Jump to content

Mason 47

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,349

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Mason 47

  7. Posted

    52 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

    In January, Hwang was badly injured, the initial prognosis was that he would have been unable to play again until the end of March, so take advantage of the break clause, send him back and save the loan fee! I haven't heard of him returning to the Florist squad yet, so given we only have 3 games left it was the right decision. He would not have helped us out during Rowe's injury, so waste of time discussing it.

    As for SvH, it's another RvW scenario. Wrong type of player for our current set up. Next season ... ?

    Hwang went out on loan again to Turkey, played in early Feb but seems this was too soon and re-injured the hamstring so has only played 3 games.

    I think it a combination of his fitness, Sargents return and the shadow of the legal stuff that brought us to cancel his deal. 

    • Thanks 2

  8. Posted

    10 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

    Everyone is going to be trying to ensure they don't get injured. Players who are trying not to get hurt sometimes manage to do just that. 

    Kenny McLean vs Barnsley on the final day of the season several years ago springs to mind as a cautionary tale. Halved by Helik in a nothing game, missed out on Scotland squad for the Euros as a result.

  10. Posted

    For questions of Idah v SvH, I've been trying to look at it in terms of 'would X have scored Y goal'. Concluded most likely that the latter would be at least on a similar sort of goal return, had he been here since the start instead.

    In terms of Hwang, I don't think Idah would have found the net as much with the exact same chances. Neither SvH, perhaps an argument for Sunderland A. Personally I think Hwang is clear of both, however, one should probably expect that from a 30+ international striker

    • Like 2

  11. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

    Real people that come on a rivals board when and only when they feel in the ascendancy. As a result we don’t see anything of them for years 

    In fairness, they've always been the loud ones. I've heard barely a peep from Ipswich supporting people in my circle since the derby until Plymouth beat Leicester and the 'Green Army!' gifs came flooding in 

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    On 11/04/2024 at 13:10, hogesar said:

    I dont think I'm even advocating any more of a risk than we already took with SvH anyway. 

    Like Farke, we know how Webber is re fitness of players and understanding the system before integrating them. Frustrating for fans but Knapper surely knew this - so why sign someone who's so short of match fitness?

    Baring in mind Hwang was signed as a specific profile of a pressing striker (quality aside at this point) it makes me hugely doubt that SVH is the sort of profile player that Wagner would be that interested in even if he was match fit.

    Baring in mind it's January, mid season, and we are a few points from play offs at this point with injured players returning - why didn't we say to Idah sorry you're not going, you only recently signed a 5 year deal and you're scoring goals and getting decent minutes- Hwang is gone and we need to ease Sarge in so you'll get time then you can reevaluate in summer? 

    But even if we take it that we absolutely had no choice but to loan out Idah then signing anyone who's not fit or matching profile just feels like such a waste. In terms of risk I see plenty of risk loaning in SVH with no reward.

    I was more than happy with the Gianoullis loan in January that season, for example.

    Speaking cynically, I think Knapper saw an opportunity to add some value onto Idah for a summer sale. I don't think the player much wants to be at Norwich and we're having to be 'creative' (to use a Webberism) to generate funds for what is likely a large-scale rebuild in summer.

    The SvH situation has me stumped though. I thought maybe he was a Hernandez-style signing, brought in 6 months early as we had an opportunity and he'd be settled by pre-season. But can he really be so bad currently that Wagner won't even risk half an hour at 2-0 up? Or Aboh, who though young, is probably a better fit for Sargents profile than putting Barnes up front for sufferball.

    The selection will be awfully telling today. FWIW I think it'll be Barnes and Sara in the forward positions.

  16. Posted

    I wasn't a fan of Hanley when he first came in, and I've always thought his injury in Farkes second season was pivotal in getting ball-players in the CB slots to help us play. An expensive blocker who happened to be captain.

    However, as time has gone on, I've been able to see his value. He's even improved his ability on the ball- not to a high standard but way above the level he joined- and could probably have left to sit on a PL bench a few years ago. 

    When he got injured I said I didn't think he'd play any serious football for us again, given the nature of the injury and his age. I think that still holds- I think he will end up at a Hearts/ Hibs level team and see out the last few years of playing. Fact of the matter is he's probably 4th choice already and that won't improve unless the squad gets worse.

    A real shame but a great servant 👏

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    1 hour ago, king canary said:

    It's a huge concern that Wagner seems to have faith in about 14 players in the entire squad.

    Interesting line from Connor's post-match- admittedly I'd only just clicked on so not sure on context, but he was saying how Wagner didn't want Forshaw or Placheta to leave and those were very much Knapper decisions.

    Certainly, it seems to be implied that Wagner doesn't trust the youth brigade or SvH enough at the moment, but I think it's a bit of a reach to be suggesting that Placheta would have been a genuine option instead. Much less Adam Forshaw who was only matchday fit every 20 games.

    I can't believe they're all of such poor calibre that there's no point even trying them.

     

  18. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

    Well it couldn't have been 5,1 as they scored twice. So we sit back , soak it up and catch them on the break? It hasn't worked all season. We can't defend. 

    I think we're generally average at defending. What we aren't OK with is defending for 30-40 minutes, but there aren't many teams who are. The best defenders around will concede under near constant pressure.

    It's been a continuing habit in our away games to sit off and let teams get momentum though. Wednesday looked a level below and were booed off at half time by their home fans- with a 2-goal cushion I don't believe it's unfair to expect us to be able to handle that situation better.

    • Like 2

  19. Posted

    I can't agree. If I had ignored the game and looked at the scores on Teletext, objectively, I'd probably have said 'that's why teams in relegation battles can be tough, these games happen, gee whiz'.

    Subjectively we've surrendered 2 goals and 2 points to a team likely to be relegated who we were battering. Made enough clear-cut chances to win two games.

    Massive fumble IMO

    • Like 2

  20. Posted

    Just now, By Hook or Ian crook said:

    I don’t dispute Barnes not being as mobile as Sarg but what he is effective at is supporting and holding up play for another striker. I like Gibbs but swapping a striker for a midfielder will always be negative in my view. 

    He's also very good at dropping deep and giving an option, which creates passing angles in our forward play. Unfortunately when he plays as a single striker it means CBs can push up as faaaaar as they want, he isn't running in behind and will usually be up against 2 CBs.

    We should have dropped Aboh in for Sargent to keep the pace element of the forwards, leave Barnes where he was. Even if all the lad did was run around and hassle. And at this point, despite having tried to give as much benefit of the doubt to the SvH transfer as possible, I have to wonder what the point is. Surely he can't be so bad that he isn't considered worth a go at 2-0 up??

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    For a long time I thought the message was 'Barnes elevates Sargent' but I've come to see it's the other way around. Barnes needs Sarge in order to be effective, whenever the former is playing up front alone we just get shut down.

    We should have won the game under our own initiative with the chances we made; we don't have a very deep squad so I get that it's difficult. Even seeing the first sub instantly get injured, horrible turn of luck. However this is a very familiar away game pattern which can't just be unlucky again and again. The two headers were practically on the same spot too.

    Result has really **** on my sandcastle tbh.

     

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...