KJT123 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 He was really poor yesterday, but I certainly don't think he's a bad player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 29 minutes ago, lexicon said: Well either you haven't been watching him or you don't understand what 'very poor' means. Thank you. I'll try to do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 He's not a poor player at all, the talent is there, but it appears that the consistency and dare I say mentality is not. I don't see him becoming the player Spurs fans think he will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 55 minutes ago, TheMelvillan said: good ability but needs a rocket up him. Even in his interviews he has that frustrating languid, laid back too cool for school attitude and it transfers on the pitch . No sense of effort or urgency. it is so annoying I agree with this, he has talent but he seems like he is too casual on the ball and maybe he expects more time on the ball unlike at Under 23 games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Last week his performance warranted Bruce saying we will break the bank for him. This week he has no physical presence, can't pass, is crap on the ball and is a poor player. Talk about different ends of the spectrum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 2 hours ago, KJT123 said: He was really poor yesterday, but I certainly don't think he's a bad player. No one should be thinking that. Playing away at the blues is always a difficult test. The whole team looked pretty poor until Bruce changed the formation. If Onomah has a string of mediocre to bad matches, I think then we can worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Break the bank! Hope he was talking about Deadly Dougs Piggy Bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 6 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said: Not seen anything to suggest that Onomah is more 'physical'. O'Hare if anything seems to be more tenacious and puts himself about more. I love O'Hare and he is more tenacious and will o' wisp.....but this is a physical league and they can take you out very easily. Its a tough call.....but like you I would like to see more of O'Hare. I have mixed feelings....Onomah can play very well.....however, had a mare against Blues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 1 hour ago, omariqy said: Last week his performance warranted Bruce saying we will break the bank for him. This week he has no physical presence, can't pass, is crap on the ball and is a poor player. Talk about different ends of the spectrum. who would be a football manager? where I rate Mourinho, he doesn't wait.....just hooks them......Decisive.......managers must make it clear to players what standards they will accept and not accept ,the message soon gets through. It used to happen much more years ago, it seems managers are reluctant to upset too many interested parties these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roonst83 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 I personally think he was a victim of being played in a position that wasn't aligned to his strengths. He's not a no.10 and certainly can't do much when the ball is hoofed up over his head all game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 What way do loans work for a player like this? Does he have to play a majority of games else we get fines from loan club. I'm sure there is something that clubs do to protect their assets and make sure they continue to develop (at the expense of our own player development such as O'Hare) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 2 hours ago, roonst83 said: I personally think he was a victim of being played in a position that wasn't aligned to his strengths. He's not a no.10 and certainly can't do much when the ball is hoofed up over his head all game. It didn't affect him against Fulham.....thats a cop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanDerVaart Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 4 hours ago, HeyAnty said: What way do loans work for a player like this? Does he have to play a majority of games else we get fines from loan club. I'm sure there is something that clubs do to protect their assets and make sure they continue to develop (at the expense of our own player development such as O'Hare) I don't know how it works but it's a shame that it appears to be one or the other as they're nothing alike as players, the two of them could quite easily play in the same side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roonst83 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 17 hours ago, TRO said: It didn't affect him against Fulham.....thats a cop out. But we played vastly different against Fulham than Blues. The ball was on the floor against Fulham a lot more (form both teams) and as such, was a much better game of football. Bruce just told our defenders to lump it to Kodjia all game on Sunday and that relinquished any impact Onomah could have. Im not meaning to let him off for Sunday completely as he wasn't effective atoll but i do think that's largely down to Bruce's tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, roonst83 said: But we played vastly different against Fulham than Blues. The ball was on the floor against Fulham a lot more (form both teams) and as such, was a much better game of football. Bruce just told our defenders to lump it to Kodjia all game on Sunday and that relinquished any impact Onomah could have. Im not meaning to let him off for Sunday completely as he wasn't effective atoll but i do think that's largely down to Bruce's tactics. The hoofball was annoying but that had very little to do with onomahs poor performance. His passing tackling and creativity was all over the place. There is a lot to beat Bruce with a stick with but that isnt one of them Just a bad day at the office for Onomah Edited October 31, 2017 by Demitri_C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roonst83 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: The hoofball was annoying but that had very little to do with onomahs poor performance. His passing tackling and creativity was all over the place. There is a lot to beat Bruce with a stick with but that isnt one of them Just a bad day at the office for Onomah I wouldn't agree with the hoofball having "very little" to do with Onomah's performance, but do agree it was a bad day at the office, for Onomah and, indeed, all of our midfield. Edited October 31, 2017 by roonst83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, roonst83 said: I wouldn't agree with the hoofball having "very little" to do with Onomah's performance, but do agree it was a bad day at the office, for Onomah and, indeed, all of our midfield. Onomah was playing so deep the hoofball didn't really have a impact on him, was more the wingers and big kodj. Onomah had a bad game it happens especially with younger players. But he certainly cannot play that consistently poor if he has aspirations to play for spurs. He wouldn't even make the bench with performances like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 22 hours ago, HeyAnty said: What way do loans work for a player like this? Does he have to play a majority of games else we get fines from loan club. I'm sure there is something that clubs do to protect their assets and make sure they continue to develop (at the expense of our own player development such as O'Hare) I don't think there is any clause that says he has to play a certain amount of matches. Bruce doesn't seem to be forcing Onomah into the team like we were when we had Cleverly on loan. There might be a rule that if fit, Onomah has to at least make the bench or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roonst83 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 37 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Onomah was playing so deep the hoofball didn't really have a impact on him, was more the wingers and big kodj. Onomah had a bad game it happens especially with younger players. But he certainly cannot play that consistently poor if he has aspirations to play for spurs. He wouldn't even make the bench with performances like that. So deep? He was sat behind Kodjia for 60 mins until Bruce brought Jedi and Davis on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 brilliant for the goal but disappears too much which is frustrating when ability is clearly there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts