wexfordram Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 hello for now. Look forward to joining in the chats and debates in the near future. The only point I'll make tonight re the football is: Clough's contract? Did the club rush in? I knew results would dip after a new deal was signed. Look forward to seeing some of you at the Forest game in the new year. Slàinte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JW- Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Everyone wanted nige to sign his new contract, but as soon as he signs it things go tits up, and no doubt that after today there will be people saying he shouldn't have signed and we need to get rid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perky1106 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 No the club didn't rush in, and that's why there's speculation regarding his signature. We are an outrageously unfortunate team, and this season has been no different. We consistently have 10 injuries a year, probably mostly due to the good football we play that is demanding on fitness through the running and involves inevitable injuring tackles on forward players such as Ward and Steve Davies. Not to mention the insane amount of games we have to play, which is ridiculous. Any league that has more than 22 teams is going to be carnage in the modern game. Clough is clearly capable of making us play good football, but he isn't very good at planning ahead regarding our annual inevitable injury crisis. He seems to never learn a lesson from it either. If he had then he would have had more cover at centre-back, right-back, left-back and up-front comprised of players that aren't injury prone. Tyson was a terrible signing in my opinion. I think he's a great centre-forward, but his injury record means he just isn't worth having in a squad. But it's clear this team enjoy playing under Nigel, and are more motivated than most of the squads we've had in the last ten years despite only earning an average of £4,000 a week. Who else are we going to find who cares about the club other than Nigel at this stage? Oh, and welcome to the forum wexfordram. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram2767 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Hi there wexfordram. As your new I'm going to give you some advice. One rule nobody will tell you about... If I post something in a thread, 'like' it, because I'm very wity and funny, and I'm always right. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 No the club didn't rush in, and that's why there's speculation regarding his signature. We are an outrageously unfortunate team, and this season has been no different. We consistently have 10 injuries a year, probably mostly due to the good football we play that is demanding on fitness through the running and involves inevitable injuring tackles on forward players such as Ward and Steve Davies. Not to mention the insane amount of games we have to play, which is ridiculous. Any league that has more than 22 teams is going to be carnage in the modern game. Clough is clearly capable of making us play good football, but he isn't very good at planning ahead regarding our annual inevitable injury crisis. He seems to never learn a lesson from it either. If he had then he would have had more cover at centre-back, right-back, left-back and up-front comprised of players that aren't injury prone. Tyson was a terrible signing in my opinion. I think he's a great centre-forward, but his injury record means he just isn't worth having in a squad. But it's clear this team enjoy playing under Nigel, and are more motivated than most of the squads we've had in the last ten years despite only earning an average of £4,000 a week. Who else are we going to find who cares about the club other than Nigel at this stage? Oh, and welcome to the forum wexfordram. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Not sure how valid that point is...doesn't every other club in our league also have to play the same amount of games as us, thus meaning we all have the same problem? Infact, given our efforts in the cups, we play considerably fewer games than some of our rivals 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ph34r' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':ph34r:' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perky1106 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Not sure how valid that point is...doesn't every other club in our league also have to play the same amount of games as us, thus meaning we all have the same problem? Infact, given our efforts in the cups, we play considerably fewer games than some of our rivals 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ph34r' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':ph34r:' /> Yes. But I think my point is valid that the League has too many teams and fixtures in it. I'm glad we aren't Birmingham. They have 46 League matches, some Carling Cup, FA Cup and loads of Europa League games. We have more problems because our players do more running than average, and some players who are so injury prone that they aren't worth even being on the payroll, e.g. Tyson. I hate to be mean but football is about results, not about waiting until "so and so comes back from injury then things will get better" because you can end up waiting forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Yes. But I think my point is valid that the League has too many teams and fixtures in it. I'm glad we aren't Birmingham. They have 46 League matches, some Carling Cup, FA Cup and loads of Europa League games. We have more problems because our players do more running than average, and some players who are so injury prone that they aren't worth even being on the payroll, e.g. Tyson. I hate to be mean but football is about results, not about waiting until "so and so comes back from injury then things will get better" because you can end up waiting forever. I agree it's about results, that's why I don't think we can say there's too many clubs in the league just because it doesn't suit our style. It's an issue for everyone and most clubs avoid having more than 5 dirst-team players out. We're unlucky and naive in that respect. I like having 24 teams, personally. You get more games for your money and more mid-week games, and it helps promoted teams prepare for the Premier League - with a 46-game marathon season behind you it should make the 38 games of greater pace less challenging than the difference in quality. I also agree that we shouldn't be signing injured players - but when you have our sort of budget available, you either get a talented sicknote or a Steady Eddy. As much as I'm begginning to think Gareth Roberts is