DCJonah Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Just now, a m ole said: How is that relevant? you think Adama is going to make equal or less mistakes in the premier league? It is amazing that you can't see how it's completely understandable to not just throw a dangerous but error prone player who isn't fully match fit, coming back from injuries that are easily exacerbated, into 90 mins of premier league football where he's going to be targeted by the opposition. I think he probably will make mistakes. But when our defensive players keep costing us goals why are we worried about a young kid who might be able to help us score? I'm sure I read that mistakes from guzan, lescott and Richards have cost us 24 points this season. And yet we're concerned about the damage Adama may cost us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, Rob182 said: No, we're doing what most football fans do, weighing up the positives and negatives of all the players available, and considering those against the team which has been picked to play. Just because the selected players and their 'negatives' haven't kept us in the league, doesn't mean that Adama and his 'negatives' would have. We could all look back on the season and ask why we haven't played Keinan Davis in the place of every appearance that Gestede has made, but it doesn't mean that we'd have done any better, it doesn't mean we definitely would have survived relegation and it shouldn't be used as a massive stick to beat the manager with. Adama is, unfortunately, more 'potential' than he is 'proven', which is why most managers will go with 'proven' - even if those proven players haven't managed to keep us up. Of course he's more potential than proven. He doesn't play. How can he become proven if he's not given the opportunity. Using your logic we should never give young players a chance then, let's stick with proven even when in our case it's proven failure time and time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 He was being brought in by Garde though, just at a measured pace to allow him to adjust, get to match fitness, not exacerbate his injuries. You seem to be missing that I think he's a good player. But with the mistakes tied into the fitness and injuries, it was not at all crazy to not just give him 90 mins as soon as he was 'available'. This was also at a point when results were good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Just now, a m ole said: He was being brought in by Garde though, just at a measured pace to allow him to adjust, get to match fitness, not exacerbate his injuries. You seem to missing that I think he's a good player. But with the mistakes tied into the fitness and injuries, it was not at all crazy to not just give him 90 mins as soon as he was 'available'. This was also at a point when results were good. I think Garde was far too cautious in games where we had to win. He doesn't have to play 90 minutes. Just start the game in a positive way. We're the worst attacking team in the league, we should have been trying to improve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 1 minute ago, DCJonah said: I think Garde was far too cautious in games where we had to win. He doesn't have to play 90 minutes. Just start the game in a positive way. We're the worst attacking team in the league, we should have been trying to improve that. We're also the worst defensive team in the league - which is why we've lost so many games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 how about over half an hour, which he had in those two games we lost. No manager starts a player and gives them 35 minutes because you can't waste subs that early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, bobzy said: We're also the worst defensive team in the league - which is why we've lost so many games. So if we can't rely on our defence shouldn't we try and score more instead of worrying about attacking players helping out a defence that is guaranteed to allow goals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, a m ole said: how about over half an hour, which he had in those two games we lost. No manager starts a player and gives them 35 minutes because you can't waste subs that early. Who said he should only have 35 minutes? He doesn't have to play the full 90 but when you're desperate for a win, against a beatable team, I think you need to start positive. We didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 19 minutes ago, DCJonah said: It is when we're bottom as one of the worst teams in the history of the league. almost that them managers that disagree with you did a brilliant job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Just now, DCJonah said: So if we can't rely on our defence shouldn't we try and score more instead of worrying about attacking players helping out a defence that is guaranteed to allow goals? I don't know - these so called relegation-survival experts (Allardyce, Pulis) are defensively solid coaches who get their teams working at the back. All I'm highlighting is that it's not crazy not to include Traore - pretty much what everyone else is saying. I don't really know why you persist on disagreeing with every single post. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Just now, DCJonah said: Who said he should only have 35 minutes? He doesn't have to play the full 90 but when you're desperate for a win, against a beatable team, I think you need to start positive. We didn't. what if he's not match fit? what if he's carrying a minor injury that they want to avoid making worse? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, Zatman said: almost that them managers that disagree with you did a brilliant job Garde's approach had been getting a team that hadn't got ANY points since August to actually compete in matches and picking up draws against Man City, West Ham, Southampton, Newcastle before those two games. Adama came on at 1-0 in both those games before the hour that we lost 2-0 and 3-1. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Just now, a m ole said: Garde's approach had been getting a team that hadn't got ANY points since August to actually compete in matches and picking up draws against Man City, West Ham, Southampton, Newcastle before those two games. Adama came on at 1-0 in both those games before the hour that we lost 2-0 and 3-1. so he didnt create that goal in the 3-1 defeat then also hardly his fault our defence had a brainfart in last 20 minutes of Sunderland game but sure we better off playing Scott Sinclair and Richardson on flanks vs Norwich as worked perfectly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 11 minutes ago, bobzy said: I don't know - these so called relegation-survival experts (Allardyce, Pulis) are desively solid coaches who get their teams working at the back. All I'm highlighting is that it's not crazy not to include Traore - pretty much what everyone else is saying. I don't really know why you persist on disagreeing with every single post. I just disagree that he shouldn't have been given a proper chance this season. I can't really bring myself to think many decisions this club have made this year have been the right ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Just now, Zatman said: so he didnt create that goal in the 3-1 defeat then also hardly his fault our defence had a brainfart in last 20 minutes of Sunderland game but sure we better off playing Scott Sinclair and Richardson on flanks vs Norwich as worked perfectly why are you rolling your eyes as if that's what I said? He did well to make that goal. It wasn't enough to help us win. He couldn't play the whole game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 5 minutes ago, DCJonah said: I just disagree that he shouldn't have been given a proper chance this season. I can't really bring myself to think many decisions this club have made this year have been the right ones He was being brought into the first team after the ankle injury and before the metatarsal injury. He was being given a chance and unfortunately got injured. Nothing more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 17 minutes ago, a m ole said: what if he's not match fit? what if he's carrying a minor injury that they want to avoid making worse? You could come up with a what if for any situation. what if we'd won because of him? what if we'd picked a few more points up and that encouraged a real go in January spending? what ifs are pointless. the fact remains that we lost important games with the same useless players being picked. q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) 1 minute ago, DCJonah said: You could come up with a what if for any situation. what if we'd won because of him? what if we'd picked a few more points up and that encouraged a real go in January spending? what ifs are pointless. the fact remains that we lost important games with the same useless players being picked. q What? Those are rhetorical 'what if's , because that's what was happening... he was coming back from injury. Edited April 13, 2016 by a m ole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 1 minute ago, a m ole said: What? Those are rhetorical 'what if's , because that's what was happening... he was coming back from injury. You don't know that was the reason for not starting him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post a m ole Posted April 13, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted April 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, DCJonah said: You don't know that was the reason for not starting him Why would he play him at all otherwise? Its pretty clear it was coming back from injury, combined with him not being Messi yet and also us actually doing OK without him until being a goal down at Norwich, as to why he wasn't started in those games. He could have started him and maybe we would have won those games. That's massively debatable. The point is that it wasn't ridiculous or crazy to not start him as you claim, there was a combination of perfectly legitimate reasons why he didn't. But I understand you've formulated your opinion and all the reasoning in the world isn't going to make you reconsider that, so on that note I can't be arsed to carry this on anymore. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts