Howaythelads

It is easy to disagree, Redknapp is full of s*** as usual. Anybody who thinks we have "great" players is talking out of their arse. With only one proper striker all season long it's hardly a surprise we are where we are in the league.

Omg

You aren't reading the posts then. Let me give you a clue....Martins. We needed a striker before a LB. Not signing either is not a result of signing Duff and does not make Duff a bad signing. Obvious really, although it seems it's not that easy for some people to grasp. And we needed a central defender and a left back before we needed a left winger. Thats very clear. Is it that clear though. The only other player who can play LW is the Zog. So surely, we did need a LW. We have NO premiership left back. Therefore we needed one. Simple. Yes, we do. You just don't rate him. What's clear is that you can only a player who is available, who wants to join and who the club can afford. I realise the problem with some other people in this thread but I thought you would understand that. There is no point in signing players you don't really want, if whoever Roeder wanted for LB wasn't available then he can't sign him. Simple as that. This doesn't mean signing another player is a bad signing. Given his performances of last season it has been important not to rely on Zog in case of burning him out. I thought you'd realise that too. Fact is, in the games Zog has played this season he's been no better on LW than Babayaro at LB, Bramble at CB....etc etc. Had the club signed a LB there would have been no significant improvement in the team. We would still have been outplayed and dominated in the majority of matches. We've been lucky in the end, because Martins has played most games and has turned up trumps with the goals, but we needed another striker ahead of any other position. Not bringing that player in still does not make Duff a bad signing. To suggest he is a bad signing because there are other areas of the team that is weak is simply nonsense. We've been through this we've got Milner and also Dyer to cover here (Even the deadly Luque ). On the RW we can play Milner,Dyer or Solano. I must have mulled the Duff purchase about a thousand times and although I take your point regarding not relying on Zog, making him feel unwanted and not playing him in games when Duff went throught his bad patch (which he has since recoverd from) are all the wrong signals for a young player. Even from the bench - bringing him on for 5min at the end (a la Roeder style) is pointless both tactically and also for the psychology of the player (witness Richardson coming on for ManU the other night for 20min - he is quarter the player Zogg is). Midfield and possesion are an issue for us and I agree completely with your comments regarding this, the main problem is that whatever CM pairing we use they seem totally bereft at keeping the ball (other than passing back a la Parker) only for a CD to hoof it (possesion lost). These instances repeated 20 times a game is squarely Roeders fault and in these things I can see GR's conservative/safety first mind. I really hope we keep Zoggy and turn down whatever offers are being lined up. Milner can only fill in on the left and Dyer is shite there, imo. I understand everything you're saying, but the likelihood is that Roeder did want a LB but the player he wanted wasn't available or didn't want to join, hence the move for Bernard. If this is the case it simply does not mean Duff was a poor signing, which is what a number of people are saying. The gash signings in recent times have been the likes of Luque and Parker, 2 players we didn't (or shouldn't) need to sign.

Since he can't pass the ball or tackle properly I've no idea why you think things would look up if he plays a defensive role. Besides, are you seriously saying he's playing a "creative" role right now. f****** hell. Well Butt is a holding midfielder, and from what I've seen Parker seems to be the one expected to get forward. So yeah, he's playing the creative role. Horrendously so, but it's what he's been doing. I think he can be a good DM, if he were to learn a bit of discipline in his play. As it is he works very hard and does very little. But we saw displays last year which showed he can be a good DM. He's not a young player anymore. It's a very understated and specialised role in how good a player has to be to do this well. Their reading of the game and distribution has to be first class and I don't think you can just learn it by putting a bit of discipline into your game. They have to be a natural, there aren't many around like Gary Speed who can change their game and work this role effectively. I seriously doubt Parker has even 10% of the ability of the likes of Speed at anything, let alone in that defensive role. He needs to go and I hope he goes soon.

Since he can't pass the ball or tackle properly I've no idea why you think things would look up if he plays a defensive role. Besides, are you seriously saying he's playing a "creative" role right now. Fucking hell.

It would be like winning the lottery if that useless twat left.

You aren't reading the posts then. Let me give you a clue....Martins. We needed a striker before a LB. Not signing either is not a result of signing Duff and does not make Duff a bad signing. Obvious really, although it seems it's not that easy for some people to grasp. And we needed a central defender and a left back before we needed a left winger. Thats very clear. Is it that clear though. The only other player who can play LW is the Zog. So surely, we did need a LW. We have NO premiership left back. Therefore we needed one. Simple. Yes, we do. You just don't rate him. What's clear is that you can only buy a player who is available, who wants to join and who the club can afford. I realise the problem with some other people in this thread but I thought you would understand that. There is no point in signing players you don't really want, if whoever Roeder wanted for LB wasn't available then he can't sign him. Simple as that. This doesn't mean signing another player is a bad signing. Given his performances of last season it has been important not to rely on Zog in case of burning him out. I thought you'd realise that too. Fact is, in the games Zog has played this season he's been no better on LW than Babayaro at LB, Bramble at CB....etc etc. Had the club signed a LB there would have been no significant improvement in the team. We would still have been outplayed and dominated in the majority of matches. We've been lucky in the end, because Martins has played most games and has turned up trumps with the goals, but we needed another striker ahead of any other position. Not bringing that player in still does not make Duff a bad signing. To suggest he is a bad signing because there are other areas of the team that is weak is simply nonsense.

Yes, without a doubt.

Are you suggesting that Roeder had extra money available for defenders but instead decided to start a Premiership season with what had to be the smallest pool of defenders ever? If that's what happened then Roeder and Shepherd come off looking even worse. Six defenders, three of which are crocks and another of which is Ramage is not going to get you through a season whatever way you look at it. What on earth were they thinking?! Do you really believe Sibierski, Rossi and Bernard arrived as the result of a carefully planned transfer window or as the result of a last-minute panic? They all arrived in the final few hours, close to midnight August 31st. I remember the chronicle article at the time (the one I assume you're quoting regarding Zat Knight) and it painted a sorry picture. Milner in Birmingham ready to sign for Aston Villa and pulled back at the last minute, it was all a mess. How people can defend that transfer window I do not know, we are still reaping the mistakes today. Omg. You really believe it is a simple thing to sign footballers, don't you?

we spent money on duff,so what,we also had money to spend on a defender(didn't we have a bid turned down for zat knight).roeders whole transfer policy has been if he cant get the player he wants he wont buy for the sake of it. you are making it sound like we didn't buy a defender BECAUSE we bought duff,which in my understanding wasn't the case. Exactly.

You aren't reading the posts then. Let me give you a clue....Martins. We needed a striker before a LB. Not signing either is not a result of signing Duff and does not make Duff a bad signing. Obvious really, although it seems it's not that easy for some people to grasp.

Glad you agree it was a total f*ck up then, for a minute I thought you were defending the purchase of Duff over buying available defenders. I agree we needed another striker on top of Martins, it was the highest priority after getting a defender, which without any doubt was the urgent priority by that time. Even after Martins, Rossi and Sibierski were brought in out of desperation but still nobody for the defence. I don't think that £5m would have got us much in the way of strikers. As you point out defenders are cheaper and we could have made greater improvements to our squad there. Make it up, mate. He didnt have to. Youve just admitted that Roeder failed in the transfer market to get the priority players in other positions before signing a left winger. mackems.gif I don't believe you have a clue about football. Not a clue. Nor do you understand the English language. Just carry on with your negative and endless spit and bile, it doesn't bother me that you're spouting shíte and have zero understanding of the game.

Glad you agree it was a total f*ck up then, for a minute I thought you were defending the purchase of Duff over buying available defenders. I agree we needed another striker on top of Martins, it was the highest priority after getting a defender, which without any doubt was the urgent priority by that time. Even after Martins, Rossi and Sibierski were brought in out of desperation but still nobody for the defence. I don't think that £5m would have got us much in the way of strikers. As you point out defenders are cheaper and we could have made greater improvements to our squad there. Make it up, mate.

Thats an ideal scenario. Fact is that we have no top players in any position when it comes to defence. The nearest thing we have is "potential" in Steven Taylor, but thats it. And the only striker weve had playing for us for 95% of the season who is even remotely Premiership calibre is Martins. Im all for strengthening the squad, but it was madness to blow a sizeable transfer fee and massive wages to replace arguably our best player last season when the rest of the squad had such massive gaping holes. But then, look at the results to see who is in the right here. Weve crashed out of the main cup competitions in humiliating fashion against sides we should have beaten easily (5-1 utter humiliation at home to a bloody championship side, thats 5-1, and a 2-0 spineless defeat against a Dutch side built with pennies, with the nation watching and eventually laughing at us). Weve done worse this year than we did last year in the league, with plenty of shiite results and shiite performances, even in games weve won. So, for those of us who said we should have signed a defender or a forward instead of a backup left winger at the time the signing was made - surely weve been proven correct? Or rather, as certain individuals on this board with specific agendas would have us believe, its just crazy talk to think that our defence would be better with better individual defenders than Bramble and Ramage, or that wed have scored more goals if we had better individual forwards than the likes of Sibierski, Duff and Dyer. Anything to back the board, eh? Anything to slate the board eh ? Despite us being among the top spenders, again Now, thats what I call an agenda In fairness - and I may have misread - but I'm not sure he mentioned or even implicated the board there? When he uses the word board is he not referring to this message board? Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but isn't that entire post about how signing Duff was the wrong decision rather than castigating the board? If the point is to castigate someone for deciding to buy Duff, then I would consider that to have been the managers decision, which I will defend BTW, as a proven quality player with his best years ahead of him for the price we paid for him and considering all the circumstances, which have been mentioned in this thread. Nobody was to know he would struggle to find the form he has displayed with other clubs in the premiership. The clubs policy of price limits, wage limits etc, is set by the board. If the manager wanted the player, and the board felt it was within their means or simply chose to back their manager, they are doing what a good board should do as often as possible. My comment about an agenda stands. What I would really like is tmonkey [and he isn't the only one] to tell us is who exactly they consider to be these numerous "trophy players" at the club, and who they would prefer the club to have signed instead. Before answering, they should consider what I said earlier. Do they prefer the club not to sign quality players, or would they prefer the club to sell its best players ? and do they think - before they start whinging on about not being 2nd in the league any more - that we have any chance whatsoever of ever getting back there if the club DON'T buy these quality players, or "trophy players" if that is what they prefer to call them ? Cutting through all the clap-trap this has the hallmarks of a classic FS buy. GR probably didn't even know about it till he was asked to book the hire car. Chomp! Chomp! Good try, but not good enough.

You're going to have to be firmer with him. I'm sure he's "firm" with his "chums"

Quite sad when more and more people are twigging on to what an insufferable prick you are, and there's only you that can't see it. I'll ask again - what's the point in the trolling rule if not to dispose of trolls? Looks to me like you're trying to get someone banned. Typical abuse as well, tbh. Zip it, Captain Mainwaring. No denying it, I see. Just slagging people off as usual.

Quite sad when more and more people are twigging on to what an insufferable prick you are, and there's only you that can't see it. I'll ask again - what's the point in the trolling rule if not to dispose of trolls? Looks to me like you're trying to get someone banned. Typical abuse as well, tbh.

Come on we all know there were defenders available because we saw them signing for the likes of Portsmouth, Middlesbrough and other clubs. Some have gone on to be good, some haven't, but we all know that Roeder had £5m in his pocket and we know that he spent it on a left winger and left his defence threadbare. The argument you're using could be used to justify any signing in history. As for 'goals win games', goals also lose games and they've lost us a lot of games this season through crap defending. In Europe we scored 4 times and still went out. The most difficult thing in football is to score goals, that's why strikers and creative players cost more than defenders. We needed another forward before a LB regardless of signing Duff. Also, you're correct that some defenders moved club. Big deal. Roeder either tried to get them and they decided to go elsewhere, or he didn't want them at all. Shit happens. This is the real world.

Wouldn't disagree. Therefore you'd realise that we actually needed another striker rather than a LW or a LB. Take a look at the goals scored column. Goals win games. You also need to take into account availability. Something the majority on this forum don't appear to consider in the slightest. I'm waiting for someone to convince me with solid facts that signing Duff directly led to the club failing to sign a defender, rather than the defender the manager wanted to sign simply not being available.

Pretty sure I watched him play there in "the" Wigan LC game. Pretty sure it wasn't pretty. I'd rather try Duff at LB and Zog on LM, tbh. It's working well with Solano, although he has a lot of prior experience of playing RB.

This being the same Titus who looked ok in the CL when we had a decent overall team, especially in CM with a player of the calibre of Speed in there rather than s**** like Parker. Not that I'm saying Bramble is great, like. True. But given our limitations, I think the easiest way for us to have improved would have been to spend the money on other positions. We know what Bramble's been like with Parker in front of him - this would seem to indicate one of them needed replacing. With Campbell going on a free it would have been a damn sight cheaper to replace Titus, even with a £2m (or whatever) signing on fee. I wouldn't argue with the signing of Duff if we had a stronger squad, and I know we only had one other LW, but I'm certain that playing Milner out of position there (or even Dyer, or Emre, etc.) would be less harmful for the team than playing Ramage out of position at LB, or even Carr in postion at RB. I fully understand your argument for signing Duff, but there were too many other areas that were too much weaker than LW for it to be justified, in my opinion. Fair post in this thread at last, so I won't argue other than saying that Duff was available and perhaps the LB really wanted by Roeder wasn't. As I said earlier on, I'd have preferred another striker rather than signing Duff anyway. I'm just getting pissed off at people (not you) trying to play by championship manager on here. We're talking about real football, not a fucking computer game as some seem to believe.

I understand fully the importance of having good footballers across all areas of the pitch and I also understand the importance of relative positions within a team. You have an obsession with the LB position, for some reason. Yes, we need a better LB. We also need more than just Martins up front. Did you check the goals scored column recently? Did you watch the match against Arsenal again to see how often the ball comes straight back when it gets to the front man? We also need a better player in CM than Parker and better CB's as well. As a player who was likely to slump (Zog) the club took the opportunity to bring in an experienced wide man for the left side, a position that is notoriously difficult to fill effectively. To think of the flak I took while Robert was here by claiming he was miles better than Duff and yet here I am defending the signing of a player I don't even rate that highly. I think he's just a decent player who became available and was added to the squad, that's all. Young players slump, they have to be brought on properly. If by not using Zog very much this season turns him into a better player further down the line through not being over-used following his good season last time out I'll be well happy with the signing of Duff. I doubt you and your chums have thought of that possibility though.......no doubt this is just another "excuse" to you. mackems.gif On the other hand N'Zogbia could leave and we will be left with a player who has looked average at best this season, genius. I do bang on about a left back a lot, this is true. Could be something to do with the fact that the problem NEVER GETS f****** SOLVED! Yet some people are so stupid to think "well we needed cover there so spending a third of our transfer budget isn't that bad". We need to sort out the first 11 before we start signing quality back up, still a concept missed on you I see though. Well done Doesn't look as though you've grasped a single thing I said. As usual.

Thats an ideal scenario. Fact is that we have no top players in any position when it comes to defence. The nearest thing we have is "potential" in Steven Taylor, but thats it. Thats 4 entire positions in the first team, and several positions in the backup or squad slots. And the only striker weve had playing for us for 95% of the season who is even remotely Premiership calibre is Martins. Thats one out of two first team positions. But hey, we needed a second left winger, because Milner has proven hes incapable of playing on that flank - according to some. His performances and goal against the likes of ManU, Liverpool, etc, have proven this. Im all for strengthening the squad, but it was madness to blow a sizeable transfer fee and massive wages to replace arguably our best player last season when the rest of the squad had such massive gaping holes. But then, look at the results to see who is in the right here. Weve crashed out of the main cup competitions in humiliating fashion against sides we should have beaten easily (5-1 utter humiliation at home to a bloody championship side, thats 5-1, and a 2-0 spineless defeat against a Dutch side built with pennies, with the nation watching and eventually laughing at us). Weve done worse this year than we did last year in the league, with plenty of shiite results and shiite performances, even in games weve won. So, for those of us who said we should have signed a defender or a forward instead of a backup left winger at the time the signing was made - surely weve been proven correct? Or rather, as certain individuals on this board with specific agendas would have us believe, its just crazy talk to think that our defence would be better with better individual defenders than Bramble and Ramage, or that wed have scored more goals if we had better individual forwards than the likes of Sibierski, Duff and Dyer. Anything to back the board, eh? Your shite knows no limit.

I won't be very happy, why would I be? I think he could turn into a decent player but the fact remains he only has potential right now, same as Milner, same as Taylor. They could all stop making progress at any time. Zog may well want to go and it could well be that within the club this has been known for ages. Who knows other than those on the inside?

I understand fully the importance of having good footballers across all areas of the pitch and I also understand the importance of relative positions within a team. You have an obsession with the LB position, for some reason. Yes, we need a better LB. We also need more than just Martins up front. Did you check the goals scored column recently? Did you watch the match against Arsenal again to see how often the ball comes straight back when it gets to the front man? We also need a better player in CM than Parker and better CB's as well. As a player who was likely to slump (Zog) the club took the opportunity to bring in an experienced wide man for the left side, a position that is notoriously difficult to fill effectively. To think of the flak I took while Robert was here by claiming he was miles better than Duff and yet here I am defending the signing of a player I don't even rate that highly. I think he's just a decent player who became available and was added to the squad, that's all. Young players slump, they have to be brought on properly. If by not using Zog very much this season turns him into a better player further down the line through not being over-used following his good season last time out I'll be well happy with the signing of Duff. I doubt you and your chums have thought of that possibility though.......no doubt this is just another "excuse" to you. mackems.gif