So looks like Zoggy is off in the summer.

[Howaythelads]

OK now that we've established - twice - that this is the real world, I still haven't heard a valid argument against spending that £5m on defence instead of Duff. I didn't say spend all of that money on a left back, I don't know where that has come from. Onyewu was way too little way too late and I see his signing as an acknowledgement from the club that they had made a mistake in August. Indeed attack and defence were both urgent priorities back then, £10m was spent on Martins, Sibierski and Rossi were also brought in. In defence - nothing. We began the season with the most unbalanced squad in the league.

 

Strikers tend to be more expensive and that's why I agreed with the signing of Martins. After the Owen injury we were always going to have to spend big up front. But we simply had to put something into defence and that has been proven over the season as we've had something like 7 different right backs and 7 different left backs over the season, that's got to be a record. We were the only club to start the season with such a threadbare defence and when you consider three of our six senior defenders (Carr, Baba and Moore) have major fitness problems, it was never going to be enough to see us through. I'm not talking with the benefit of hindsight as I said all this at the time.

 

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.

[Howaythelads]

OK now that we've established - twice - that this is the real world, I still haven't heard a valid argument against spending that £5m on defence instead of Duff. I didn't say spend all of that money on a left back, I don't know where that has come from. Onyewu arrived five months too late, he was way too little way too late. Indeed attack and defence were both urgent priorities, £10m was spent on Martins, Sibierski and Rossi were also brought in. In defence - nothing.

 

You can talk about how the best teams play but they've all got a good defence. Strikers tend to be more expensive and that's why I agreed with the signing of Martins. After the Owen injury we were always going to have to spend big up front. But we simply had to put something into defence and that has been proven over the season as we've had something like 7 different right backs and 7 different left backs this season. We were the only club to start the season with such a threadbare defence and when you consider three of our six senior defenders (Carr, Baba and Moore) have major fitness problems, it was never going to be enough to see us through. I'm not talking with the benefit of hindsight as I said all this at the time.

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.

[Howaythelads]

you are making it sound like we didn't buy a defender BECAUSE we bought duff,which in my understanding wasn't the case.

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?

[Guest mavericknufc]

If Anals to be belived we didnt buy any defenders because we spent the £6million we were going to spend on them to help buy Martins as a replacement for Owen

[Cronky]

According to the Times, Freddie wanted Woodgate, Roeder wanted Huth. They couldn't agree, so nothing happened until the last minute, when (not suprisingly, given the lack of commitment) both rejected us and we ended up bidding for Zat Knight.

 

Make of it what you will. For me, it fits the chaotic pattern of previous transfer windows, so I'm inclined to believe it.

[NE5]

you are making it sound like we didn't buy a defender BECAUSE we bought duff,which in my understanding wasn't the case.

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. Such tripe. You really believe it is a simple thing to sign footballers, don't you?

 

the most amusing thing about all these copy and paste posts regarding the club buying Duff and the transfer window, etc etc blah blah blah, is that you just KNOW the same people would be bleating on slating the club if Duff had chosen Liverpool instead of us.

 

Fancy that eh. A player actually choosing us before Liverpool, despite them having  a plan, a setup, and always get the player they want, like everybody else, apart from us.

 

A vastly different situation to when our best player, a geordie born NUFC player, waved to the Kop while wearing the black and white and a few months later signed for them. That is when we had a shite board though.

 

We should also buy players long before the deadline, just like everyone else too, as a result of planning.

 

Ooppps........Parker, Emre, Duff, Martins, Bramble, Carr, Milner, Butt, Given, Solano, Milner, and Dyer are all current first team players who were all panic last minute buys as a result of the club having zero planning and waiting until the last minute to sign players out of sheer desperation.

 

You couldn't make it up. Or rather, some people actually do make it up.

 

Perhaps someone could tell us exactly how many players we have on the bookd who are not desperate signings and how many clubs never do this because they always get the players they want, irrespecitive of the wishes of the player concerned.

 

And - all the players I have listed are all "trophy" players. Obviously. Because that is all we sign.

 

I have asked people in this very thread to supply to confirm they consider these players to be this, as they insist it is fact, but as yet nobody seems able to do so.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

the most amusing thing about all these copy and paste posts regarding the club buying Duff and the transfer window, etc etc blah blah blah, is that you just KNOW the same people would be bleating on slating the club if Duff had chosen Liverpool instead of us.

