Jump to content

January 2018 Transfer Window


Recommended Posts

If you were doing a football manager style "squad depth" assesment of our team - I'd agree with that

Keeper - Sammy 5 star (3 star Ross Stewart)

LB - 5 star - Eck & Stelios 

CB - 5 star - Bairdy, Davis  - Gary Mac is 5 star on his day, maybe currently a 4 star

RB - 5 star - Smith - Irvine a 4 star back up

 

LM - Star man - Morgan

CM - 5 star - McShane, McGinn, Magennis - Not seen Hill yet but looks a decent player 

RM - Flynn - unproven but hopefully be good - Magennis probably a 4 star there... Also Flanagan back now

AM - 5 star - Cammy Smith 

CF - 5 star - Reilly banging them in - Sutton a good backup - Danny Mullen a 4 star from what I've seen

Plenty backup outside of that but would say the core of our team is solid in all positions now.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

You keep pushing a CD over a Striker - saying we have 3 striker options plus Sutton    ( for 2 places - though I think it would be good sometimes to play with 3 up front....Barcelona style)

Our options for centre-back are :-   Davis, Baird, MacKenzie, Eckersley, Irvine, Hill, and either Darren Whyte who could be recalled or an emergency loan. (We have 6 options for 2 places and other options after that. ) I personally liked Buchanan but he was 4th choice and would not stay for that reason.. another 4th or 7th  choice guy ain't going to be any happier or be a good investment with the other choices we have available..

Jack is pretty open with the fans - ideally 1 more player who is a striker - he (and others supporting him) is/are not daft...look at the magic he has conjured over this past year. (Continuous improvement is the name of the game if you want success...

Yes we don't know everything that is going on but looking at our squad that is the area he would most like to have an additional/different option in.. We have 4 very decent options for CD plus 1 we don't know yet (Hill) and 1 who is not as good as the others (Irvine) .  Up front we really have 3 guys who are similar, 1 who is past it at our level and a vision of a quality Premiership guy who we would love to bring in, ready for the off next season, part of the team for 6 months and up to speed with his teammates...

Even if we suddenly bring in a big sum from a transfer, I don't think Jack will bring in another CB unless we do have an emergency situation of 3 of the 1st 4 choices out..

As I've said, it's only my opinion. You can spin it two different ways.

One as you've done 'three similar strikers so something different would be good and a few different CB options outside the three we have'

Or two the other way I have which is 'JR likes playing one up front (and it works way more than it doesn't) and we have three players (plus Sutton as an option because he isn't leaving) plus talk of an extra one coming in (yet again I'm not saying I'm against that) We also have eight or nine midfield options to shuffle about the midfield behind one striker, all that gives us great attacking variety. Defensively it's all well and good saying other players but the bottom line is the four names you've mentioned are either not ready, not suitable or would have to be moved from optimum position (Eckersley) Like it or not. We get one injury at CB we're left with two CBs then the option of players that aren't overlay suitable. 

Like I've also said before people saying about a new CB being fourth choice isn't really a suitable argument in this debate because you're advocating the same for a fourth striker.

It's all matter of opinion and no one is going to convince me another CB option isn't a good idea/ is a waste of money. JR wanted four in the summer, I'd be surprised if he was happy with three + Irvine and maybe Hill going for rest of a title chase. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doakes said:

If you were doing a football manager style "squad depth" assesment of our team - I'd agree with that

Keeper - Sammy 5 star (3 star Ross Stewart)

LB - 5 star - Eck & Stelios 

CB - 5 star - Bairdy, Davis  - Gary Mac is 5 star on his day, maybe currently a 4 star

RB - 5 star - Smith - Irvine a 4 star back up

 

LM - Star man - Morgan

CM - 5 star - McShane, McGinn, Magennis - Not seen Hill yet but looks a decent player 

RM - Flynn - unproven but hopefully be good - Magennis probably a 4 star there... Also Flanagan back now

AM - 5 star - Cammy Smith 

CF - 5 star - Reilly banging them in - Sutton a good backup - Danny Mullen a 4 star from what I've seen

Plenty backup outside of that but would say the core of our team is solid in all positions now.

 

 

 

Are 5 stars the best you can get in your scoring system? Are we scoring the players in the Championship or Scottish football? (certainly not against Barcelona)

It would be interesting to see how the players would rate compared to the higher standards in the Scottish Premiership...

I don't think they are all up for 1st 11 in that league.. That is why Flynn has come in and ideally why a better striker is desirable. After we win the league a few more will become back-ups or go

Look at how badly teams in the Championship have done in the play offs in recent years... Top teams like Hibs, brought in a number of  big hitters like Stokes and off-loaded a few as well.. we will need to improve the quality too or it will be a short venture in the top league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

Are 5 stars the best you can get in your scoring system? Are we scoring the players in the Championship or Scottish football? (certainly not against Barcelona)

It would be interesting to see how the players would rate compared to the higher standards in the Scottish Premiership...

I don't think they are all up for 1st 11 in that league.. That is why Flynn has come in and ideally why a better striker is desirable. After we win the league a few more will become back-ups or go

Look at how badly teams in the Championship have done in the play offs in recent years... Top teams like Hibs, brought in a number of  big hitters like Stokes and off-loaded a few as well.. we will need to improve the quality too or it will be a short venture in the top league.

If 5 stars is the best then Morgan would be an eleven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

As I've said, it's only my opinion. You can spin it two different ways.

One as you've done 'three similar strikers so something different would be good and a few different CB options outside the three we have'

Or two the other way I have which is 'JR likes playing one up front (and it works way more than it doesn't) and we have three players (plus Sutton as an option because he isn't leaving) plus talk of an extra one coming in (yet again I'm not saying I'm against that) We also have eight or nine midfield options to shuffle about the midfield behind one striker, all that gives us great attacking variety. Defensively it's all well and good saying other players but the bottom line is the four names you've mentioned are either not ready, not suitable or would have to be moved from optimum position (Eckersley) Like it or not. We get one injury at CB we're left with two CBs then the option of players that aren't overlay suitable. 

Like I've also said before people saying about a new CB being fourth choice isn't really a suitable argument in this debate because you're advocating the same for a fourth striker.

It's all matter of opinion and no one is going to convince me another CB option isn't a good idea/ is a waste of money. JR wanted four in the summer, I'd be surprised if he was happy with three + Irvine and maybe Hill going for rest of a title chase. 

I shouldn't respond but cannot resist..

Eckersley played CB earlier in the season - he was very good (not as good as our first 3 choices but decent nevertheless) - as 4th choice, I would have no issue playing him there if the need arose (I doubt Jack would either).. and there are further back-up options in the "doom is nigh" scenario

We mainly play with 2 strikers not 1, though Smith is often behind Reilly - they are both up front...and play most games as our strikers..

You want a back-up CB - Jack wants an even better Striker than we currently have - not a 4th choice one - I know what would improve our team the most and be great to have on-board for next season - what do you think????  HONESTLY

Come the Summer - Sutton is away, Mullen stays - I'm not sure about Smith but I think he stays, Reilly is out of contract - what happens if he does not stay and he will have offers? Mullen and Smith with Stewart as their back-up won't be a good enough pairing as 1st choice strikers for the Premiership...  so what if we get someone good enough in now to play along with Reilly or Smith or Mullen ? Sounds good to me... the only negative might be if he picks up an injury - but lets be honest that could happen to another back-up CB too - in training or after he stands in for the 3 ahead of him through injury...

Good strikers are difficult to get, and budget restrictions determine how good you aim for.. best to see if the right person if available now.. if not we have 6 months to convince them to join us..

Edited by Sweeper07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

I shouldn't respond but cannot resist..

Eckersley played CB earlier in the season - he was very good (not as good as our first 3 choices but decent nevertheless) - as 4th choice, I would have no issue playing him there if the need arose (I doubt Jack would either).. and there are further back-up options in the "doom is nigh" scenario

We mainly play with 2 strikers not 1, though Smith is often behind Reilly - they are both up front...and play most games as our strikers..

You want a back-up CB - Jack wants an even better Striker than we currently have - not a 4th choice one - I know what would improve our team the most and be great to have on-board for next season - what do you think????  HONESTLY

Come the Summer - Sutton is away, Mullen stays - I'm not sure about Smith but I think he stays, Reilly is out of contract - what happens if he does not stay and he will have offers? Mullen and Smith with Stewart as their back-up won't be a good enough pairing as 1st choice strikers for the Premiership...  so what if we get someone good enough in now to play along with Reilly or Smith or Mullen ? Sounds good to me... the only negative might be if he picks up an injury - but lets be honest that could happen to another back-up CB too - in training or after he stands in for the 3 ahead of him through injury...

Good strikers are difficult to get, and budget restrictions determine how good you aim for.. best to see if the right person if available now.. if not we have 6 months to convince them to join us..

Still not going to change my opinion, why is so important to people that I decide a CB isn't needed? :lol:

1. Eckersley - Still much better at LB you run the risk of upsetting a solid back four if one CB gets a long term injury or such. Then if we have suspensions or other injuries (or a dip in form)

2. Yes Smith usually plays just behind one out and out striker. That works for us. The Reilly position we have another option with Mullan, the Smith position is very versatile, he often changes with Morgan, Maggenis and JR shakes things up that confuse the life out of defenders and works wonderfully. We now have another two midfielders plus Flanagan to give us even more. All great, again not saying another ST is a bad idea (said so so so so many times) just we're pretty well covered. For the millionth time an argument for another striker can be made for another CB. We have had to bring on defenders this season because of red cards, injuries and to hold advantages. I just don't like the idea or relying on non CB for that role if one gets injured. What's so bad about that? :mellow:

3. Did I ever say the CB would HAVE to be 4th choice? Would JR turn his nose up at someone who can challenge the starting two? Of course not, mad comment. 

4. I'm genuinely pulling my hair out with your 'come the summer' comment and the rest of your post. I've said 14 billion times I'm not against a new striker :blink: I just think there's a great debate for a new CB. Your chat about strikers leaving could also be mirrored with Baird and Davis. Both could leave in summer 

 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Still not going to change my opinion, why is so important to people that I decide a CB isn't needed? :lol:

1. Eckersley - Still much better at CB you run the risk of upsetting a solid back four if one CB gets a long term injury or such. Then if we have suspensions or other injuries (or a dip in form)

2. Yes Smith usually plays just behind one out and out striker. That works for us. The Reilly position we have another option with Mullan, the Smith position is very versatile, he often changes with Morgan, Maggenis and JR shakes things up that confuse the life out of defenders and works wonderfully. We now have another two midfielders plus Flanagan to give us even more. All great, again not saying another ST is a bad idea (said so so so so many times) just we're pretty well covered. For the millionth time an argument for another striker can be made for another CB. We have had to bring on defenders this season because of red cards, injuries and to hold advantages. I just don't like the idea or relying on non CB for that role if one gets injured. What's so bad about that? :mellow:

3. Did I ever say the CB would HAVE to be 4th choice? Would JR turn his nose up at someone who can challenge the starting two? Of course not, mad comment. 

4. I'm genuinely pulling my hair out with your 'come the summer' comment and the rest of your post. I've said 14 billion times I'm not against a new striker :blink: I just think there's a great debate for a new CB. Your chat about strikers leaving could also be mirrored with Baird and Davis. Both could leave in summer 

 

1. upsetting a solid back four - we have already had various back 4's regularly through injury and suspensions and we are top of the league  despite that- Davis and MacK have missed a lot of games and in the most part we did really well.. ECKERS filled in and played well too.. He was also part of a back 3 with Stelios and Irvine as wing backs too.

2. Who is the non back we are going to rely on? ECKERS like we did previously,  - Irvine who was a CB before he was a full back or an emergency loanee - and apparently Hill is a really solid CB as well as a defensive midfielder (Some players are versatile).. The strikers and the way they play obviously works - they all get goals - but a different type of striker would give us another very different option.. On a number of occasions the team was crying out for a change of formation but we did not have the players of sufficient quality to change the system..  one example The 2nd half of the last Morton game - a holding hard tackling midfielder would have helped...but we did not have anyone suitable on the bench, and a change up front earlier was clearly obvious - but our option was Sutton and he came on to run down the clock late on... we lost a goal and 2 points.

3.  Seriously in the squad we have just now - Why would we invest heavily in a better CD when we have 3 already that are fit for the Premiership - they are that good... Our existing strikers on the other hand are not as good in comparison - they are great for the Championship - but like Hibs did when they were promoted - better will be needed (I am not saying Reilly or Smith would not get games or be good to keep) - Hibs offloaded Keatings and others for that reason...and brought in the likes of Stokes. We are trying to be proactive in the most crucial department in football - if we don't score enough goals we will struggle.. Defence is important too.. but decent defenders are more plentiful and cheaper (in general for the same level/standard) Van Dik £75 M Naymar £ 200M at the top end concurs clearly with this argument..

