Day Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Cheron you miss my point clearly! Which is odd considering it's glaringly obvious. My opinion is that Best was the only option to enable us to offload Sammon, and provide 'target man' cover should Martin get injured.Why did we need to a direct replacement for Martin?If the only direct replacement for Martin was a pot noodle poor player like Best why was a Plan B not talked about?That was McClaren's failure in the end, refusing to change formation, tactics, sticking to the system we played with Martin. You don't just sign poor players and say oh well, that's all there is, you look for alternatives, how else can we get the best from this squad of players. Clement has the same situation now, he hasn't got a direct Martin clone waiting to come on, he has to change things around, work with what he's got like he did on Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 What about simple player performance in all of this? The manager can only do so much. Everyone believes plenty of signings are good at the time, a few bad performances and suddenly it's a bad one. Players aren't robots. Take Weimann, everyone was buzzing when we signed him. Out of position or not, I think everyone expected more from him. And suddenly people start to tag him as a bad signing. I think if it's a player we know and a signing is judged as "good" at the time, ie fans want him and are excited, then that's it. It can't really be a bad signing, just the player not doing what they should be. After a dozen games in 1972, many people thought that David Nish was an awful signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Cheron you miss my point clearly! Which is odd considering it's glaringly obvious. My opinion is that Best was the only option to enable us to offload Sammon, and provide 'target man' cover should Martin get injured.No no... I get your point... It was "We have to have a target man even if they're sausage"... I guess because you think we are/were incapable of playing any other way?I personally subscribe to the school of thought that says "Let's get another quality forward"... And adapt the play slightly to fit them...4-3-3 seems to work with Martin... Doesn't with Bent... However 4-2-3-1 might work with Bent...Just about to post and saw @Daveo noodling on about the same thing I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor1946 Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Seb Hines and Michael Boulding my memory gone blank on these two will look them up Doyle was a yank. brought in at youth level .If you mention youth footballers to sustain a argument its wrong.The failure rate at that level is massive.A good signing for me is someone who improves the squad of players at the managers disposal.A loan signing for me is a with a view to a permanent deal .Or a emergency loan due to injurys.All loans should be made with one eye on the academyAnd players should increase in value,due to our excellent coaches. With the present squad Shackell --Weiman---Butterfield--Johnson.--Cannot see a profit theirAnd the wages of Bent--Pearce--Baird=Only profit promotion,next 2 seasons or shucks start again.Perhaps another 5 year plan. Has Mel got the cash.Will Sam go------ITS like the old saturday afternoon at the Flix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Question: was Assombalonga a good signing forest? Good player til he got crocked, but helped the FFP situation no end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 After a dozen games in 1972, many people thought that David Nish was an awful signing.Damn, 3 or 4 more games and we'd have been talking about Raul along the same lines as David Nish. Can we recall him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcnram Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 After a dozen games in 1972, many people thought that David Nish was an awful signing.And what a player he was - pure class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramchop Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Surely using the u21 players is better than using Leon "Pot Noodle" Best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted September 30, 2015 Author Share Posted September 30, 2015 Surely using the u21 players is better than using Leon "Pot Noodle" Best?Don't think we had any left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester40 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Part of the good signing debate (for me eg Sammon) is that I think sometimes players with less obvious qualities can get away with a lot more ..and 'they always gave their all' is the cry. Whereas if you are more a Tom Ince type who can beat 3 men and score in the top corner one week....if you don't the next week people start questioning if you were trying and say you've got a poor attitude etc. A mate is a season ticket holder at Wigan and when we signed Sammon he said he was a real decent bloke who would always try but he just couldn't hit a barn door.