 

Fancy that eh. A player actually choosing us before Liverpool, despite them having  a plan, a setup, and always get the player they want, like everybody else, apart from us.

 

A vastly different situation to when our best player, a geordie born NUFC player, waved to the Kop while wearing the black and white and a few months later signed for them. That is when we had a s**** board though.

 

We should also buy players long before the deadline, just like everyone else too, as a result of planning.

 

Ooppps........Parker, Emre, Duff, Martins, Bramble, Carr, Milner, Butt, Given, Solano, Milner, and Dyer are all current first team players who were all panic last minute buys as a result of the club having zero planning and waiting until the last minute to sign players out of sheer desperation.

 

You couldn't make it up. Or rather, some people actually do make it up.

 

Perhaps someone could tell us exactly how many players we have on the bookd who are not desperate signings and how many clubs never do this because they always get the players they want, irrespecitive of the wishes of the player concerned.

 

And - all the players I have listed are all "trophy" players. Obviously. Because that is all we sign.

 

I have asked people in this very thread to supply to confirm they consider these players to be this, as they insist it is fact, but as yet nobody seems able to do so.

 

 

 

Yes, without a doubt.

[Northern Monkey]

OK now that we've established - twice - that this is the real world, I still haven't heard a valid argument against spending that £5m on defence instead of Duff. I didn't say spend all of that money on a left back, I don't know where that has come from. Onyewu was way too little way too late and I see his signing as an acknowledgement from the club that they had made a mistake in August. Indeed attack and defence were both urgent priorities back then, £10m was spent on Martins, Sibierski and Rossi were also brought in. In defence - nothing. We began the season with the most unbalanced squad in the league.

 

Strikers tend to be more expensive and that's why I agreed with the signing of Martins. After the Owen injury we were always going to have to spend big up front. But we simply had to put something into defence and that has been proven over the season as we've had something like 7 different right backs and 7 different left backs over the season, that's got to be a record. We were the only club to start the season with such a threadbare defence and when you consider three of our six senior defenders (Carr, Baba and Moore) have major fitness problems, it was never going to be enough to see us through. I'm not talking with the benefit of hindsight as I said all this at the time.

 

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.

[Wullie]

OK now that we've established - twice - that this is the real world, I still haven't heard a valid argument against spending that £5m on defence instead of Duff. I didn't say spend all of that money on a left back, I don't know where that has come from. Onyewu was way too little way too late and I see his signing as an acknowledgement from the club that they had made a mistake in August. Indeed attack and defence were both urgent priorities back then, £10m was spent on Martins, Sibierski and Rossi were also brought in. In defence - nothing. We began the season with the most unbalanced squad in the league.

 

Strikers tend to be more expensive and that's why I agreed with the signing of Martins. After the Owen injury we were always going to have to spend big up front. But we simply had to put something into defence and that has been proven over the season as we've had something like 7 different right backs and 7 different left backs over the season, that's got to be a record. We were the only club to start the season with such a threadbare defence and when you consider three of our six senior defenders (Carr, Baba and Moore) have major fitness problems, it was never going to be enough to see us through. I'm not talking with the benefit of hindsight as I said all this at the time.

 

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.

 

Milner has also played there with success, Dyer can play there if we were very short, as can Emre.

 

Even if they didn't, N'Zogbia is one player who can play there to a suitable level. That's one more than left back and arguably one more than centre back - and there's two positions to fill there.

[Northern Monkey]

OK now that we've established - twice - that this is the real world, I still haven't heard a valid argument against spending that £5m on defence instead of Duff. I didn't say spend all of that money on a left back, I don't know where that has come from. Onyewu was way too little way too late and I see his signing as an acknowledgement from the club that they had made a mistake in August. Indeed attack and defence were both urgent priorities back then, £10m was spent on Martins, Sibierski and Rossi were also brought in. In defence - nothing. We began the season with the most unbalanced squad in the league.

 

Strikers tend to be more expensive and that's why I agreed with the signing of Martins. After the Owen injury we were always going to have to spend big up front. But we simply had to put something into defence and that has been proven over the season as we've had something like 7 different right backs and 7 different left backs over the season, that's got to be a record. We were the only club to start the season with such a threadbare defence and when you consider three of our six senior defenders (Carr, Baba and Moore) have major fitness problems, it was never going to be enough to see us through. I'm not talking with the benefit of hindsight as I said all this at the time.

 

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.

