Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd

Neil's comments on Redmond

Recommended Posts

Here we go again.In point of fact Redmond did improve in several aspects of his game under Neil; there were plenty of comments to this effect on here if you care to go back and look for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He can try and claim the credit, but the truth was that Redmond is still the same player he was when he left us, just being utilised better by another team/manager.

That said, he still lacks an end product 75% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose you could say that in the championship an was far more attacking than Hughton was in the prem so Redmond had more of the ball but I''m not sure it''s something you can really take credit for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Barclay Tosser"]Latest interview he claims credit for improving Redmonds game and achieving him a transfer to Saints 😳[/quote]

Would agree so see absolutely nothing wrong with Alex Neil''s statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
He is correct. He played him on the correct side of the pitch which helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m not a huge Neil fan but he did improve Redmond.

His decision making improved significantly (less shots blazed miles over the bar), his final ball got better (not perfect but still improved) and his finishing was dramatically improved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we''re pretty much at the stage now where if anything good happens at our football club it''s in spite of the manager, not because of him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Neil was sacked and this was considered to be good for the club does this mean:

A) Neil would take the credit for getting the sack ?

Or

B) being sacked had nothing to do with him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="AJ"]He can try and claim the credit, but the truth was that Redmond is still the same player he was when he left us, just being utilised better by another team/manager.

That said, he still lacks an end product 75% of the time.[/quote]The question is not whether Redmond "is still the same player he was when he left us", but whether he improved as a player in the eighteen months before he left us and whether AN contributed to that improvement. IMO the answer to both is Yes! I agree with you that there doesn''t seem to have been a lot of improvement since he left. Puel has altered the cost/benefit calculation of having Redmond in the side by basically relieving him of any defensive duties, a luxury afforded by having better quality players around him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe an unpopular opinion but was it AN that made Redmond a better player or was a season in the prem under Hughton a good learning curve for him? I thought Redmond was good under both NA and AN in that championship season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He also claimed Nathan is a PL player, so I have to ask why he then spent 1/2 the season on the bench ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Baywing"]He also claimed Nathan is a PL player, so I have to ask why he then spent 1/2 the season on the bench ?[/quote]Many PL players don''t even make the bench that often. But you could also try reading Parma''s Masterclasses where the cost/benefit calculation of us having Redmond on the pitch is discussed in some detail. And finally, is there really anything wrong with AN saying nice things about a young ex-City player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...