GingerCollins29 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 21 minutes ago, Uncle Albert said: I agree Do you not think regaining match fitness is a factor? Most werent complaining about him before his injury. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVTuco Posted February 4, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted February 4, 2021 42 minutes ago, picicata said: Do you think people will have the patience to watch him huffing and puffing whilst offering very little in the meantime? Like the three points he got us last game? He needs to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 It's a conundrum really. Do you carry him to try to build him back to full fitness, or do you drop him because you have to carry him? Depends on how much better we are with a fully match fit Barkley vs Trez/AEG/Sanson taking his place. I'd imagine the difference isn't significant enough to outweigh the detriment of playing him unfit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picicata Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, AVTuco said: Like the three points he got us last game? He needs to play. That's the conondrum, even for the rest of the Southampton game he offered very little else but he can get in the right area to score. Glad I'm not a manager! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 Changes need to be made in midfield. We were totally bossed in that area last night. So we need to look at McGinn and Luiz as well who have also been very poor the last few games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Villan_of_oz Posted February 4, 2021 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted February 4, 2021 (edited) We only lost 2 of 9 games when Barkley was out, whereas we've lost 6 of 11 with him. 19 of our 25 goals have been conceded when Ross is on the pitch! This myth that we are better with him in the side really needs be be exposed. I didn't rate him much before he got here, gave him credit as he was a part of our lightning start to the season. However it's glaringly obvious (to me anyway) that we don't necessarily need him. He is a liability when defending.... I definitely don't want to make his move permanent! Edited February 4, 2021 by Villan_of_oz 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 Maybe hes just not fit enough to play every game. he looks overweight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilski Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 I think he is fit but i just think he hasnt got a defensive side to his game at all. For me he should be swopped and we should start someone with more tenacity to win the ball as basically we're playing with a 2 man midfield and mcginn is struggling at the moment to add to that which means we are being overrun(totally dominated by west ham and lucky against southampton imo) . Watkins should be the only man i expect not to get involved in defending(although he does moreso than barkley and on par with jack and bertrand. Barkley would be a good impact sub imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_Afro Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 We should be allowing him to go back to Chelsea and thank him for his only season in claret and blue. He is a luxury that we cannot afford. He is capable of genius but his all round contribution is not good enough. He is also too injury prone. Finally, he would cost way too much in fee and wages. Hopefully we can still get plenty out of him this season but after that let’s look elsewhere. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 13 hours ago, GingerCollins29 said: Do you not think regaining match fitness is a factor? Most werent complaining about him before his injury. He probably is but then do you start him whilst he gets his fitness up or ease him in to games.? Also no harm in having him on the bench and bringing him on around the 70th minute mark depending on how the game is going. At the very least if he does start Mcginn (or whoever else plays) he has to hold his position alongside Luiz and not press high up the field. If they do it just leaves wide gaps in the middle easy to pass through. Reminiscent of us before lockdown last season. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 If he has the attitude for it I think he would make a great option to have on the bench and put on in the second half in games. Obviously with the wage he has and the money he would cost this would not be an option for next season. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handsworthvilla Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 19 hours ago, villa89 said: I'd be 99% certain that there is no clause in his loan that he has to play if fit. Why so certain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raver50032 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 For the benefit of the thread archive when people look back on this thread in 100 years time... I actually like Ross and think we will be lucky to keep him here when he ultimately turns on the beans and dazzles us with consistent world class performances. Fingers crossed he comes good in the end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 9 minutes ago, handsworthvilla said: Why so certain? Because why would Chelsea bother with a clause like that? He's not a 19 year old dropping down to league 1. He's an established player who, if reports are correct, we have already agreed an option to buy. I think people assume those type of clauses exist in loans way more often than they actually do. If Dean thinks Barkley should be dropped he'll be dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 (edited) Wouldn't surprise me terribly if Loftus-Cheek has a clause like that with his loan at Fulham. Looking at his playing time at Fulham it looks like he doesn't thou. Would surprise me much more if Barkley has one with us. Edited February 5, 2021 by sne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 13 hours ago, Villan_of_oz said: We only lost 2 of 9 games when Barkley was out, whereas we've lost 6 of 11 with him. 19 of our 25 goals have been conceded when Ross is on the pitch! This myth that we are better with him in the side really needs be be exposed. I didn't rate him much before he got here, gave him credit as he was a part of our lightning start to the season. However it's glaringly obvious (to me anyway) that we don't necessarily need him. He is a liability when defending.... I definitely don't want to make his move permanent! Way too many variables to just say Barkley is the reason for your opening paragraph. He's been a key part in our best results and performances this season. Liverpool, Leicester, arsenal and to some extent Southampton. There is something not right fitness wise. The decision now is do we persist to try and get him back up to speed. For me I'd drop him for arsenal but I think its crazy to just write him off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villan_of_oz Posted February 5, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted February 5, 2021 12 minutes ago, sne said: Wouldn't surprise me terribly if Loftus-Cheek has a clause like that with his loan at Fulham. Looking at his playing time at Fulham it looks like he doesn't thou. Would surprise me much more if Barkley has one with us. I have a felt that since he has come back, we under obligation to play him. I know he scored the winner against S'oton but he was also part of the reason that we were under duress for most parts of the 2nd half. If it wasn't for a perfectly good goal being chalked off and a fortunate VAR decision I believe we lose that match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, Villan_of_oz said: I have a felt that since he has come back, we under obligation to play him. I know he scored the winner against S'oton but he was also part of the reason that we were under duress for most parts of the 2nd half. If it wasn't for a perfectly good goal being chalked off and a fortunate VAR decision I believe we lose that match. I think it's down to Smith really wanting him to get back to form after the injury by playing as much as possible rather than any clause. But agree on the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-k Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 12 hours ago, PaulC said: Maybe hes just not fit enough to play every game. he looks overweight. Well, maybe @lexicon was on to something... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's Your Round Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 We’ve come along way from this time last year. We’re debating whether Smith is right to try and play Barkley into fitness, whereas 12 months ago he was trying to play Drinkwater into fitness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts