boundaryblue80 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 (edited) Jones - 4/10 as LB, 7/10 as LW/LWB Westlake - 6/10 - More to come Byfield - 5/10 - Not fit, Used in wrong way/tactics Omerod - 5/10 - Not fit, glimpses of promise at Swindon away then got injured again Kabba - 4/10 - Gone from hopeful, to disappointed with him Supple - 8/10 - Want him here next season! Ferreira - N/A - Missed his brief cameo roles Windass - 5/10 - Very unlucky not to score more, needed fast player playing off him to make use of his passes/flicks, Didn't work with Hughes Hines - -1000/10 - Shocking, shocking player! Golbourne - 8/10 - Didn't let us down once, superb in some games ala Leicester Budtz - -10000000000000000000000000/10 - This lads "Art of goalkeeping" is running out doing star jumps. Hang up yer gloves son! Byrne - 3/10 - Not that god at all. But came in during a difficult spell (Gregan suspension, Jones inclusion, goals drying up) Edited April 12, 2009 by boundaryblue80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 (edited) Not going to score them but here goes: Jones - He's a divsion better than this league. What he gives going forwards is excellent and he's not as bad defensively as others suggest. Westlake - looked fairly anonymous to me in the two games I've seen. Not convinced (yet) he differs enough from what we already have. If the previous experience Joe has had with him can trigger something currently missing, then why not? Byfield - he'd have been good if he'd been fit. But he wasn't fit. Won a pen and scored a decent goal at Crewe, but was dead on his feet after an hour. Ormerod - just not fit at all. Is our task to get promoted, or get Championship strikers up to full fitness? Kabba - seen nothing that impresses me. Supple - decent keeper from the little I've seen, although I'd prefer Fleming, mainly because he's ours! Windass - what we gained on the flicks we lost in the movement. It may have worked better with Smalley's pace up front (it should have worked with Hughes tbh), but ultimately the bloke proved to be a tit. Hines - didn't think he was a bad as some suggested. But didn't see anything to impress. If you play somebody at left back, then right back, then centre half, don't expect them to be settled and deliver a performance! Golborne - liked him, but prefered Jones. Would welcome him back though! Byrne - adequate, but used in more than one position so never really settled. Budtz - come on, we were down to Hartlepool's 3rd choice. We got what we took on. I assume Josh Bell was guaranteed a contract if he played an active minute! Ferreira - great name. didn't see him play. When I look at the list, it just leaps out at me that we didn't need a striker - ever. Goalkeeper made sense at the time (although why did Budtz play when Fleming was available?) and our left back spot is a known weakness. Cover for Gregan was needed too. Building confidence in the younger players that they can step in as and when needed is an absolute priority. Rather than destroying it. Edited April 12, 2009 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 One question this thread has thrown up is that Shez put Budtz in front of Fleming (though only once!) and Joe stated that Supple would play ahead of Fleming whilst on loan (assuming fit). Does that mean there are question marks over Fleming? Or is it a fitness issue. Not casting aspertions, I feel I might have missed something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 One question this thread has thrown up is that Shez put Budtz in front of Fleming (though only once!) and Joe stated that Supple would play ahead of Fleming whilst on loan (assuming fit). Does that mean there are question marks over Fleming? Or is it a fitness issue. Not casting aspertions, I feel I might have missed something? Fair question. I think verbal agreements are made to use these guys when we have them on loan. It enourages them to come when we have a genuine need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Fair question. I think verbal agreements are made to use these guys when we have them on loan. It enourages them to come when we have a genuine need. the trouble we have had this season,is that the majority of the loans in have all been players who are unfit,by the time they get fit the loan is over and they havent made an impact. when in reallity we needed players in fit hungry and ready to go to give us that something extra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 the trouble we have had this season,is that the majority of the loans in have all been players who are unfit,by the time they get fit the loan is over and they havent made an impact. when in reallity we needed players in fit hungry and ready to go to give us that something extra. I'm fairly certain Windass was always hungry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 One question this thread has thrown up is that Shez put Budtz in front of Fleming (though only once!) and Joe stated that Supple would play ahead of Fleming whilst on loan (assuming fit). Does that mean there are question marks over Fleming? Or is it a fitness issue. Not casting aspertions, I feel I might have missed something? Maybe the feeling that he's less likely to give a penalty away per game has something to do with it. And I like Fleming (he's at our level coz he's not the finished article) but I do think he's got that to work on for a start. However, there is no justification for playing The Clown over Greg and should be instant dismissal for doing so Which ironically...it was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smigger5 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 if anybody gives Budzt more than 1 out of 10, they are on drugs he must have cost us 7 goals in 3 games ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.