| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... 22:33 - Jan 8 with 7292 views | pointofblue |
... or another target of that ilk, if I've read his article correctly.
I guess Ogbene will be de-registered to make room for Philogene. Who will be deregistered for the second number ten? Harry Clarke? Guess we already have Johnson, Godfrey and the soon to be fit Tuanzebe to cover RB with Burns able to play at RWB. |  |
| |  |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 06:22 - Jan 9 with 1335 views | Stewart27 |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 23:29 - Jan 8 by Wallingford_Boy |
Was he? Not for me, did ok, but no more.
Think he’s dropping down the pecking order, as hard as it is to admit. |
You didn’t think Burns was excellent against Chelsea? | | | |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 06:40 - Jan 9 with 1268 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 23:00 - Jan 8 by Vic |
You don't think Chappers has shown himself capable at this level the last few games? |
Think people are really underestimating what's needed to win enough games to stay up. It needs more than adequate back ups. They really need to be extremely solid back ups. Plus chappers is injured anyway. |  |
| |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 07:06 - Jan 9 with 1162 views | Wallingford_Boy |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 06:22 - Jan 9 by Stewart27 |
You didn’t think Burns was excellent against Chelsea? |
Correct.
We all long for Burns to do well, but he hasn’t had a great game for us for some time im afraid.
But I get the loyalty. |  |
| |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 07:09 - Jan 9 with 1158 views | SheffordBlue |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 23:00 - Jan 8 by Vic |
You don't think Chappers has shown himself capable at this level the last few games? |
I think like lots of discussions on here this sort of thing can become a bit binary - Good enough/not good enough. Personally I think it's a bit greyer than that.
I'd agree that Chappers, Burns and others have shown themselves as being capable but since the new ownership have come in we've constantly looked at upgrading from 'capable' to 'better' across all positions and I think that will continue. It doesn't necessarily mean someone is doing a bad job, just that we'll always being looking for players who can make us better. | |
| |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 07:31 - Jan 9 with 1080 views | melbs_itfc |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 07:09 - Jan 9 by SheffordBlue |
I think like lots of discussions on here this sort of thing can become a bit binary - Good enough/not good enough. Personally I think it's a bit greyer than that.
I'd agree that Chappers, Burns and others have shown themselves as being capable but since the new ownership have come in we've constantly looked at upgrading from 'capable' to 'better' across all positions and I think that will continue. It doesn't necessarily mean someone is doing a bad job, just that we'll always being looking for players who can make us better. |
Exactly this. The owners, board and manager have consistently made clear that they have hugely ambitious plans for the club moving forward. So many of our players from League one and Championship that have/will end up moving on are forever etched in our history as heroes for the incredible recent success, but alas the club is bigger than any individual as ruthless as that may be. | | | |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 07:55 - Jan 9 with 977 views | homer_123 |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 23:00 - Jan 8 by Vic |
You don't think Chappers has shown himself capable at this level the last few games? |
There is a difference though.
All the players that have played this year have done well, some exceptionally well, especially factoring in where we have come from. No denying that at all.
The (and I mean this sincerely) sad reality is that the Club wants and needs to progress. If we are to match the ambition of KM, our owners etc. then we cannot stand still. As we saw last year and we'll see over the summer - players that have served us superbly well and brilliantly in some respects, will be let go.
We need to progress and that means players coming in and leaving. [Post edited 9 Jan 7:59]
|  |
| |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 08:28 - Jan 9 with 856 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 23:03 - Jan 8 by FoghornGleghorn |
Weird time to say that about Burns, he was excellent against Chelsea, by far his best showing this season. |
It was but it's because he was defensive.
Burns doesnt offer anything in attack compared to what he could in league 1 and occasionally in the champ, at prem level he's capable of the wingback role, but defo not suited for the KM desired right wing type role. | |
| |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 09:31 - Jan 9 with 662 views | pointofblue |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 08:28 - Jan 9 by FrimleyBlue |
It was but it's because he was defensive.
Burns doesnt offer anything in attack compared to what he could in league 1 and occasionally in the champ, at prem level he's capable of the wingback role, but defo not suited for the KM desired right wing type role. |
Burns is like Woolfenden - if we continue playing a back three he is going to be a valuable member of the squad. If we switch back to a four, his value might go down.
However, I would slightly argue against your take re Burns v Chelsea. One of his key roles was pushing Cucurella back. He wouldn't be doing that if he was purely defensive. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 09:41 - Jan 9 with 625 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Phil seems to suggest we're still in for Doak too... on 00:27 - Jan 9 by pointofblue |
I agree but, particularly with Clarke, if we bring in another ten alongside Philogene, I’m not sure where he’s going to fit. |
Realistically we could have:
Burns
Chaplin
Hutchinson
Szmodics
Broadhead
Clarke
Philogene
Johnson
New player (Doak?)
So, 9 into 3 positions. You can bet 2/3 of those are going to be injured or have knocks at any given time. Two of them are injured at the moment and I heard a 3rd may also be out for a little while. I remember this same debate last January about whether we had too many options but we made sure we didn't leave ourselves short. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