a useful player for us, we'd be relegated if we had an entire team of players like him. What Clough has proved, for me, is that you don't necessarily get monkeys if you pay peanuts - but cheap talented players are cheap for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram2767 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Not sure how valid that point is...doesn't every other club in our league also have to play the same amount of games as us, thus meaning we all have the same problem? Infact, given our efforts in the cups, we play considerably fewer games than some of our rivals 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ph34r' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':ph34r:' /> Yeah, last season we played fewer games than any other championship team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram2767 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Yes. But I think my point is valid that the League has too many teams and fixtures in it. I'm glad we aren't Birmingham. They have 46 League matches, some Carling Cup, FA Cup and loads of Europa League games. We have more problems because our players do more running than average, and some players who are so injury prone that they aren't worth even being on the payroll, e.g. Tyson. I hate to be mean but football is about results, not about waiting until "so and so comes back from injury then things will get better" because you can end up waiting forever. So Tyson shouldn't be at the club because he's missed, so far, 16 games in a 3 year contract? You say football is about results, yes, we've been getting them, 7 wins, 3 draws, so what's your point there? Your argument about our players running alot is laughable. Otherwise just to finish off, you surely know about the budget, so what do you suggest we do to conquer the injury problem? We have to wait for the players to come back, unless you've got a spare couple of million to give to the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_ram Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I'm sure that Joe's frustration has come from today's result, however I think he's right in saying that we are unfortunate, we always seem to have key players injured during key times, why is this?!? It can't always just be down to luck there has to be something to it, call me cynical but I don't think the medical team at Derby are doing their job properly in providing adequate recuperation techniques after games. I would say that 70% of our injuries are preventable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perky1106 Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 So Tyson shouldn't be at the club because he's missed, so far, 16 games in a 3 year contract? No he shouldn't. He has a bad injury record. We need someone who's going to be consistently fit. You say football is about results, yes, we've been getting them, 7 wins, 3 draws, so what's your point there? We didn't today and we didn't on Wednesday, and that's due to injuries and our lack of preparation for the worst case scenario, which has happened season after season. Your argument about our players running alot is laughable. Why? Our style of play involves more running than most other teams, and we rely a lot on wingers who are likely to be challenged. Otherwise just to finish off, you surely know about the budget, so what do you suggest we do to conquer the injury problem? We have to wait for the players to come back, unless you've got a spare couple of million to give to the club? Maybe avoid having players such as Riggott and Tyson who will probably never play. Instead sign defenders (they can be steady Eddies) that rarely get injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram2767 Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 No he shouldn't. He has a bad injury record. We need someone who's going to be consistently fit. Well I don't agree with you, Nige and the coaching staff don't agree with you, the scouts don't agree with you, the board don't agree with you, and I'm sure I can find a whole lot of fans that don't agree with you. Seeing as its a matter of right and wrong, I don't think your right on this one... We didn't today and we didn't on Wednesday, and that's due to injuries and our lack of preparation for the worst case scenario, which has happened season after season. But you miss the point. Its about results, and we've got them for the last 2 seasons including this, hence we're in the Championship. 2 games isn't going to get us relegated now is it? Why? Our style of play involves more running than most other teams, and we rely a lot on wingers who are likely to be challenged. All wingers run alot, and you've already said that Birmingham have more games than us so why are they doing so well fitness wise? Also, what's the wingers getting challenged got to do with the number of games or running alot? Maybe avoid having players such as Riggott and Tyson who will probably never play. Instead sign defenders (they can be steady Eddies) that rarely get injured. Tyson will never play? Seriously? You seriously believe that? What f-ing planet are you on? (Also, Tyson isn't a defender) Anyway to take on the post...Sign defenders that never get injured? WE DO, and you only named ONE that is injury prone! And even he (Riggott) is a back-up for a back-up! Anderson, Barker, O'Brien, Shackell, Buxton, all come before Riggott, so I don't see the problem there! Riggott is there as a last resort if we need him, he's on a 1yr contract ffs, just there to fill a gap if we need him, and atm we don't, because we have Moxey, O'Brien and Shackell. So I don't think getting rid of Riggott is going to change anything now is it? Brayford, Barker, Anderson and Riggott are our current injured defenders. In that list Riggott comes last. Are you telling me that you believe Barker and Brayford to be injury prone? Because they are the players currently MISSING from the squad. Not Riggott. You go on about our inevitable injury list which implies you are calling all our currently injured players injury prone. That's Brayford, Barker, Anderson, Maguire, Bailey, Tyson, Davies and Green. Your just wrong about that. We are unlucky. Davies got elbowed in the head, Maguire's got a broken nose, Brayford and Barker are NOT injury prone. The only defender that is injury prone is Riggott, and I think I've established pretty clearly that Riggott isn't even missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 that was a brief visit wasn't it? open the can of worms an gone. are you originally from derby fella? we normally say a bit about ourselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 that was a brief visit wasn't it? open the can of