Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, king canary said:

Disagree that it isn't a big deal. Hayden is coming into a new team, needing to learn our tactics, way of playing and build familiarity with his teammates. Add to this that he's not played a first team game since December last year and even if he's 'fit' by the end of August, he's going to be very far behind on fitness. Missing a preseason can have a sizable knock on affect.

according to most on here we don't have any tactics or way of playing, so he's not at a huge disadvantage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Well no, you need 2 players who out and out DMs plus a player who can fill in. 

I agree with this but that is 3.    In the absense of any confidence in playing Sorensen (for whatever reason), I think he's done OK so far.     The CDM is more about athleticism, pace, power, anticipation traits (aware you know that) and in the past 4 seasons, we've not had anyone who has those skills except Skipp who we developed for Spurs and who left a huge void we couldn't fill.   

But the fact is a CDM gives insurance to full-backs to get forward, screens the defence and makes us tighter plus breaks up opponents play.  Even the 3rd option, the development lad might do that 'stopper' job better than what we have otherwise, if we need to cover that role.  With our record its not beyond possibility that two get crocked.    Hayden is already crocked.   They re invaluable and my point is if we only have one, we are scuppered when that player gets injured or goes back to his parent club.    If we have two, there's cover and competition and if we have someone either who can play that position or who is in the u23s developing and we can call on and that hopefully can step up in time, that's what we need to look to have.    But we should look to have at least 3 available for a season.   Fact is we aren't even addressing it with Hayden unless he gets fit, proves himself and we get promoted.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only positive thing to come out of this is that at least we can send him back.

While not panicking can't we just accept this is not good. And not good means bad. We will be starting the season without a player who many saw as a good signing, an improvement on what we had.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We signed him knowing full well he had a knee injury. There can be no doubt that the club knew this was in the offing. It's blindingly obvious that the club has purchased him in the knowledge that he's going to need a lot of  physio work before he will play for us so I don't understand why anybody should be remotely worried that he won't be there at the start of the season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

I agree with this but that is 3.    In the absense of any confidence in playing Sorensen (for whatever reason), I think he's done OK so far.     The CDM is more about athleticism, pace, power, anticipation traits (aware you know that) and in the past 4 seasons, we've not had anyone who has those skills except Skipp who we developed for Spurs and who left a huge void we couldn't fill.   

But the fact is a CDM gives insurance to full-backs to get forward, screens the defence and makes us tighter plus breaks up opponents play.  Even the 3rd option, the development lad might do that 'stopper' job better than what we have otherwise, if we need to cover that role.  With our record its not beyond possibility that two get crocked.    Hayden is already crocked.   They re invaluable and my point is if we only have one, we are scuppered when that player gets injured or goes back to his parent club.    If we have two, there's cover and competition and if we have someone either who can play that position or who is in the u23s developing and we can call on and that hopefully can step up in time, that's what we need to look to have.    But we should look to have at least 3 available for a season.   Fact is we aren't even addressing it with Hayden unless he gets fit, proves himself and we get promoted.   

Fair enough if you are including Sorenson, I thought you were arguing for two more! My misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

We signed him knowing full well he had a knee injury. There can be no doubt that the club knew this was in the offing. It's blindingly obvious that the club has purchased him in the knowledge that he's going to need a lot of  physio work before he will play for us so I don't understand why anybody should be remotely worried that he won't be there at the start of the season. 

Really? You don't understand why anybody would be concerned that the glaring hole that has been the defensive midfield position, looks likely to remain unaddressed going into the season?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

some board members were playing it down little risk saying trust the doctors etc 

But this is just part of the treatment for a pre-existing condition.  If he was out for 3 months, or the season, I get it.

I appreciate that it's posters who've got you worked up, but it read like you were unfairly dismissing our own staff so apologies if you weren't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Indy said:

The same argument was made when we signed Jarvis! They were right then! I’m not defending their view as given more that the opinion is as valid as he may return to full fitness, he might not! Some work out others don’t, but he’s not our player and if he’s crocked permanently I hope we can ship him back to Newcastle without having to cover his wages.

And as ZLF has said, they were wrong with Krul and Pilkington. Yes, he *might* never play for us, but to complain that signing him is a stupid mistake is just pant wetting. As with ALL our signings, there’s an element of risk and we would have weighed up the risk after a professional evaluation and decided it was worth it. Show me a club that hasn’t made a bad decision signing a player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

And as ZLF has said, they were wrong with Krul and Pilkington. Yes, he *might* never play for us, but to complain that signing him is a stupid mistake is just pant wetting. As with ALL our signings, there’s an element of risk and we would have weighed up the risk after a professional evaluation and decided it was worth it. Show me a club that hasn’t made a bad decision signing a player. 

I’m in agreement with you….just saying that neither view is finite but just an observation with guess work…..only time will tell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, king canary said:

Really? You don't understand why anybody would be concerned that the glaring hole that has been the defensive midfield position, looks likely to remain unaddressed going into the season?

