Jump to content

Pierluigi Gollini


BOF

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I'd have thought it was probably more that Gollini said he wouldn't work under a non-Italian coach and Bruce had no intention of bringing one in just to appease one player.

Was it even bruce's decision? Like I said earlier, all the bad transfer decisions seem to be put at bruce's feet, and the good ones were the "club"

No kidding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I'd have thought it was probably more that Gollini said he wouldn't work under a non-Italian coach and Bruce had no intention of bringing one in just to appease one player.

Was it even bruce's decision? Like I said earlier, all the bad transfer decisions seem to be put at bruce's feet, and the good ones were the "club"

I don't think that's the case at all. Bruce rightly gets credit for bringing in players like Hourihane and McGinn.

Bruce comes across as a manager that wants to control as much as he is allowed. Especially when it comes to ingoings and outgoings. So I've assumed that most purchase and sales (with the exceptions of the ones that were supposedly Mendes signings (Moriera and El Ghazi?)) were agreed by Bruce.

I don't blame Bruce for much when it comes to Gollini. It's just annoying that he's another young player with potential that has been shipped off, just for his value to drop. In the meantime, we have players probably earning double his weekly wage (Hogan?) that sat on the bench until they too were out of the picture.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

I don't think that's the case at all. Bruce rightly gets credit for bringing in players like Hourihane and McGinn.

There's a lot of people on here who don't give him credit for signings like that. It was the club that signed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

There's a lot of people on here who don't give him credit for signings like that. It was the club that signed them.

I can only go on what I've seen. But I've never seen anyone say that the club deserves credit. It's always been "the best thing Bruce did this season was sign McGinn" etc etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, as we’re talking about Bruce and the McGinn transfer in the Gollini thread...

Bruce should rightfully receive credit for identifying McGinn. But if Bruce is exempt from blame for how much was paid for Scott Hogan (and that argument has been regularly made - he has no say on transfer fees or wages....an argument I don’t fully buy but ok), then he doesn’t get any credit for the relative cheapness of the McGinn deal. Fair’s fair.

Anyway my favourite memory of Gollini was in a pre match warm up against Telford, he launched the ball down the pitch, completely taking out a Telford player.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said:

Bruce should rightfully receive credit for identifying McGinn. But if Bruce is exempt from blame for how much was paid for Scott Hogan (and that argument has been regularly made - he has no say on transfer fees or wages....an argument I don’t fully buy but ok), then he doesn’t get any credit for the relative cheapness of the McGinn deal. Fair’s fair.

 

Has anyone ever absolved Bruce of any blame in the Hogan deal?

Quite the opposite as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Has anyone ever absolved Bruce of any blame in the Hogan deal?

Quite the opposite as far as I can see.

Bruce gets pilloried for the Hogan deal, yes. 

But I have also regularly seen that we can’t blame him for the amount we paid for Hogan as that’s not the manager’s job.

And if that’s the case, fine. He should receive no blame for the amount we bought Hogan for and he should receive no credit for the cheapness of the McGinn deal.

I don’t care, as long as the argument is consistent when possible.

Edit - ideally I’d like to quote an example of this argument but the Hogan thread is 230 pages long so no chance am I going to go through that lot. I know the discussion has been had about Bruce and responsibility on transfer fees/wages. The McGinn and Hogan deals represent two ends of the spectrum, but should be treated consistently.

Edited by Shropshire Lad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Especially as, like I said, Bruce replaced him with Johnstone (who you left out of your list of clangers) for 18 months who was by far the best keeper we've had in the Championship. And you'd assume if it wasn't for our financial almost collapse last summer that we may well have signed Johnstone permanently.

What did Johnstone do that Steer hasn't to elevate him to "by far the best"?

Johnstone was fine. Nothing wrong with what he did. A couple of ricks, one or two match winning performances, saved lots of shots, didn't come for lots of crosses.

Bit like Steer with far worse distribution.

Edited by ml1dch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Bruce also replaced him with Johnsone who was the best keeper we've had in the Championship.

No he wasn't,  I wouldn't even put him in the top 3.

Golloni was always a very good goalkeeper and made some fantastic saves in his short stint here. He was far far Superior to Johnstone in that first season. I remember Johnstone not making a single diving save in those first 6 months, the only saves he made were right at him.. 

Fast forward to now and Golloni is still the better keeper without any argument in the status he holds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Junxs said:

No he wasn't,  I wouldn't even put him in the top 3. 

Well we’ve only had Gollini, Johnstone, Nyland, Kalinic and Steer unless I’m forgetting anyone. 

Which means you rate Johnstone worse than 3 of the other four?

 

I don’t even think Johnstone is that good. But of the keepers we’ve had in the championship I think he’s comfortably been the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Well we’ve only had Gollini, Johnstone, Nyland, Kalinic and Steer unless I’m forgetting anyone. 

Which means you rate Johnstone worse than 3 of the other four?

 

I don’t even think Johnstone is that good. But of the keepers we’ve had in the championship I think he’s comfortably been the best. 

He’s only been gone a couple of days, Stevo, I see you’re having no trouble moving on....

F9F36B05-C924-41BE-993E-ABF3D404317B.jpeg

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's difficult to compare the different keepers, with Johnstone his first 6 months he seemed as poor at stopping shots as Nyland, but then the season after turned out as reliable as Steer has been.  Small sample sizes for lots of those keepers but I'm not surprised Gollini has gone on to be successful back in Italy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Well we’ve only had Gollini, Johnstone, Nyland, Kalinic and Steer unless I’m forgetting anyone. 

Which means you rate Johnstone worse than 3 of the other four?

 

I don’t even think Johnstone is that good. But of the keepers we’ve had in the championship I think he’s comfortably been the best. 

Steer > Golloni > then the rest in any order

Johnstone was just fortunate that Brucey had him as first choice behind a great defence. His saves per shot ratio was poor despite the clean sheets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Junxs said:

Steer > Golloni > then the rest in any order

Johnstone was just fortunate that Brucey had him as first choice behind a great defence. His saves per shot ratio was poor despite the clean sheets

Fair enough. 

I think Steer’s ability is being inflated by a decent run. 

But obviously different opinions and all that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â