Keep Calm And Play Games!

[Bud the Baker]

Sorted that for you.

The fact of the matter is that EVERY new signing is a gamble, whether brought in earlier or later. It's early days and the underfire, underachievers might yet need a pedestal from us.

That's not what I'm arguing - I'm saying that the chances of loan players being able to slot in & perform to a good standard within a game or two is unlikely, IIRC early opinions on Dummett last season were mixed.

What I'm saying is that not making key signings till the last days of the transfer window was always likely to leave us in the situation we're presently in - at the wrong end of the table and facing another season of catch-up football.

Edit - You're jumping into my argument with somner9 (where is he at present?) about whether or not Butcher's policy of getting in players early from the lower reaches of English football (a market he obviously knows well) has been more successful than Lennon's gamble on quality, but feel free to continue!

Edited September 18, 2013 by Bud the Baker

[Danny]

Sorted that for you.

The fact of the matter is that EVERY new signing is a gamble, whether brought in earlier or later. It's early days and the underfire, underachievers might yet need a pedestal from us.

The job of a manager is to assemble a squad within budget, mould them into a unit and then get the best out of them.

Every signing should not be a total gamble if the manager is up to the job. The manager should be able to identify the kind of players with the ability and attitude to fit together as a team. If he has this skill then any "gamble" should be substantially reduced.

The fact is the current manager has a poor record at judging player ability and building a cohesive team and squad. This is shown by a number of things

• failed players we've had to pay off from within the budget cuttting our already reduced options even further
• a totally unbalanced squad with glaring omissions in key positions while we sign too many players we don't need (eg signing both Harkins and McGowan on higher wages wasting money needed for other positions. Two good players but either would have been enough as we can't play both to the best advantage)
• ill prepared for the new season
• desperation last minute signings that by their nature do become a gamble - but it should never have gotten to that stage

I'd go as far as to say there isn't much of a gamble when Danny Lennon signs a player given his poor record so far. Bar a couple of notable exceptions his player/team judgement has been poor and costly more often than not.

[Guest somner9]

That's not what I'm arguing - I'm saying that the chances of loan players being able to slot in & perform to a good standard within a game or two is unlikely, IIRC early opinions on Dummett last season were mixed.

What I'm saying is that not making key signings till the last days of the transfer window was always likely to leave us in the situation we're presently in - at the wrong end of the table and facing another season of catch-up football.

Edit - You're jumping into my argument with somner9 (where is he at present?) about whether or not Butcher's policy of getting in players early from the lower reaches of English football (a market he obviously knows well) has been more successful than Lennon's gamble on quality, but feel free to continue!

there's no argument, 'Butcher Choice' is 'Roasting' us/DL at present. I suspect on top of his policy of targetting up and coming players from the lower reaches of english football the extra investment into his club has enabled him to sign up without the need to offload dead wages (Mair etc) as much as us.

Without additional investment i guess the lesson for DL and our club is to release these players earlier to enable the option of offering out new contracts.

[stlucifer]

The job of a manager is to assemble a squad within budget, mould them into a unit and then get the best out of them.

Every signing should not be a total gamble if the manager is up to the job. The manager should be able to identify the kind of players with the ability and attitude to fit together as a team. If he has this skill then any "gamble" should be substantially reduced.

The fact is the current manager has a poor record at judging player ability and building a cohesive team and squad. This is shown by a number of things

• failed players we've had to pay off from within the budget cuttting our already reduced options even further
• a totally unbalanced squad with glaring omissions in key positions while we sign too many players we don't need (eg signing both Harkins and McGowan on higher wages wasting money needed for other positions. Two good players but either would have been enough as we can't play both to the best advantage)
• ill prepared for the new season
• desperation last minute signings that by their nature do become a gamble - but it should never have gotten to that stage

I'd go as far as to say there isn't much of a gamble when Danny Lennon signs a player given his poor record so far. Bar a couple of notable exceptions his player/team judgement has been poor and costly more often than not.

I find it hard to disagree with some of this. Certainly I'm on record as saying that, once he had Harkins on board, Danny would have been better to have cut Paul loose.

Given that Cornell seems to be settling in, (I hope), I really do feel the only other position glaringly obvious by ommission is striker. My take on this, and I could be far from right, is that Danny put all his eggs, (and not in a Jose way!!), in one Campbell basket.

I don't know how good he would have been but it appeared to be almost certain we were getting the player.