4. I think we have a year option on Davis and Baird will resign if he is offered a decent deal - we will want to keep him - as others came and went, He has been in there at the heart of the defence, except for his 1 suspension. I don't know about MacK either - but you have a valid point here.. however, I think we could get in a good CB much easier than a good Premiership goal scoring striker - and goals means points. Before Jack was our manager our "goals for" was a real problem, more so than our "goals against" and that helped our downward spiral..

PS I was a CB - these guys are very important - but we are well covered baring exceptional misfortune.. getting in a much better striker - is like finding gold dust - Reilly has been that this season at this level - we need that for the next level too...and ideally keep him as well.

 

I am not trying to change your mind - that is your prerogative - I like you am offering arguments and logic behind them... but let us see if JAck can bring in anyone that improves the squad or the team directly.. there is no guarantee that Utd or Dumfermline won't go on a run and that we won't have some slips.. if we strengthen further, it will surely be advantageous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

1. upsetting a solid back four - we have already had various back 4's regularly through injury and suspensions and we are top of the league  despite that- Davis and MacK have missed a lot of games and in the most part we did really well.. ECKERS filled in and played well too.. He was also part of a back 3 with Stelios and Irvine as wing backs too.

2. Who is the non back we are going to rely on? ECKERS like we did previously,  - Irvine who was a CB before he was a full back or an emergency loanee - and apparently Hill is a really solid CB as well as a defensive midfielder (Some players are versatile).. The strikers and the way they play obviously works - they all get goals - but a different type of striker would give us another very different option.. On a number of occasions the team was crying out for a change of formation but we did not have the players of sufficient quality to change the system..  one example The 2nd half of the last Morton game - a holding hard tackling midfielder would have helped...but we did not have anyone suitable on the bench, and a change up front earlier was clearly obvious - but our option was Sutton and he came on to run down the clock late on... we lost a goal and 2 points.

3.  Seriously in the squad we have just now - Why would we invest heavily in a better CD when we have 3 already that are fit for the Premiership - they are that good... Our existing strikers on the other hand are not as good in comparison - they are great for the Championship - but like Hibs did when they were promoted - better will be needed (I am not saying Reilly or Smith would not get games or be good to keep) - Hibs offloaded Keatings and others for that reason...and brought in the likes of Stokes. We are trying to be proactive in the most crucial department in football - if we don't score enough goals we will struggle.. Defence is important too.. but decent defenders are more plentiful and cheaper (in general for the same level/standard) Van Dik £75 M Naymar £ 200M at the top end concurs clearly with this argument..

4. I think we have a year option on Davis and Baird will resign if he is offered a decent deal - we will want to keep him - as others came and went, He has been in there at the heart of the defence, except for his 1 suspension. I don't know about MacK either - but you have a valid point here.. however, I think we could get in a good CB much easier than a good Premiership goal scoring striker - and goals means points. Before Jack was our manager our "goals for" was a real problem, more so than our "goals against" and that helped our downward spiral..

PS I was a CB - these guys are very important - but we are well covered baring exceptional misfortune.. getting in a much better striker - is like finding gold dust - Reilly has been that this season at this level - we need that for the next level too...and ideally keep him as well.

 

I am not trying to change your mind - that is your prerogative - I like you am offering arguments and logic behind them... but let us see if JAck can bring in anyone that improves the squad or the team directly.. there is no guarantee that Utd or Dumfermline won't go on a run and that we won't have some slips.. if we strengthen further, it will surely be advantageous?

Nope I'm still not going to change my mind sorry, not everyone has to agree with you. I don't agree with what you're saying (about not wanting a CB) but notice I'm not trying to make you change your mind. 

1. Look at our goals against record when Davis hasn't played, not the happiest reading. 

2. Eck - again better at LB I'd rather not have to move him. Irvine - Played about 30- minutes of football in 3 months. Emergency loan - Also a striker option no? Not a bad choice but challenging for the title I'd rather have a CB in longer training with the team. Hill - Still not a natural CB option and JR has said he's in to shake up midfield. I'm not against the new striker option remember... 

