My issue would be why back the manager signing a player who months earlier the board had said we won’t sign players in that age bracket, the amount of game time evra had backs up this theory imo
The only question (for me) that's relevant about using an Academy player to cover injury is, are they good enough to play in the PL. If not, I think it's right not to play them.
If we play them when they aren't ready => critics will say it's bad because it's damaging their confidence by throwing them in when they aren't ready. And the board are cheapskates/don't back the manager with funds for new transfers.
If we don't play them, critics will say =>damaging their confidence by not showing they are trusted.
Either way, there's plenty of ammunition for critics.
I'd be interested to hear from those people who have previously argued for a transfer policy which involves buying cover when someone picks up a longer-term injury. (I know there must be some, because I've argued against them in the past.)
My issue would be why back the manager signing a player who months earlier the board had said we won’t sign players in that age bracket, the amount of game time evra had backs up this theory imo
Clearly he was referring to the upcoming (January) transfer window. And it was a statement of intent. What actually happened in the window?
Evra was an emergency signing after the transfer window was closed. We needed someone quickly, not attached to a club, and who would sign on a short-term deal. Personally, I think that's fair enough. I also think it's self-serving to take that one quote, and only that one quote, and out of context, and ignoring all other circumstances.
I also think that the quote is a good example of why Sully should not give interviews. Like all of us, what you say isn't always a fully formulated manifesto, with caveats and clarifications built in. But the quote gets taken as gospel, without any opportunity for him to say 'what I mean is...' (which is what everybody else is able to do) and then if there is any perceived deviation from it he gets accused of being a liar.
cuz, I think if you look at the transfers in recent years you will see that the policy has been to sign younger players on longer contracts, while older players have been short-term deals.
Plus, any transfer policy that is so set in stone that you can't adapt to changing circumstances is a recipe for disaster. (imo)
Genuine question, because I can't recall if you expressed an opinion at the time.
If we had signed a different player, would you have been OK with it? (I'm getting at - did you not want any cover at all, or was it just the actual signing you weren't happy with?)
So, if the board don't back the manager, and fail to bring in who he wants, they are a disgrace.
If they back the manager and bring in who he wants, and we don't rate them, they are a disgrace.
It's not looking too good for them, is it?
When did I call them a disgrace
I didn't like the signing.... just because I don't blindy back every decision the owners don't make doesn't assume I think they are a disgrace
Given his wages, his age, his performances actually when he did get on the pitch (thought he was poor), the time Masuaku was actually suspended for, the fact we literally didn't bother renew his contract and that we have a highly rated young LB who could've filled in if need be then yea I think its a waste of a transfer and a very poor one
Yet I give praise for the freebie signing of Fredericks and the potential of Diop
I’m sure I stated at the time I didn’t want evra at all and if there was nobody available that was better than what we had I’d have gone without, hindsight is a wonderful thing but again imo if we hadn’t signed him would it have made to much of a difference to us
If I was asked to manage a team for six months in mid-season, with the sole aim of not going down, and I had to make sure the team selection was as robust as possible, and my left back got sidelined for 6 weeks, I might look for a player I knew rather than going and spending time getting to know the players in the development squad.
If Evra turned out to be another Zabaleta, would we still be having this conversation? It was a gamble which the board and Moyes felt we needed to make and as it turns out, it worked out - we survived. If we hadn’t made a signing and we had gone down we’d all be saying the board and Moyes made a huge mistake.
We’re like commentators on TV. If the striker shoots and misses they say the better option is he should have passed it. When he passes and the move breaks down they say he should have had a go himself. When he shoots and scores the commentator never says, he should have passed it.
I think that Wilshire could be a very good signing as long as a major factor of his package would be based on appearances. You dont become a bad player overnight, and he had a reasonable season just gone relatively free from injury.
Would be more then happy to get him ,still in his prime .injures aside the guy is class .trouble is he would come to a club with a long history of breaking players injure wise ;biggrin
Wilshere’s a good replacement for Lanzini, while he’s out injured. He’s exactly what this team needs. He keeps the ball well and makes incisive passes.
Jinxed on KUMB saying deals agreed today with/for Mawson and Fernandes ;wahoo
That would mean we’ve spent £60m-£70m approximately. Surely we would still need a pacey attacker (haven’t seen anything of Bruno Fernandes - is he more like Lanzini than Antonio?) and maybe a DM?
I don’t see us paying big money for Mawson. I think we’ll get a cheaper CB than Mawson, having already bought Diop.
Comments
If they back the manager and bring in who he wants, and we don't rate them, they are a disgrace.
It's not looking too good for them, is it?
If we play them when they aren't ready => critics will say it's bad because it's damaging their confidence by throwing them in when they aren't ready. And the board are cheapskates/don't back the manager with funds for new transfers.
If we don't play them, critics will say =>damaging their confidence by not showing they are trusted.
Either way, there's plenty of ammunition for critics.
I'd be interested to hear from those people who have previously argued for a transfer policy which involves buying cover when someone picks up a longer-term injury. (I know there must be some, because I've argued against them in the past.)
Yes
Clearly he was referring to the upcoming (January) transfer window. And it was a statement of intent. What actually happened in the window?
Evra was an emergency signing after the transfer window was closed. We needed someone quickly, not attached to a club, and who would sign on a short-term deal. Personally, I think that's fair enough. I also think it's self-serving to take that one quote, and only that one quote, and out of context, and ignoring all other circumstances.
I also think that the quote is a good example of why Sully should not give interviews. Like all of us, what you say isn't always a fully formulated manifesto, with caveats and clarifications built in. But the quote gets taken as gospel, without any opportunity for him to say 'what I mean is...' (which is what everybody else is able to do) and then if there is any perceived deviation from it he gets accused of being a liar.
cuz, I think if you look at the transfers in recent years you will see that the policy has been to sign younger players on longer contracts, while older players have been short-term deals.
Plus, any transfer policy that is so set in stone that you can't adapt to changing circumstances is a recipe for disaster. (imo)
If we had signed a different player, would you have been OK with it? (I'm getting at - did you not want any cover at all, or was it just the actual signing you weren't happy with?)
I didn't like the signing.... just because I don't blindy back every decision the owners don't make doesn't assume I think they are a disgrace
Given his wages, his age, his performances actually when he did get on the pitch (thought he was poor), the time Masuaku was actually suspended for, the fact we literally didn't bother renew his contract and that we have a highly rated young LB who could've filled in if need be then yea I think its a waste of a transfer and a very poor one
Yet I give praise for the freebie signing of Fredericks and the potential of Diop
The comment wasn't aimed directly at you. Why would you?
I don't think anyone does.
I don't think anyone does.
Grey
Just in case of any misunderstanding - I still think that the owners are a disgrace ;biggrin
If we hadn’t made a signing and we had gone down we’d all be saying the board and Moyes made a huge mistake.
We’re like commentators on TV. If the striker shoots and misses they say the better option is he should have passed it. When he passes and the move breaks down they say he should have had a go himself.
When he shoots and scores the commentator never says, he should have passed it.
That's not so shabby.
Some new names linked
Without Lanzini we miss someone who is quality on the ball and can link play up from defence to attack
Players are always going to get injured. It's the nature of the job.
As long as he passes a thorough medical (ie no underlying issues) I don't see his past injury record as a factor.
I also like his tenacity.
I don’t see us paying big money for Mawson. I think we’ll get a cheaper CB than Mawson, having already bought Diop.