Mismanagement? Possibly. Though I tend to give people the benefit in these circumstance until the facts are public.

Danny Lennon may or may not be heading for the exit but it will be because of results which, on at least 3 occassions this season and about the same at the end of last, I felt we were not far away from getting more than we did.

How many managers at his level find eleven notable exceptions?

Harkins is, by your own admission, a good player.I think Grainger is a better left back than Dummett.

I think Goodwin was a good signing.

Add to this, Tesselaar, Teale, McGregor, Thompson, McGowan, Newton, Dummett, Goncalves, Hasselbaink, even Carey,(though I felt underused) and Imrie (could have been better managed) .

Hardly a couple Danny.

Edited September 18, 2013 by stlucifer

[GlenburnSaint]

Id agree with that post too.

Mostly to the part where Danny points out that we have positions on the park which were badly needing fresh talent and this has been overlooked.

The defence has been too thin since roundabout the same time cheesy came back (not saying theres a bias to play him) and nothing has been done.

[gstretchuk]

I find it hard to disagree with some of this. Certainly I'm on record as saying that, once he had Harkins on board, Danny would have been better to have cut Paul loose.

Given that Cornell seems to be settling in, (I hope), I really do feel the only other position glaringly obvious by ommission is striker. My take on this, and I could be far from right, is that Danny put all his eggs, (and not in a Jose way!!), in one Campbell basket.

I don't know how good he would have been but it appeared to be almost certain we were getting the player.

Mismanagement? Possibly. Though I tend to give people the benefit in these circumstance until the facts are public.

Danny Lennon may or may not be heading for the exit but it will be because of results which, on at least 3 occassions this season and about the same at the end of last, I felt we were not far away from getting more than we did.

How many managers at his level find eleven notable exceptions?

Harkins is, by your own admission, a good player.I think Grainger is a better left back than Dummett.

I think Goodwin was a good signing.

Add to this, Tesselaar, Teale, McGregor, Thompson, McGowan, Newton, Dummett, Goncalves, Hasselbaink, even Carey,(though I felt underused) and Imrie (could have been better managed) .

Hardly a couple Danny.

seriously? Grainger is a better left back than Dummett? u having a laugh?

[stlucifer]

seriously? Grainger is a better left back than Dummett? u having a laugh?

Seriously! Not laughing. Grainger is a very good left back and has more to his game than Paul. he has yet to show his best form but almost everyone accepted he was a good addition, with the proviso that his injuries had cleared up, when he arrived.

[gstretchuk]

Seriously! Not laughing. Grainger is a very good left back and has more to his game than Paul. he has yet to show his best form but almost everyone accepted he was a good addition, with the proviso that his injuries had cleared up, when he arrived.

not saying Grainger won't be an asset...but dummet playing in premiership and in Wales squad is a far better player...better defender and far better coming forward....quicker as well...Do u think Grainger will reach the heights Dummet will? no chance and if offered who would u have at left back? no brainer...Dummet every time...

[Danny]

Grainger has been poor positionally, poor in the tackle and not delivered a decent ball going forward. Dummett was far better in all aspects.

[irvine_buddie]

Given that Cornell seems to be settling in, (I hope), I really do feel the only other position glaringly obvious by ommission is striker. My take on this, and I could be far from right, is that Danny put all his eggs, (and not in a Jose way!!), in one Campbell basket.

I don't know how good he would have been but it appeared to be almost certain we were getting the player.

Interesting to see that Campbell has only had 1 apperence for Carlisle off the bench and Lewis Guy has featured most games. Wether Campbell isn't as good as we thought or if he isn't getting a chance I don't know.

As for Grainger being better than Dummet... no chance. I think Grainger is a better player than he has been showing so far but he is no Paul Dummet.

[stlucifer]

Grainger has been poor positionally, poor in the tackle and not delivered a decent ball going forward. Dummett was far better in all aspects.

I agree that Grainger hasn't been as good as he could be but I think many are looking through rose coloured spectacles, re Dummett.

I am NOT saying he was poor but, When he was here, he was slated on a few occassiions with some saying he was inferior to Tess and Travner.

Given time I believe Grainger will prove to be one of the successes.

[irvine_buddie]

I agree that Grainger hasn't been as good as he could be but I think many are looking through rose coloured spectacles, re Dummett.

I am NOT saying he was poor but, When he was here, he was slated on a few occassiions with some saying he was inferior to Tess and Travner.

Given time I believe Grainger will prove to be one of the successes.