[Howaythelads]

OK now that we've established - twice - that this is the real world, I still haven't heard a valid argument against spending that £5m on defence instead of Duff. I didn't say spend all of that money on a left back, I don't know where that has come from. Onyewu was way too little way too late and I see his signing as an acknowledgement from the club that they had made a mistake in August. Indeed attack and defence were both urgent priorities back then, £10m was spent on Martins, Sibierski and Rossi were also brought in. In defence - nothing. We began the season with the most unbalanced squad in the league.

 

Strikers tend to be more expensive and that's why I agreed with the signing of Martins. After the Owen injury we were always going to have to spend big up front. But we simply had to put something into defence and that has been proven over the season as we've had something like 7 different right backs and 7 different left backs over the season, that's got to be a record. We were the only club to start the season with such a threadbare defence and when you consider three of our six senior defenders (Carr, Baba and Moore) have major fitness problems, it was never going to be enough to see us through. I'm not talking with the benefit of hindsight as I said all this at the time.

 

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.

[Parky]

OK now that we've established - twice - that this is the real world, I still haven't heard a valid argument against spending that £5m on defence instead of Duff. I didn't say spend all of that money on a left back, I don't know where that has come from. Onyewu was way too little way too late and I see his signing as an acknowledgement from the club that they had made a mistake in August. Indeed attack and defence were both urgent priorities back then, £10m was spent on Martins, Sibierski and Rossi were also brought in. In defence - nothing. We began the season with the most unbalanced squad in the league.

 

Strikers tend to be more expensive and that's why I agreed with the signing of Martins. After the Owen injury we were always going to have to spend big up front. But we simply had to put something into defence and that has been proven over the season as we've had something like 7 different right backs and 7 different left backs over the season, that's got to be a record. We were the only club to start the season with such a threadbare defence and when you consider three of our six senior defenders (Carr, Baba and Moore) have major fitness problems, it was never going to be enough to see us through. I'm not talking with the benefit of hindsight as I said all this at the time.

 

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.

[Howaythelads]

OK now that we've established - twice - that this is the real world, I still haven't heard a valid argument against spending that £5m on defence instead of Duff. I didn't say spend all of that money on a left back, I don't know where that has come from. Onyewu was way too little way too late and I see his signing as an acknowledgement from the club that they had made a mistake in August. Indeed attack and defence were both urgent priorities back then, £10m was spent on Martins, Sibierski and Rossi were also brought in. In defence - nothing. We began the season with the most unbalanced squad in the league.

 

Strikers tend to be more expensive and that's why I agreed with the signing of Martins. After the Owen injury we were always going to have to spend big up front. But we simply had to put something into defence and that has been proven over the season as we've had something like 7 different right backs and 7 different left backs over the season, that's got to be a record. We were the only club to start the season with such a threadbare defence and when you consider three of our six senior defenders (Carr, Baba and Moore) have major fitness problems, it was never going to be enough to see us through. I'm not talking with the benefit of hindsight as I said all this at the time.

 

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.

[Guest alex]

I think Roeder thought we'd get Bridge but that went awry when the Ashley Cole to Chelsea deal became so protracted (and led to Gallas going the other way). The Bernard signing though? To defend that and call the Parker signing 'gash'

[Parky]

I think Roeder thought we'd get Bridge but that went awry when the Ashley Cole to Chelsea deal became so protracted (and led to Gallas going the other way). The Bernard signing though? To defend that and call the Parker signing 'gash'

 

Could be very close to the truth regarding Bridge, I seem to remember some talk about a Dutch left back as well at the time. Remember all his talk about being on the mobile  all day and suchlike, even he realised too late it was going wrong.

[NE5]

bid for zat knight and robert huth,attempted to get woodgate....do you suggest we go down the lines of boumsong again ie making sure we get numbers in by paying inflated prices for crap ?

 

No.

 

What's your point? That we can't blame the club for failing to find defenders, that we had no choice but to start the season with the most unbalanced squad in the Premier League?   I see other clubs improving their weakest areas every summer without too much fuss, it's standard practice really. Those clubs live in the real world.

 

there is only one person not living in the real world if you really believe that.

 

If yoy really do please explain how only 4 of them have qualified for europe more than us in the past decade ?

 

 

[Dave]

Eh? How..?

[Parky]

Eh? How..?

