AntrimBlack

Martin Keown seems to think we have picked up a bit of a gem in Sherwood.

Very big call from Sherwood, keeping Richardson after Tuesday's performance from him. I try not to go over the top about player's performances, but that performance was terrible.

When in doubt, throw commas all over the place. Commas are like buses, none for ages, then suddenly...............

You must be trolling me. My response was to the person who said we shouldn't change anything in attack because we scored 3 against QPR. Football doesn't work like that. That was my point. We didn't play Sinclair either. So does that mean we should be perfectly happy if he doesn't get a look in again when he's fit? Well, no, if our attackers are playing well and we are scoring goals, I do not think we should change it. If, however, we are not scoring and the attack is failing, then Sherwood should obviously look at his other options.

Very happy player now under Sherwood. Smiling and laughing during the matches, not just the last match, have not seen that for a long time.

May as well never sign any attackers ever again then. Talking about the decision not to play him in this specific match. Yeah I get that. So if we scored 3 goals in this match we may as well not buy any more attackers, right? That's how your logic is working. Point is, scoring three doesn't mean you shouldn't be looking for improvements. Just because we scored three goals doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for better attacking options, regardless of who provides them. Scoring 3 would indicate that there is not a lot wrong with the attack, and it does not need much improving. Unless you think we should be scoring 4, 5, 6 goals every game. You've missed the point. Scoring 3 in a game is fine, but it doesn't mean everything is brilliant. We scored 2 against Hull in august. Did that suggest everything was fine? Thanks but I have not missed the point. Try re- reading my post. You have. My point is you don't say "well we scored 3 goals, let's never ever change anything ever" It doesn't work like that. Just because we scored 3 goals doesn't mean Gil should never play. Otherwise by that logic we'd never make anymore attacking signings because we once scored 3 against one of the worst teams in the league. Then try re-reading your own posts. Apart from commenting on things I did not say, your responses are erratic and quite nonsensical.

But what if we get relegated because he has not picked someone else - how will we know?

May as well never sign any attackers ever again then. Talking about the decision not to play him in this specific match. Yeah I get that. So if we scored 3 goals in this match we may as well not buy any more attackers, right? That's how your logic is working. Point is, scoring three doesn't mean you shouldn't be looking for improvements. Just because we scored three goals doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for better attacking options, regardless of who provides them. Scoring 3 would indicate that there is not a lot wrong with the attack, and it does not need much improving. Unless you think we should be scoring 4, 5, 6 goals every game. You've missed the point. Scoring 3 in a game is fine, but it doesn't mean everything is brilliant. We scored 2 against Hull in august. Did that suggest everything was fine? Thanks but I have not missed the point. Try re- reading my post.

Sherwood's explanation, given on two separate occasions now, is (to paraphrase) that however well Gil might have been playing, he was part of a team that had lost 7 matches in a row and Sherwood's priority is to create a team that can get points. Gil doesn't currently make it into the teams he is picking to play more attacking football that will get us enough points to stay up. Why are the rest of the players who were part of the team that lost 7 in a row still getting a look in? Because they are now playing well in a system that Sherwood does not think Gill fits into.

So drop Grealish, arguably our best player on Monday after Benteke.

Yes, that will be it !

There we go - indignant reactions to an unfounded rumour yet again.

Huge amount of conjecture.

May as well never sign any attackers ever again then. Talking about the decision not to play him in this specific match. Yeah I get that. So if we scored 3 goals in this match we may as well not buy any more attackers, right? That's how your logic is working. Point is, scoring three doesn't mean you shouldn't be looking for improvements. Just because we scored three goals doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for better attacking options, regardless of who provides them. Scoring 3 would indicate that there is not a lot wrong with the attack, and it does not need much improving. Unless you think we should be scoring 4, 5, 6 goals every game.

There is always a reason for taking a dislike to someone.

It seems obvious to me that what we have at this club is a smattering of talented players and an awful lot of below average for the Premier League players. I am looking at teams who are drawing with or beating us and thinking, what a mediocre, uninspiring bunch of players they have. I wonder if Sherwood is beginning to realise the enormity of the task facing him with our players.

I can see why Sherwood might prefer Weimann and Nzobia to Gill, but find it difficult to understand not playing him ahead of Cole.

Weimann wasted several good breaking opportunities with a poor passes. He is a waste. Sinclair, Gil or Grealish should play instead of him anytime. The passes were good and in the right place, the other forwards, particularly Benteke, were not where they should have been.

With there always being a strong possibility of Ramsey becoming available in the summer, I believe MacDonald was brought in to galvinise the fans and add an authoritative voice into the coaching set-up given the esteem in which he is held in by many at this club, especially the players he has previously worked with. Whenever I see shots of the bench whilst watching our games, the impression I get is that MacDonald isn't really the assistant. Sherwood never consults with him - Robson and Parks seem more like his right hand men. That's not to say that K-Mac was hired purely on a short-term premise, I think he'll likely be reassigned to a different role for next season. Hopefully replacing Cowans as U21 manager. I think ideally he should be back coaching our kids; I get the impression that our youth sides have not done as well since he left. We all love Cowans, but a great player does not necessarily become a good coach.

He was bought as back up for Benteke, and that is all he is. I doubt if he will ever succeed as a number one striker in the Premier League.

Bent is on 60k a week here apparently. There's no way he'd get a new deal if Lerner was still counting the pennies next season as the opportunity to get someone earning 3m a year for doing naff all would be too good to miss. I get the feeling Lerner is sanctioning this knowing it will be someone else's problem in a few months time e.g. the wage bill. That's assuming we'd offer him a new 60k a week contract. Which we wouldn't. Anyway, this is going off topic a bit. I don't personally see Bent considering an option to stay at the club an indication that we're being taken over. It is what it says on the tin - his contract is up at the end of the season and he is looking at options.

They said you were dead... Seems they were premature.

What's all this about Bent? I've been on my hols and I seem to have missed something.

It is really just the same. One article gets regurgitated by newspapers, Twitter, etc., and names are added without source. Just relax - que sera and all that.

There's far more about NZog, Hutton and Clark (natural ability) and Gabby (raw pace which is still a threat) compared to the work rate Weimann had pre contract 2 years ago, he's a waste of a shirt that pisses his contract up the wall on a weekly basis and laughs at those who pay his way whilst doing so! word removed! Absolute rubbish.