The difference is Dummet is young and was playing his first season of senior football and he got better and better as the season went on. He is now getting game time for Newcastle and even got called up to the wales squad. Grainger is 27 and has mostly likely already peaked or at least won't get much better than when he was at Hearts. I think he is a good player though and if he starts playing as well as I have seen him play against us I'll be happy.

[billyg]

I find it hard to disagree with some of this. Certainly I'm on record as saying that, once he had Harkins on board, Danny would have been better to have cut Paul loose.

Given that Cornell seems to be settling in, (I hope), I really do feel the only other position glaringly obvious by ommission is striker. My take on this, and I could be far from right, is that Danny put all his eggs, (and not in a Jose way!!), in one Campbell basket.

I don't know how good he would have been but it appeared to be almost certain we were getting the player.

Mismanagement? Possibly. Though I tend to give people the benefit in these circumstance until the facts are public.

Danny Lennon may or may not be heading for the exit but it will be because of results which, on at least 3 occassions this season and about the same at the end of last, I felt we were not far away from getting more than we did.

How many managers at his level find eleven notable exceptions?

Harkins is, by your own admission, a good player.I think Grainger is a better left back than Dummett.

I think Goodwin was a good signing.

Add to this, Tesselaar, Teale, McGregor, Thompson, McGowan, Newton, Dummett, Goncalves, Hasselbaink, even Carey,(though I felt underused) and Imrie (could have been better managed) .

Hardly a couple Danny.

DL had nothing to do with at least 5 of his "exceptions". Thompson , Teale and Goncalves were handed to him on a plate , and the NUFC guys were down to TCs connections. McGregor is probably the only genuine success story that is down to Danny .

[billyg]

I find it hard to disagree with some of this. Certainly I'm on record as saying that, once he had Harkins on board, Danny would have been better to have cut Paul loose.

Given that Cornell seems to be settling in, (I hope), I really do feel the only other position glaringly obvious by ommission is striker. My take on this, and I could be far from right, is that Danny put all his eggs, (and not in a Jose way!!), in one Campbell basket.

I don't know how good he would have been but it appeared to be almost certain we were getting the player.

Mismanagement? Possibly. Though I tend to give people the benefit in these circumstance until the facts are public.

Danny Lennon may or may not be heading for the exit but it will be because of results which, on at least 3 occassions this season and about the same at the end of last, I felt we were not far away from getting more than we did.

How many managers at his level find eleven notable exceptions?

Harkins is, by your own admission, a good player.I think Grainger is a better left back than Dummett.

I think Goodwin was a good signing.

Add to this, Tesselaar, Teale, McGregor, Thompson, McGowan, Newton, Dummett, Goncalves, Hasselbaink, even Carey,(though I felt underused) and Imrie (could have been better managed) .

Hardly a couple Danny.

DL had nothing to do with at least 5 of his "exceptions". Thompson , Teale and Goncalves were handed to him on a plate , and the NUFC guys were down to TCs connections. McGregor is probably the only genuine success story that is down to Danny .

THE QUOTE FUNCTION DOES MY f**kIN HEAD IN NOWADAYS !

[stlucifer]

DL had nothing to do with at least 5 of his "exceptions". Thompson , Teale and Goncalves were handed to him on a plate , and the NUFC guys were down to TCs connections. McGregor is probably the only genuine success story that is down to Danny .

So. Any successes are down to everybody BUT the manager, but all failures are his alone? AYE RIGHT! Away 'n bile yer heed...... Politely of course!

Edited to say. Quote function isn't your only problem mate!

Edited September 19, 2013 by stlucifer

[billyg]

So. Any successes are down to everybody BUT the manager, but all failures are his alone? AYE RIGHT! Away 'n bile yer heed...... Politely of course!

Do you really think that Danny had anything to do with these five signings ? You're wrong if you do ! His only input was nodding his head when asked if he wanted them !

[stlucifer]

Do you really think that Danny had anything to do with these five signings ? You're wrong if you do ! His only input was nodding his head when asked if he wanted them !

Well. If Danny has so little input as far as signings are concerned why do you attribute blame for those who haven't, thus far, "set the heather on fire"?

It really is good to be so special as to be in the know!

AND....he was asked if he wanted them and said yes?

Isn't that him deciding on the signings or am I missing something here?

Edited September 19, 2013 by stlucifer

[billyg]

Well. If Danny has so little input as far as signings are concerned why do you attribute blame for those who haven't, thus far, "set the heather on fire"?