3. Same reason you'd invest in another striker, gives something different, competition and to protect against injuries. I'm not convinced Baird and Mac will cut it in the SP either too be honest. Our existing strikers aren't SP quality but our CB are? Okay no bother Smith and Reilly 30 goals by January but not good enough :lol: Reilly and Smith are much closer to SP players than Baird and Mac IMO

You're not making any new points you're basically saying the same thing louder. I know the arguments for a ST and yet again I have not said it's not a good idea. If you don't think bringing in a CB is a good idea absolutely fine, your mind your choice but I would say I've put over my point pretty well. Certainly well enough that it makes no sense trying to make me change it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Nope I'm still not going to change my mind sorry, not everyone has to agree with you. I don't agree with what you're saying (about not wanting a CB) but notice I'm not trying to make you change your mind. 

1. Look at our goals against record when Davis hasn't played, not the happiest reading. 

2. Eck - again better at LB I'd rather not have to move him. Irvine - Played about 30- minutes of football in 3 months. Emergency loan - Also a striker option no? Not a bad choice but challenging for the title I'd rather have a CB in longer training with the team. Hill - Still not a natural CB option and JR has said he's in to shake up midfield. I'm not against the new striker option remember... 

3. Same reason you'd invest in another striker, gives something different, competition and to protect against injuries. I'm not convinced Baird and Mac will cut it in the SP either too be honest. Our existing strikers aren't SP quality but our CB are? Okay no bother Smith and Reilly 30 goals by January but not good enough :lol: Reilly and Smith are much closer to SP players than Baird and Mac IMO

You're not making any new points you're basically saying the same thing louder. I know the arguments for a ST and yet again I have not said it's not a good idea. If you don't think bringing in a CB is a good idea absolutely fine, your mind your choice but I would say I've put over my point pretty well. Certainly well enough that it makes no sense trying to make me change it. 

You win - tell Jack he is a clown trying to sign a striker when a 4th choice defender is what we really want....

Reilly did not cut it in his last attempt in the Premiership - though I think with us he might well do much better this time...but time will tell... if it is with us or anyone else... Smith wasn't even wanted as a squad player at Aberdeen, but no doubt he is a better all round player now... I am not sure many Premiership teams will be after him - Maybe Hamilton or Ross County.. But I said I would try to keep them.. They will not hit 30 goals in the Premiership over the same number of weeks...IT is a very big step up..

Davis is magic - but without him, while the team was coping with all kinds of defensive injury's, and suspensions we conceded more goals - would it not work the same now - He plays but if Baird, Stelios and Eckersley were all out for these reasons, wouldn't we leak more goals also???

Enough from me... WATCH WHAT JACK DOES  ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sweeper07 said:

Are 5 stars the best you can get in your scoring system? Are we scoring the players in the Championship or Scottish football? (certainly not against Barcelona)

It would be interesting to see how the players would rate compared to the higher standards in the Scottish Premiership...

I don't think they are all up for 1st 11 in that league.. That is why Flynn has come in and ideally why a better striker is desirable. After we win the league a few more will become back-ups or go

Look at how badly teams in the Championship have done in the play offs in recent years... Top teams like Hibs, brought in a number of  big hitters like Stokes and off-loaded a few as well.. we will need to improve the quality too or it will be a short venture in the top league.

Yes on FM it bases it on your opposition. So against other championship players...

Not sure how we compare against Premiership clubs... certainly not on the same level as Hibs but I feel we could compete, at least... interested to see how we get on against Aberdeen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sweeper07 said:

Smith wasn't even wanted as a squad player at Aberdeen, but no doubt he is a better all round player now... I am not sure many Premiership teams will be after him - Maybe Hamilton or Ross County..

What's the matter with the Premiership bound club he's with at present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sweeper07 said:

You win - tell Jack he is a clown trying to sign a striker when a 4th choice defender is what we really want....

Reilly did not cut it in his last attempt in the Premiership - though I think with us he might well do much better this time...but time will tell... if it is with us or anyone else... Smith wasn't even wanted as a squad player at Aberdeen, but no doubt he is a better all round player now... I am not sure many Premiership teams will be after him - Maybe Hamilton or Ross County.. But I said I would try to keep them.. They will not hit 30 goals in the Premiership over the same number of weeks...IT is a very big step up..

