Worthy's better class of transfer thread

[DJBlu]

Warnock would be great.But why the hell didnt he see the need for a left back earlier?

He always seem to take about 20 games longer to see what is obvious to the fans.

I think he may be a bit slow.

Tim Ream, Gregg Wylde, Joe Riley and Ricardo Gardner all featured for our under-21s in tonight's 2-1 Manc Senior Cup defeat at Stockport.

On trial?

[SmokinFrazier]

Our need for a left back has been exaggerated. The only reason we're talking about this is because Ricketts hasn't played too well this season but he's still a very good player, better than Warnock. This is an issue with several in our team at the moment. Ream was good last season and now everyone seems to want to write him off. Bogdan played well plenty of times last season and he's started poor. Mark Davies is another.

The issue is either that all these players have suddenly become poor or it's something else. I think Ricketts, Ream, Bogdan, Davies and a few others are all good players but it's quite obviously not working right now.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah, read the piece in the Mirror, Nixon talks about Warnock playing in midfield to cover Spearing and Andrews....

[Sponge]

Our need for a left back has been exaggerated. The only reason we're talking about this is because Ricketts hasn't played too well this season but he's still a very good player, better than Warnock. This is an issue with several in our team at the moment. Ream was good last season and now everyone seems to want to write him off. Bogdan played well plenty of times last season and he's started poor. Mark Davies is another.

The issue is either that all these players have suddenly become poor or it's something else. I think Ricketts, Ream, Bogdan, Davies and a few others are all good players but it's quite obviously not working right now.

But if we had Warnock at left back, Ricketts could play right back. Or even centre back, in place of Matt Mills (who by all accounts has been shite so far this season).

[Midnite]

dont think it's worth getting new players in till the managers position is sorted..the players we've got may do better under new management and they would probably want to bring in players they wanted and not ones OC chooses.

[ohjimmyjimmy]

Hmm...usually when a manager joins a new club it's full of players he hasn't personally signed or chosen.
If Warnock's available on loan, sign him i say.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Hmm...usually when a manager joins a new club it's full of players he hasn't personally signed or chosen.

But usually they're not punching so far below their weight. Are there really 34 squads better than ours in England?

But if we had Warnock at left back, Ricketts could play right back. Or even centre back

True. But then, equally true at Birmingham, where Ricketts sat on the bench all night.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Hmm...usually when a manager joins a new club it's full of players he hasn't personally signed or chosen.

But usually they're not punching so far below their weight. Are there really 34 squads better than ours in England?

But if we had Warnock at left back, Ricketts could play right back. Or even centre back

True. But then, equally true at Birmingham, where Ricketts sat on the bench all night.

At the moment, the answer to that is yes, er yes there are. Unfortunate but true. Come Sunday there might be only 28 squads better than ours.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Hmm...usually when a manager joins a new club it's full of players he hasn't personally signed or chosen.

But usually they're not punching so far below their weight. Are there really 34 squads better than ours in England?

At the moment, the answer to that is yes, er yes there are. Unfortunate but true. Come Sunday there might be only 28 squads better than ours.

With respect, Leppo, I'd say you're confusing squad ability with league position. I don't think Norwich's squad is better than Liverpool's, or West Brom's better than Tottenham's, or Arsenal's better than Man City's.

Unless you mean there are 34 squads "playing better" [sic]. I wouldn't argue with that.

[ohjimmyjimmy]

Again, the dangers of having a good 'on-paper' team / squad.

In such a cases, can you get a complacent / lazy manager as opposed to just being a plain bad one?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Hmm...usually when a manager joins a new club it's full of players he hasn't personally signed or chosen.

But usually they're not punching so far below their weight. Are there really 34 squads better than ours in England?

At the moment, the answer to that is yes, er yes there are. Unfortunate but true. Come Sunday there might be only 28 squads better than ours.

With respect, Leppo, I'd say you're confusing squad ability with league position. I don't think Norwich's squad is better than Liverpool's, or West Brom's better than Tottenham's, or Arsenal's better than Man City's.

Unless you mean there are 34 squads "playing better" [sic]. I wouldn't argue with that.

The strength of the squad can only (in my opinion) be based on the points/position gained. There is (in my opinion) a direct correlation between where you are and how you are performing. If, say, Robin glass-ankles van-Persie is not playing due to glass ankle syndrome then you cannot (in my opinion) say he is positively contributing to the squad in a magical way just because if he was fit he would be a better player than most - being crocked he isn't (at that moment) a better player than most, and therefore does not contribute to the squad strength. Now (I can hear some say), the squad is not the team, and the team is picked by the manager, therefore you can have a better squad but a worse team. Which is true to a certain extent; it falls down insofar as, if each player trained/played to the best of his abilities then he would impress the manager and the manager should pick the best team, but if they didn't then they wouldn't and therefore although capable of playing better than somebody picked wouldn't be contributing to the squad strength. Squad strengths and team selection are also determined by how well the players gell and good players with big egos who (on paper) would be a superb squad aren't necessarily so because of the clashes of personality and therefore degrade squad strength just by being in the same squad. On this reasoning I am saying that League position is the only way of saying that one squad is better than another and yes at this very moment in time Norwich's squad is better than Liverpool's.
[I hope that came across as I meant it to and not just as garbled bollox!]

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Again, the dangers of having a good 'on-paper' team / squad.

In such a cases, can you get a complacent / lazy manager as opposed to just being a plain bad one?

It should be preferable to have a good squad and a shit manager than the other way round. Much easier to change the shit manager than replace an entire squad of overearning no-marks.

I don't think Coyle is lazy. I fear he may have been complacent. I reckon he's bad.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Hmm...usually when a manager joins a new club it's full of players he hasn't personally signed or chosen.

But usually they're not punching so far below their weight. Are there really 34 squads better than ours in England?

At the moment, the answer to that is yes, er yes there are. Unfortunate but true. Come Sunday there might be only 28 squads better than ours.

With respect, Leppo, I'd say you're confusing squad ability with league position. I don't think Norwich's squad is better than Liverpool's, or West Brom's better than Tottenham's, or Arsenal's better than Man City's.

Unless you mean there are 34 squads "playing better" [sic]. I wouldn't argue with that.

The strength of the squad can only (in my opinion) be based on the points/position gained. There is (in my opinion) a direct correlation between where you are and how you are performing. If, say, Robin glass-ankles van-Persie is not playing due to glass ankle syndrome then you cannot (in my opinion) say he is positively contributing to the squad in a magical way just because if he was fit he would be a better player than most - being crocked he isn't (at that moment) a better player than most, and therefore does not contribute to the squad strength. Now (I can hear some say), the squad is not the team, and the team is picked by the manager, therefore you can have a better squad but a worse team. Which is true to a certain extent; it falls down insofar as, if each player trained/played to the best of his abilities then he would impress the manager and the manager should pick the best team, but if they didn't then they wouldn't and therefore although capable of playing better than somebody picked wouldn't be contributing to the squad strength. Squad strengths and team selection are also determined by how well the players gell and good players with big egos who (on paper) would be a superb squad aren't necessarily so because of the clashes of personality and therefore degrade squad strength just by being in the same squad. On this reasoning I am saying that League position is the only way of saying that one squad is better than another and yes at this very moment in time Norwich's squad is better than Liverpool's.
[I hope that came across as I meant it to and not just as garbled bollox!]

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Well, paragraph breaks and a re-read might have helped, but I know what you mean.

You look at squads on a purely meritocratic basis: they are as good as what they have achieved.

I look at squads on their potential, whether they're fulfilling, failing to fulfil or exceeding their potential.

Both ways have their merits, but I'd say your way is simple looking at the league table. Like saying that at the 1982 World Cup, Poland were better than Brazil... factually incontestable, but missing a little qualitative analysis.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Well, paragraph breaks and a re-read might have helped, but I know what you mean.

You look at squads on a purely meritocratic basis: they are as good as what they have achieved.

I look at squads on their potential, whether they're fulfilling, failing to fulfil or exceeding their potential.

Both ways have their merits, but I'd say your way is simple looking at the league table. Like saying that at the 1982 World Cup, Poland were better than Brazil... factually incontestable, but missing a little qualitative analysis.

Aye I'm a simple soul when it comes down to grading/rating something. I also apologise for the rushed nature of yon post but I'm doing four five things at once... in fact gotta go

[ohjimmyjimmy]

Again, the dangers of having a good 'on-paper' team / squad.

In such a cases, can you get a complacent / lazy manager as opposed to just being a plain bad one?

It should be preferable to have a good squad and a shit manager than the other way round. Much easier to change the shit manager than replace an entire squad of overearning no-marks.

I don't think Coyle is lazy. I fear he may have been complacent. I reckon he's bad.

Instaed we plumped for C) get rid of an entire squad of overearning no-marks and either dont replace them or replace them with championship standard shit

[Jez]

legendary left back Paul Robinson has stunned the footballing world by agreeing a one month contract with Birmingham City, apparently.

[ohjimmyjimmy]

Well they did just lose 5-0 at home, obviously Robbo will go straight in there and tighten things up for them !

[Jez]

Well they did just lose 5-0 at home, obviously Robbo will go straight in there and tighten things up for them !

I believe 5 is the number of goals the nottingham forest right winger scored against leeds in one of robbos first games there

[TKIZ!]

He also didn't turn up at a certain Wembley visit