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Poor player = bad signing (eg Teale, Savage)Poor player who's always injured = Very bad signing (eg. Pearson, S)Good player who's always injured = bad signing (eg Stubbs, Kinkladze)Good player who costs far too much for his contribution = bad signing (eg Ravenelli)Good player who costs very little but becomes central to the team for a number of years = very good signing (eg Martin)Good player who costs a shed load but becomes central to the team for a number of years = good signing (eg Nish) hth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester40 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Poor player = bad signing (eg Teale, Savage)Poor player who's always injured = Very bad signing (eg. Pearson, S)Good player who's always injured = bad signing (eg Stubbs, Kinkladze)Good player who costs far too much for his contribution = bad signing (eg Ravenelli)Good player who costs very little but becomes central to the team for a number of years = very good signing (eg Martin)Good player who costs a shed load but becomes central to the team for a number of years = good signing (eg Nish) hth Pearson and Kinkladze, poor signings? Ouch. Harsh. Rated Pearson for his energy levels and a rather crucial goal or two... Kinkladze was just quality and one of relatively fe 'worth the entry fee on their own' players I can remember, sure he was on the decline but that drop of the shoulder was a joy to behold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 A good signing can be defined simply as the best known available choice at the time of the choice.How that player performs after that point is dependent on a myriad of factors, some of which are not that player's fault. My definition of a poor player differs to that of some others. Players playing two divisions down from us are not poor players, they are generally playing at the level of their ability and some are heroes to their supporters. If we sign a player who cannot do well at our level, it does not make him a poor player, he is just not up to the standard that he is being asked to play. This is not his fault .It is easier to say that a player did not meet expectations or that he did not prove to be a good investment in terms of what he achieved compared with what we paid. I think that value for money is quite easy to assess from our point of view. If it was easy, we would all pick the same starting eleven and substitutes.The last thirteen games of last season are a case in point. It was the same players who were not performing in the same way in some cases. Injuries etc make a big difference. I was about to write off Christie last year but he looks a real asset now. What brought about the change? I do not really know. Christie is a good player who was at some point not playing as well as he is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyDyer Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I was hoping I would see more use of the terms 'bad signing' and 'poor player' in this thread. I feel a little short changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Pearson and Kinkladze, poor signings? Ouch. Harsh. Rated Pearson for his energy levels and a rather crucial goal or two... Kinkladze was just quality and one of relatively fe 'worth the entry fee on their own' players I can remember, sure he was on the decline but that drop of the shoulder was a joy to behold.Pearson was awful.I'm still having nightmares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 And what a player he was - pure class.That disallowed goal at Hillsborough vs Man Utd - still an absolute travesty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Good player who's always injured = bad signing (eg Stubbs, Kinkladze)Pearson and Kinkladze, poor signings? Ouch. Harsh. Rated Pearson for his energy levels and a rather crucial goal or two... Kinkladze was just quality and one of relatively fe 'worth the entry fee on their own' players I can remember, sure he was on the decline but that drop of the shoulder was a joy to behold.Kinky was a class above... He may have had injury problems but was worth the money just for the few games he played... Magical... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamLad1884 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Poor player = bad signing (eg Teale, Savage) Poor player who's always injured = Very bad signing (eg. Pearson, S) Good player who's always injured = bad signing (eg Stubbs, Kinkladze) Good player who costs far too much for his contribution = bad signing (eg Ravenelli) Good player who costs very little but becomes central to the team for a number of years = very good signing (eg Martin) Good player who costs a shed load but becomes central to the team for a number of years = good signing (eg Nish) hth I wouldn't say Savage was a bad signing in particular, More of a mediocre player in a bad team. For all his personality, he did have a habit of lifting the fans and the team. Plus who couldn't love those golden locks hey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I wouldn't say Savage was a bad signing in particular, More of a mediocre player in a bad team. For all his personality, he did have a habit of lifting the fans and the team. Plus who couldn't love those golden locks hey id say Savage was a bad signing to make, but under Nigel at least tried to make it OK in retrospect. Sav wasn't the worst Jewell signing by a long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I wouldn't call Pearson a very bad signing either. I'd call him a fooking tragic signing who has all the same qualities in football that a greyhound would offer. Savage was alright if you like a bit of Hollyoaks with your football. I always half expected him to start juggling or balancing the ball on his nose. He just played to the crowd. Not for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.