Baldyboy 0 Posted September 15, 2017 Did we really need to sign him? Before people say it''s a dig at the club, it''s not at all.With Klose coming back in and looking assured and helping keep two clean sheets on bounce, and Hanley playing barely a minute, did we really need to sign him or does it show Webber actually panicked when deciding to buy him? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,520 Posted September 15, 2017 [quote user="Baldyboy"]Did we really need to sign him? Before people say it''s a dig at the club, it''s not at all.With Klose coming back in and looking assured and helping keep two clean sheets on bounce, and Hanley playing barely a minute, did we really need to sign him or does it show Webber actually panicked when deciding to buy him?[/quote]Without Hanley, it would only take one injury/suspension to one of the defenders to make our back line look inexperienced and vulnerable. He will be needed sooner or later. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted September 15, 2017 [quote user="Baldyboy"]Did we really need to sign him? Before people say it''s a dig at the club, it''s not at all.With Klose coming back in and looking assured and helping keep two clean sheets on bounce, and Hanley playing barely a minute, did we really need to sign him or does it show Webber actually panicked when deciding to buy him?[/quote]The story I read was that we had been tracking him for a long time but he had been overpriced. When his price dropped we moved in. Bearing in mind our recent defensive performances, it surely was an astute signing. He may not play at the moment but he definitely will as tiredness, injuries and suspensions occur throughout the long season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldyboy 0 Posted September 15, 2017 LDC, understand your point but we also spent 3.5 mil on Franke and dare I say it have Martin to come in.Just think with being told money is tight was Hanley really needed after signing Franke, I understand he was being tracked in the Summer but why sign Franke and Hanley? ( I would rather have Hanley out of the two but no need for both!) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Feedthewolf 4,790 Posted September 15, 2017 He''s a good British player, at the right age, with loads of experience and captaincy qualities (Blackburn''s captain at 22, I believe). Klose may be on his way in January or June, Martin is past his best, Zimmermann and Franke look okay but a lot will depend on how they – and Farke – settle. This, alongside Raggett, is a very sensible signing, especially if we want to have three at the back as part of our arsenal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woodman 92 Posted September 15, 2017 I agree. Its no coincidence that Raggett''s loanback to Lincoln is up in January, and not for a full season. That suggests to me that Klose might be on his way then if we need to cash in on him.As for Hanley, I''m sure he''ll play on Tuesday v Brentford in the cup game if he doesn''t play tomorrow. Or he could line up with Klose and Zimmerman in a 3-5-2. I''m sure he''ll get plenty of games for us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted September 15, 2017 I think Klose will stay unless Norwich are keen to sell. He must feel very at home at this moment due to having many fellow german speakers in the squad, as well as the manager, which in the recent past was not the case, and may also find himself promoted to captain. If we have a good run then Premiership football is still on the cards, which would also be favourable to him staying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0 Posted September 15, 2017 Hanley and Raggett should form a very good partnership at this level.If Klose shows good form till January, I expect decent interest. and he could leave. Franke was a bad signing IMO. I''d rather have paid a million or two extra for Hanley and Raggett and got them in at the start of preseason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woodman 92 Posted September 15, 2017 Why spend more money (that we don''t have) when we''ve ended up with both players?Lincoln would only sell Raggett to us on the basis that we loaned him back to them.Klose as captain sounds good. I was slightly surprised that Pinto was chosen, has never struck me as a vocal leader on the pitch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AJ 1,218 Posted September 15, 2017 Look at the goals we were conceding freely before Klose''s return. A backline of Klose + Hanley looks much better on paper than Zimmermann and Franke. Hanley is a good signing, we need some leaders in the squad and I''ve no doubt he has the potential to become one.Also, will be needed if we do play 3 at the back at times this season Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted September 15, 2017 3 million for Franke? we might as well have just paid dijks what he wanted instead and gone with Zimmerman and Martin to partner Klose until we got Hanley. Hindsight I guess, Franke was probs expected to come in and be good right away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
If wed only kept Howie.. 3 Posted September 15, 2017 no Baldyboy, you are right - we only need 11 players. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 15, 2017 Surely Hanley was told he would play. He might as well stayed with Newcastle if he isn''t playing.Having seen Tuesday''s inadequate performance, I am hoping that we will go three at the back and dispense with two protecting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woodman 92 Posted September 15, 2017 For sure he probably expected to be thrown straight in, but the facts are that we''ve had 2 clean sheets since we signed him.The Brentford game is an ideal game to play him, unless we go with 3 CBs tomorrow, which I doubt we will. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites