a positive impact on the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Tibbs Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 No, Nigel has made no mistakes on this one. People bang on about Theo's goals advantage over Sammon, they've both had a full season as our number one striker and Theo scored TWO more league goals than Sammon. Hardly mindblowing! They're both as poor as each other IMO. Certainly need to be looking at better, which I believe we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Good insight that, kudos. Not sure if you're genuine, so will assume you are... So if he goes on to score say 15-20 goals at a poor Doncaster side, that won't take away the "poor footballer" tag you've given him? Can't have been that poor if he made nearly 100 first team appearances under Nigel Clough. Why was he signed to a permenant contract if he's such a poor player anyway? Why did he score goals in a very average side and why is he doing it again now at a even poorer side in Doncaster? So surely Nigel is the one you should be critiising if he signed such a limited footballer and continued to play him for over two and a half years. He has currently scored 2 goals... Let's see what happens for the rest of the season first... Would at this stage like to point out that last season Bucko had 2 goals after this many games... If Donny finish above us thanks to Theo's goals then I will admit that we should have kept him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Contain Nuts Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Let's see what happens for the rest of the season first... Yep! Let's see how Doncaster as a team do over the season - I find it pretty ridiculous to constantly refer to them as a 'a poor Doncaster side' after 3 bloody games simply because they've just come up - it'd be like saying Charlton were a poor side last season, despite the fact they finished above us, or saying anyone who beat Wolves early in the season beat 'a good Wolves side' simply because they'd just been relegated. So far they've beaten a team we failed to beat and drawn away at Wigan, a fixture I fully expect us to lose, after letting in a last minute equaliser. Along with a home loss to Blackpool. I expect should they finish around the same position as us, or even above us, it'll all be down to Robinson's goals for some fans, ignoring any other factors, and they'll still be referred to as a poor side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcdcfc28 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Surely the fact he was here two and a half years, shows Nigel must've rated him. He played almost a hundred first team games for us also, why? He was such a limited footballer accourding to some on here. Surely it would have been more appropriate not having a player of such poor ability on the pitch, especially when we've had flirts with relegation. If he went on to score fifteen/twenty goals this season in the Doncaster side, I'd love to see what you'd all be saying about his ability as a footballer - especially when he's currently playing alongside players no better than our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 i get your point on this, but would you genuinely rather have Theo in our team than Chris Martin for example? No, because Martin can score and has technical ability. I'm a fan of Martin's and felt like a lone voice when praising his ability 4 months ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oomarkwright Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 no he hasnt made a mistake, he knew what he was doing., and was never going to be a regular starter. having said that i wish him all the best and hope he goes onto score 20-25 goals for doncaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Tibbs Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Beggars can't be choosers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 You are oversimplifying it. A player having as you say "an all round decent game" may well have created situations where other players have scored. It is a team game and not about individuals. IN this debate, he is being compared with alternative options for Derby, which right now are Bennett, Sammon, Doyle, Russell, Ball, Tyson.... I don't think (m)any of them have created or scored more in a Derby shirt. As someone else said, the player with the all round game could be creating situations which lead to more overall goals than the player who has a poor all round game but scores himself. Your simplified view of it is pretty backward. But I agree with the point, I'd rather have Theo than Sammon. He 'could be' yes, but by the same token, Theo for his lack of quality could be scoring 1 in 4 shots, and scuffing the other three wide or high. Pro-rata, Theo might've scored over 20 goals last season. There isn't a player in the Derby team who's contribution matched that over a season, although Jamie Ward came close in goals ratio, but not wins. unless that player who doesn't score the goal puts the Cross, pass, cut back has the shot parried by the goalie to the guy who's scored. Then they've both had a positive impact on the game. A bit hypothetical, but you're comparing a hypothetical player with a real player. Very unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimmu Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Let's see how many he has scored after 20-25 games. If he is still keeping 1 in 1 speed, I'm sure we've made horrible mistake and should've build our game around him, not Hughes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 A bit hypothetical, but you're comparing a hypothetical player with a real player. Very unfair. Your argument was a simplistic hypothetical one about two players one if which didn't score so didn't have a positive effect. I just pointed out how that opinion is fundamentally flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.