It really is good to be so special as to be in the know!

AND....he was asked if he wanted them and said yes?

Isn't that him deciding on the signings or am I missing something here?

He was told he was getting them , would you have turned any of them down ?

[windae cleaner]

Well. If Danny has so little input as far as signings are concerned why do you attribute blame for those who haven't, thus far, "set the heather on fire"?

It really is good to be so special as to be in the know!

AND....he was asked if he wanted them and said yes?

Isn't that him deciding on the signings or am I missing something here?

I'm sure we signed a couple of players when we didn't have a manager

[stlucifer]

He was told he was getting them , would you have turned any of them down ?

Don't think that answered the question. IF he was TOLD then he wouldn't have needed to nod his head. He would have been, well,.... TOLD.

IF he was told in those instances then perhaps he was also TOLD to cut the budget to help pay for them,. Perhaps he was told to take Grainger.... To take Harkins,...To subsequently keep McGowan. Nth degree. Fcuk me. Some on here are suggesting that he's TOLD to play Cheesey, week in, week out. Where does it end?

IF he was the puppet in your scenario when did Pinnochio change into the real boy?

[billyg]

Don't think that answered the question. IF he was TOLD then he wouldn't have needed to nod his head. He would have been, well,.... TOLD.

IF he was told in those instances then perhaps he was also TOLD to cut the budget to help pay for them,. Perhaps he was told to take Grainger.... To take Harkins,...To subsequently keep McGowan. Nth degree. Fcuk me. Some on here are suggesting that he's TOLD to play Cheesey, week in, week out. Where does it end?

IF he was the puppet in your scenario when did Pinnochio change into the real boy?

2 hours to come up with that load of tripe ? Say and believe what you want , but I know different !

[norrie82]

I find it hard to disagree with some of this. Certainly I'm on record as saying that, once he had Harkins on board, Danny would have been better to have cut Paul loose.

Given that Cornell seems to be settling in, (I hope), I really do feel the only other position glaringly obvious by ommission is striker. My take on this, and I could be far from right, is that Danny put all his eggs, (and not in a Jose way!!), in one Campbell basket.

I don't know how good he would have been but it appeared to be almost certain we were getting the player.

Mismanagement? Possibly. Though I tend to give people the benefit in these circumstance until the facts are public.

Danny Lennon may or may not be heading for the exit but it will be because of results which, on at least 3 occassions this season and about the same at the end of last, I felt we were not far away from getting more than we did.

How many managers at his level find eleven notable exceptions?

Harkins is, by your own admission, a good player.I think Grainger is a better left back than Dummett.

I think Goodwin was a good signing.

Add to this, Tesselaar, Teale, McGregor, Thompson, McGowan, Newton, Dummett, Goncalves, Hasselbaink, even Carey,(though I felt underused) and

Imrie (could have been better managed) .

Hardly a couple Danny.

Grainger better than dummett ha ha ha I honestly have heard it all now. Do you go to games

Edited September 19, 2013 by norrie82

[norrie82]

Dummett better than grainger every day of the week. One plays for st.mirren the other for Newcastle united and Wales. You do the math

Edited September 19, 2013 by norrie82

[stlucifer]

Dummett better than grainger every day of the week. One plays for st.mirren the other for Newcastle united and Wales. You do the math

Grainger better than dummett ha ha ha I honestly have heard it all now. Do you go to games

Watch my typing. I THINK that Grainger is a better LEFT BACK than Dummett.

He hasn't shown his best so far but that will come. It's MY opinion.

Dummett is not playing for Newcastle. He's had one sub appearance. He will undoubtably be a good player for the Magpies but I go back to what I said previously. When Paul was with us some were harping back to the Travner and Tesselaar so they weren't convinced of Dummett's ability. I think Paul's a good player but I stand by my statement. I think Grainger is better in the left back position and will prove this in time.

[norrie82]

Watch my typing. I THINK that Grainger is a better LEFT BACK than Dummett.

He hasn't shown his best so far but that will come. It's MY opinion.

Dummett is not playing for Newcastle. He's had one sub appearance. He will undoubtably be a good player for the Magpies but I go back to what I said previously. When Paul was with us some were harping back to the Travner and Tesselaar so they weren't convinced of Dummett's ability. I think Paul's a good player but I stand by my statement. I think Grainger is better in the left back position and will prove this in time.[/quote

You must be tripping