Davis is magic - but without him, while the team was coping with all kinds of defensive injury's, and suspensions we conceded more goals - would it not work the same now - He plays but if Baird, Stelios and Eckersley were all out for these reasons, wouldn't we leak more goals also???

Enough from me... WATCH WHAT JACK DOES  ... 

You have to be joking! :lol::lol: Does anyone have a crayon I can borrow? I AM NOT AGAINST THE IDEA FOR A NEW STRIKER, I THINK IT WILL BE VERY USEFUL!!!!!!!! 

Reilly and Smith may or may not cut it in SP but same can be said for Baird and Mac. Mac because of his injuries and age and Baird is untested at that level (I think Davis is a safer bet given his history) But still no one sees the benefit in another CB...

This is all speculation, the bottom line is any argument for a new striker can be made for a new defender. That's the bottom line of all this. Speculating that Smith and Reilly might not be good enough, you can speculate the same for a CB. What if Mckenzie is done in the summer because of his injuries and lack of game time? Still not think a CB would be good? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You have to be joking! :lol::lol: Does anyone have a crayon I can borrow? I AM NOT AGAINST THE IDEA FOR A NEW STRIKER, I THINK IT WILL BE VERY USEFUL!!!!!!!! 

Reilly and Smith may or may not cut it in SP but same can be said for Baird and Mac. Mac because of his injuries and age and Baird is untested at that level (I think Davis is a safer bet given his history) But still no one sees the benefit in another CB...

This is all speculation, the bottom line is any argument for a new striker can be made for a new defender. That's the bottom line of all this. Speculating that Smith and Reilly might not be good enough, you can speculate the same for a CB. What if Mckenzie is done in the summer because of his injuries and lack of game time? Still not think a CB would be good? 

The calibre of CB and striker  that Jack might like for step up,  might not want to committ themselves to a Championship side. 

What we have should see us through.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, pod said:

The calibre of CB and striker  that Jack might like for step up,  might not want to committ themselves to a Championship side. 

What we have should see us through.     

I agree with that fully. JR has said as much. That's not the point I'm making, just that I think we could be a bit short in CB coverage if one of them got injured. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like Thor... You know but more handsome. 


Unless we are going to sign a central defender who is better than Davis or Baird then there is no reason to sign another central defender.

If one of the central defenders is injured then Eckerskey has shown that he is a more than capable stop gap.

If the new central defender is to basically be 4th choice then we would probably be able to get someone of better quality on emergency loan than we would as a permanent 4th choice signing. The other advantage of an emergency loan is that we only need to pay the wages if and when we bring him in.

The reason for needing 4 central defenders at the start of the season was that Davis had a long term injury. So we effectively went into the season with 3 fit central defenders. When we had a crisis then Eckersley went into central defence and when that situation worsened we signed McCart.

The difference now is that we have 3 fit central defenders.

As for the striker situation, this is different IMO. Strikers are regularly utilised from the bench, central defenders aren’t. Strikers from the bench can be game changers. A new striker could challenge Reilly and Smith for a starting position. If Morgan is injured then Smith can move wide and a new striker provides additional cover. A big striker in particular provides a game changing option.

Managers generally do not change or alter central defensive partnerships if they are working, particularly during a game.

If the choice is between a new striker or a new central defender then it’s obvious that a new striker is the best option.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, zico said:

 


Unless we are going to sign a central defender who is better than Davis or Baird then there is no reason to sign another central defender.

If one of the central defenders is injured then Eckerskey has shown that he is a more than capable stop gap.

If the new central defender is to basically be 4th choice then we would probably be able to get someone of better quality on emergency loan than we would as a permanent 4th choice signing. The other advantage of an emergency loan is that we only need to pay the wages if and when we bring him in.

The reason for needing 4 central defenders at the start of the season was that Davis had a long term injury. So we effectively went into the season with 3 fit central defenders. When we had a crisis then Eckersley went into central defence and when that situation worsened we signed McCart.

The difference now is that we have 3 fit central defenders.

As for the striker situation, this is different IMO. Strikers are regularly utilised from the bench, central defenders aren’t. Strikers from the bench can be game changers. A new striker could challenge Reilly and Smith for a starting position. If Morgan is injured then Smith can move wide and a new striker provides additional cover. A big striker in particular provides a game changing option.

Managers generally do not change or alter central defensive partnerships if they are working, particularly during a game.