worms an gone. are you originally from derby fella? we normally say a bit about ourselves You never learn do you 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons//sad' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NothernRam Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Well I don't agree with you, Nige and the coaching staff don't agree with you, the scouts don't agree with you, the board don't agree with you, and I'm sure I can find a whole lot of fans that don't agree with you. Seeing as its a matter of right and wrong, I don't think your right on this one... Who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Well I don't agree with you, Nige and the coaching staff don't agree with you, the scouts don't agree with you, the board don't agree with you, and I'm sure I can find a whole lot of fans that don't agree with you. Seeing as its a matter of right and wrong, I don't think your right on this one... But you miss the point. Its about results, and we've got them for the last 2 seasons including this, hence we're in the Championship. 2 games isn't going to get us relegated now is it? All wingers run alot, and you've already said that Birmingham have more games than us so why are they doing so well fitness wise? Also, what's the wingers getting challenged got to do with the number of games or running alot? Tyson will never play? Seriously? You seriously believe that? What f-ing planet are you on? (Also, Tyson isn't a defender) Anyway to take on the post...Sign defenders that never get injured? WE DO, and you only named ONE that is injury prone! And even he (Riggott) is a back-up for a back-up! Anderson, Barker, O'Brien, Shackell, Buxton, all come before Riggott, so I don't see the problem there! Riggott is there as a last resort if we need him, he's on a 1yr contract ffs, just there to fill a gap if we need him, and atm we don't, because we have Moxey, O'Brien and Shackell. So I don't think getting rid of Riggott is going to change anything now is it? Brayford, Barker, Anderson and Riggott are our current injured defenders. In that list Riggott comes last. Are you telling me that you believe Barker and Brayford to be injury prone? Because they are the players currently MISSING from the squad. Not Riggott. You go on about our inevitable injury list which implies you are calling all our currently injured players injury prone. That's Brayford, Barker, Anderson, Maguire, Bailey, Tyson, Davies and Green. Your just wrong about that. We are unlucky. Davies got elbowed in the head, Maguire's got a broken nose, Brayford and Barker are NOT injury prone. The only defender that is injury prone is Riggott, and I think I've established pretty clearly that Riggott isn't even missed. well nigel and the coaching staff think kilbane, anderson and buxton are good players along with connor doyle, i tend not tot ake their judgement as gods word. Also the results shown in the past two seasons have been amongst the worst in the championship, we went on a 14 game winless run last season and at the moment are on a run of form of 1 win in 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastKentRam Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Everyone wanted nige to sign his new contract, but as soon as he signs it things go tits up, and no doubt that after today there will be people saying he shouldn't have signed and we need to get rid I didnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Well I don't agree with you, Nige and the coaching staff don't agree with you, the scouts don't agree with you, the board don't agree with you, and I'm sure I can find a whole lot of fans that don't agree with you. Seeing as its a matter of right and wrong, I don't think your right on this one... But you miss the point. Its about results, and we've got them for the last 2 seasons including this, hence we're in the Championship. 2 games isn't going to get us relegated now is it? All wingers run alot, and you've already said that Birmingham have more games than us so why are they doing so well fitness wise? Also, what's the wingers getting challenged got to do with the number of games or running alot? Tyson will never play? Seriously? You seriously believe that? What f-ing planet are you on? (Also, Tyson isn't a defender) Anyway to take on the post...Sign defenders that never get injured? WE DO, and you only named ONE that is injury prone! And even he (Riggott) is a back-up for a back-up! Anderson, Barker, O'Brien, Shackell, Buxton, all come before Riggott, so I don't see the problem there! Riggott is there as a last resort if we need him, he's on a 1yr contract ffs, just there to fill a gap if we need him, and atm we don't, because we have Moxey, O'Brien and Shackell. So I don't think getting rid of Riggott is going to change anything now is it? Brayford, Barker, Anderson and Riggott are our current injured defenders. In that list Riggott comes last. Are you telling me that you believe Barker and Brayford to be injury prone? Because they are the players currently MISSING from the squad. Not Riggott. You go on about our inevitable injury list which implies you are calling all our currently injured players injury prone. That's Brayford, Barker, Anderson, Maguire, Bailey, Tyson, Davies and Green. Your just wrong about that. We are unlucky. Davies got elbowed in the head, Maguire's got a broken nose, Brayford and Barker are NOT injury prone. The only defender that is injury prone is Riggott, and I think I've established pretty clearly that Riggott isn't even missed. Moxey isn't at the club anymore. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> I would say Anderson is injury prone. Also on Barker he has been injured longer than he hasn't been injured since he has been here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram2767 Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Moxey isn't at the club anymore. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> I would say Anderson is injury prone. Also on Barker he has been injured longer than he hasn't been injured since he has been here. One second...BUXTON. Yeah, Buxton was the on I was looking for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I wanted Clough on a 1 year extension, I appreciated the start to the season but had (and still have) major reservations whether it would last, particularly with injuries in mind. I stand by that at the moment but I'm increasingly feeling an uneasy sense of deja-vu. To ram2767, I'm not sure it was you but if I remember correctly, your posts were borderline delusional when we were picking up results, nearing towards cringeworthy. Though I gather you're just a misplaced idealist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.