 

[NE5]

OK now that we've established - twice - that this is the real world, I still haven't heard a valid argument against spending that £5m on defence instead of Duff. I didn't say spend all of that money on a left back, I don't know where that has come from. Onyewu was way too little way too late and I see his signing as an acknowledgement from the club that they had made a mistake in August. Indeed attack and defence were both urgent priorities back then, £10m was spent on Martins, Sibierski and Rossi were also brought in. In defence - nothing. We began the season with the most unbalanced squad in the league.

 

Strikers tend to be more expensive and that's why I agreed with the signing of Martins. After the Owen injury we were always going to have to spend big up front. But we simply had to put something into defence and that has been proven over the season as we've had something like 7 different right backs and 7 different left backs over the season, that's got to be a record. We were the only club to start the season with such a threadbare defence and when you consider three of our six senior defenders (Carr, Baba and Moore) have major fitness problems, it was never going to be enough to see us through. I'm not talking with the benefit of hindsight as I said all this at the time.

 

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.

 

I am a great believer that the front men determine your style. If the defenders boot the ball up, then it is because the midfield players aren't showing themselves well, and/or as a result the front men lose possession ie because the ball is poor and/or because they themselves neither have the quantity or quality, and the support they need. You are saying as such with your comments about Parker, which is true to an extent, because he has became a negative player anyway over the last few years compared to what he was at Charlton.

 

This is why I think we need a striker and an attacking midfield player, and thats not even mentioning that Emre isn't good enough, and I still don't trust that Dyer will stay fit.

 

As for "filling in", it is FAR easier to fill in at left back than a forward position, because in the forward positions you need genuine quality or you may as well not bother playing. Pattison is proof of that. So our money should be spent on quality forward players.

 

 

[NE5]

Eh? How..?

 

 

whats the matter  8)

[Parky]

OK now that we've established - twice - that this is the real world, I still haven't heard a valid argument against spending that £5m on defence instead of Duff. I didn't say spend all of that money on a left back, I don't know where that has come from. Onyewu was way too little way too late and I see his signing as an acknowledgement from the club that they had made a mistake in August. Indeed attack and defence were both urgent priorities back then, £10m was spent on Martins, Sibierski and Rossi were also brought in. In defence - nothing. We began the season with the most unbalanced squad in the league.

 

Strikers tend to be more expensive and that's why I agreed with the signing of Martins. After the Owen injury we were always going to have to spend big up front. But we simply had to put something into defence and that has been proven over the season as we've had something like 7 different right backs and 7 different left backs over the season, that's got to be a record. We were the only club to start the season with such a threadbare defence and when you consider three of our six senior defenders (Carr, Baba and Moore) have major fitness problems, it was never going to be enough to see us through. I'm not talking with the benefit of hindsight as I said all this at the time.

 

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.

 

I am a great believer that the front men determine your style. If the defenders boot the ball up, then it is because the midfield players aren't showing themselves well, and/or as a result the front men lose possession ie because the ball is poor and/or because they themselves neither have the quantity or quality, and the support they need. You are saying as such with your comments about Parker, which is true to an extent, because he has became a negative player anyway over the last few years compared to what he was at Charlton.

 

This is why I think we need a striker and an attacking midfield player, and thats not even mentioning that Emre isn't good enough, and I still don't trust that Dyer will stay fit.

 

As for "filling in", it is FAR easier to fill in at left back than a forward position, because in the forward positions you need genuine quality or you may as well not bother playing. Pattison is proof of that. So our money should be spent on quality forward players.

 

 

 

Well thought through. The mf certainly don't play as a unit with reg to making themselves available and only seem to be 'in tune' for brief periods. Either they aren't playing together the right way in training or they aren't really sure what their 'real' roles are ( I know that sounds bizarre) but football is often about secondary movement and appreciation of space rather than positioning all match 'where you're meant to be'. What you're saying about the strikers/forwards can be summed up thus...We are missing an intelligent second striker who knows when to drop off or rotate. Dyer tries but he isn't a natural at it.

[madras]

a lot has been made of balance etc,this works throughout the team,not just left and right.we have been forced to play with players up front who cannot play that position and have a natural tendancy to drop off(sib and dyer).unless the remaining forward is of a hold em up style player the entire formation will struggle.martins will benefit hugely from having another able body beside him,regardless of big or small as it will create space for him.at present both centre halves can play towards him,one can get tighter than normal due to the centre half not worrying about getting turned etc as the other centre half will be covering due to our lack of other forward or movement from midfield.