If the choice is between a new striker or a new central defender then it’s obvious that a new striker is the best option.

 

Still more people that will not rest until I change my opinion :lol: No reason apart from competition, injuries and suspensions you mean? 

Said several times I would not want to move Eck from LB because he's much more effective there. 

A new striker would be 4th choice also or Mullan would be moving down the pecking order so yet again that is not an argument for not bringing in a CB. I fully appreciate that a different forward player off the bench can change a game but there is also times when a CB or defensive player is a necessity. It's happened a good few times this season where we've had to bring on a CB. 

Also said several times that emergency loan could be an option but it's my own personal opinion that I would rather have a permanent option training with the team. Why do people feel the need to try and change this? Or not see how a CB training regularly with Davis, Mac and Baird would be better than someone in the door on a Thursday and playing Saturday? 

I don't understand the 4 CB point at start of season? JR brought them all in on at least one year contracts so he clearly seen some benefit then in having four CB options for the full season (Davis wasn't going to be out the full year)? If anything I think that's more important now we're chasing a title. Especially if Davis can't play on certain parks, Mac has had very little game time, Eck is injured and one of the back-up options is Irvine who also has played very little. 

Three fit defenders, two of which have had more than one long-term injury in the last two years. Yet you can't see why I might have a point about another CB option? I don't want to change anyone's opinion but people completely dismissing it is pretty crazy to me. 

I'm for the striker option, they're not related IMO. I think it would be good to have another option but there has been several games this season where we've had to bring on a CB. Imagine the situation where someone gets injured then Baird, Davis or Mac get a red card, injury or really under perform. We would be reliant on moving a player out of position (If Eck is back fit) or Gary Irvine. 

If the choice is between a new striker and a CB it's not obvious. It's a matter of opinion. My opinion is based on the fact we have three of the top 10 top scorers in the league on our books and the goals against stats when Davis isn't fit. Bottom line is there's an argument both ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Still more people that will not rest until I change my opinion :lol: No reason apart from competition, injuries and suspensions you mean? 

Said several times I would not want to move Eck from LB because he's much more effective there. 

A new striker would be 4th choice also or Mullan would be moving down the pecking order so yet again that is not an argument for not bringing in a CB. I fully appreciate that a different forward player off the bench can change a game but there is also times when a CB or defensive player is a necessity. It's happened a good few times this season where we've had to bring on a CB. 

Also said several times that emergency loan could be an option but it's my own personal opinion that I would rather have a permanent option training with the team. Why do people feel the need to try and change this? Or not see how a CB training regularly with Davis, Mac and Baird would be better than someone in the door on a Thursday and playing Saturday? 

I don't understand the 4 CB point at start of season? JR brought them all in on at least one year contracts so he clearly seen some benefit then in having four CB options for the full season (Davis wasn't going to be out the full year)? If anything I think that's more important now we're chasing a title. Especially if Davis can't play on certain parks, Mac has had very little game time, Eck is injured and one of the back-up options is Irvine who also has played very little. 

Three fit defenders, two of which have had more than one long-term injury in the last two years. Yet you can't see why I might have a point about another CB option? I don't want to change anyone's opinion but people completely dismissing it is pretty crazy to me. 

I'm for the striker option, they're not related IMO. I think it would be good to have another option but there has been several games this season where we've had to bring on a CB. Imagine the situation where someone gets injured then Baird, Davis or Mac get a red card, injury or really under perform. We would be reliant on moving a player out of position (If Eck is back fit) or Gary Irvine. 

If the choice is between a new striker and a CB it's not obvious. It's a matter of opinion. My opinion is based on the fact we have three of the top 10 top scorers in the league on our books and the goals against stats when Davis isn't fit. Bottom line is there's an argument both ways. 

Where did I say that I was trying to change your opinion? :blink:

You have given your opinion on this thread over and over and over again.

I have given my opinion once.

What is the point of your reply? To try and change my opinion?

Or do you think that you own this thread? :lol:

I disagree with everything you have said in your reply.

I'm assuming that JR is looking to bring in someone who is capable of being a first choice striker or at least challenge to be first choice. A new striker can be a game changer from the bench.

In my opinion, we can get a better standard of central defender on emergency loan than we can attract as permanent 4th choice - and we don't need to pay his wages until we need him.

 

Edited by zico
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...