 

 

yet again the silly argument seems to be resurfacing about buying duff before a defender...it was never achoice of duff or defender,we had bids in for plenty of defenders,some of whom i didn't think were good enough(zat knight)but the bids were in.

 

buy more boumsongs or get better players when you can ?

[NE5]

a lot has been made of balance etc,this works throughout the team,not just left and right.we have been forced to play with players up front who cannot play that position and have a natural tendancy to drop off(sib and dyer).unless the remaining forward is of a hold em up style player the entire formation will struggle.martins will benefit hugely from having another able body beside him,regardless of big or small as it will create space for him.at present both centre halves can play towards him,one can get tighter than normal due to the centre half not worrying about getting turned etc as the other centre half will be covering due to our lack of other forward or movement from midfield.

 

 

yet again the silly argument seems to be resurfacing about buying duff before a defender...it was never achoice of duff or defender,we had bids in for plenty of defenders,some of whom i didn't think were good enough(zat knight)but the bids were in.

 

buy more boumsongs or get better players when you can ?

 

I totally agree, with this and your previous post. The manager targetted some players, and we didn't get them for various reasons. If he lowers his sights or changes targets and ends up with someone not good enough he'd be slated too, I would far prefer the club to wait for the quality of player we need than get ripped off which is a path we have trodden before.

 

Having said that, its a vital summer. We have to improve our ball retention, and attacking quality and options, otherwise Roeder will be gone and next season will be be very difficult if we don't.

 

 

[NE5]

OK now that we've established - twice - that this is the real world, I still haven't heard a valid argument against spending that £5m on defence instead of Duff. I didn't say spend all of that money on a left back, I don't know where that has come from. Onyewu was way too little way too late and I see his signing as an acknowledgement from the club that they had made a mistake in August. Indeed attack and defence were both urgent priorities back then, £10m was spent on Martins, Sibierski and Rossi were also brought in. In defence - nothing. We began the season with the most unbalanced squad in the league.

 

Strikers tend to be more expensive and that's why I agreed with the signing of Martins. After the Owen injury we were always going to have to spend big up front. But we simply had to put something into defence and that has been proven over the season as we've had something like 7 different right backs and 7 different left backs over the season, that's got to be a record. We were the only club to start the season with such a threadbare defence and when you consider three of our six senior defenders (Carr, Baba and Moore) have major fitness problems, it was never going to be enough to see us through. I'm not talking with the benefit of hindsight as I said all this at the time.

 

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.

 

I am a great believer that the front men determine your style. If the defenders boot the ball up, then it is because the midfield players aren't showing themselves well, and/or as a result the front men lose possession ie because the ball is poor and/or because they themselves neither have the quantity or quality, and the support they need. You are saying as such with your comments about Parker, which is true to an extent, because he has became a negative player anyway over the last few years compared to what he was at Charlton.

 

This is why I think we need a striker and an attacking midfield player, and thats not even mentioning that Emre isn't good enough, and I still don't trust that Dyer will stay fit.

 

As for "filling in", it is FAR easier to fill in at left back than a forward position, because in the forward positions you need genuine quality or you may as well not bother playing. Pattison is proof of that. So our money should be spent on quality forward players.

 

 

 

Well thought through. The mf certainly don't play as a unit with reg to making themselves available and only seem to be 'in tune' for brief periods. Either they aren't playing together the right way in training or they aren't really sure what their 'real' roles are ( I know that sounds bizarre) but football is often about secondary movement and appreciation of space rather than positioning all match 'where you're meant to be'. What you're saying about the strikers/forwards can be summed up thus... We are missing an intelligent second striker who knows when to drop off or rotate. Dyer tries but he isn't a natural at it.

 

I'm still not sure what Dyers best position is. At the moment he would be better played in central midfield, but I don;'t think he's a natural there nor up front. When he was younger, at Ipswich, he played a more right sided role, although not a touchline hogger.

 

If anything, we have 3 players who ALL need a partner of the type you describe. Tevez anyone ?

 

 

[madras]

ne5 said

I'm still not sure what Dyers best position is. At the moment he would be better played in central midfield, but I don;'t think he's a natural there nor up front. When he was younger, at Ipswich, he played a more right sided role, although not a touchline hogger.

 

i've never been sure of dyer through the middle and at times would like to see him play wide in a ljungberg type role,wide but not a winger,with a licence to come inside but not all the time.......not sure if he has the football nouse though.