I don't know for sure but I imagine @littleyellowbirdie meant more that the club probably had a rough idea there was a chance Hayden would take some time to build up - albeit not with a knee operation of course - and that the squad can probably cope for a bit without him. Of course, if it keeps him out for 6 months then we've got a genuine problem and I assume we're probably looking into the likelihood, based on medical advice, of that happening and then deciding what our options are...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, king canary said:

Really? You don't understand why anybody would be concerned that the glaring hole that has been the defensive midfield position, looks likely to remain unaddressed going into the season?

Don't worry, Sorensen is still the answer. Well, either him or McLean 😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

The only positive thing to come out of this is that at least we can send him back.

While not panicking can't we just accept this is not good. And not good means bad. We will be starting the season without a player who many saw as a good signing, an improvement on what we had.

Not sure we can send him back, probably got him for the entire season 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In his review of the Kings Lynn game, Michael Bailey tentatively suggests that Hayden may be out for at least the first five or ten games. He's usually in the know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

In his review of the Kings Lynn game, Michael Bailey tentatively suggests that Hayden may be out for at least the first five or ten games. He's usually in the know.

The question is how long he takes to get to match sharpness after those 5-10 games. 

Having not played a competitive game since December 2021 you wouldn't expect him to just slot back in seamlessly. So he might be fit after 7 or 8 games but he might not be really match fit for another 3 or 4 weeks.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

The question is how long he takes to get to match sharpness after those 5-10 games. 

Having not played a competitive game since December 2021 you wouldn't expect him to just slot back in seamlessly. So he might be fit after 7 or 8 games but he might not be really match fit for another 3 or 4 weeks.

 

We're going to go into the new season with a squad which is much worse than the one we had two years ago (no Emi or Skipp) and it's possible that our two new saviour signings might not be playing for the first ten games.

This isn't an attack on the recruitment. A club like ours has to take risks. But it's looking a bit concerning.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nora's Ghost said:

Clubs must rub their hands with glee when they see City come knocking.

 

 

 

 

Binner 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, king canary said:

Really? You don't understand why anybody would be concerned that the glaring hole that has been the defensive midfield position, looks likely to remain unaddressed going into the season?

A glaring hole at premier League level doesn't equate to a glaring hole at Championship level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he is back after 5-10 games then he still has a potentially pivotal role to play with 35+ games and 100+ points to have an influence on. Not ideal but let’s not get too defeatist 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

And as ZLF has said, they were wrong with Krul and Pilkington. Yes, he *might* never play for us, but to complain that signing him is a stupid mistake is just pant wetting. As with ALL our signings, there’s an element of risk and we would have weighed up the risk after a professional evaluation and decided it was worth it. Show me a club that hasn’t made a bad decision signing a player. 

It's not pant wetting, it's suggesting there's just far too many red flags here and that just maybe it's a risk not worth taking. 

Hayden might work out, he might not just like any signing may or may not but this just feels bad. 

I'm not pant wetting in the slightest, if we keep him fair enough, I'm just saying it's not a chance I'd be taking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

It's not pant wetting, it's suggesting there's just far too many red flags here and that just maybe it's a risk not worth taking. 

Hayden might work out, he might not just like any signing may or may not but this just feels bad. 

I'm not pant wetting in the slightest, if we keep him fair enough, I'm just saying it's not a chance I'd be taking. 

But that’s why we have medical staff. Assuming they’re not incompetent (and if they were, you’d think it would become clear fairly quickly) they carried out a medical and would have told Webber or whoever that in their expert opinion, there was a certain percentage chance of his injury being severe. That would be balanced against his value to us as a player, what we could do with the money if we didn’t loan him (in other words how likely we would be to find another CDM as good or better that we could afford) and how long it would be likely to take him to get up to speed once he’s fit. You say you wouldn’t have taken the chance on him, but you don’t know any of those factors to be able to judge. It comes down to “feeling bad”. Not a rational grounds for a decision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but i've lost patience with this now. This is a huge error by someone at the club. He wasn't even fit enough to train when he arrived with us in June/July. He was clearly injured. How doid he pass a fitness test and why are we relying on this player to fill what was the "key" role we needed to recruit for this summer. Its not good enough. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, king canary said:

So another Hayden setback mentioned by Smith today. Odds on him ever playing for us?

Not a good sign that I saw him running a few weeks ago and he's now had to go back to Newcastle. It's looking increasingly likely the loan is cancelled in January, if that's an option.

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

Sorry but i've lost patience with this now. This is a huge error by someone at the club. He wasn't even fit enough to train when he arrived with us in June/July. He was clearly injured. How doid he pass a fitness test and why are we relying on this player to fill what was the "key" role we needed to recruit for this summer. Its not good enough. 

I don't think the club will be hugely concerned about your lost patience. 

At least we didn't sign him permanently 😄

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Sorry but i've lost patience with this now. This is a huge error by someone at the club. He wasn't even fit enough to train when he arrived with us in June/July. He was clearly injured. How doid he pass a fitness test and why are we relying on this player to fill what was the "key" role we needed to recruit for this summer. Its not good enough. 

Agree, Send him back, demand a refund. Get someone fit in January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Not a good sign that I saw him running a few weeks ago and he's now had to go back to Newcastle. It's looking increasingly likely the loan is cancelled in January, if that's an option.

I don't think the club will be hugely concerned about your lost patience. 

At least we didn't sign him permanently 😄

 

It would be different if we'd signed someone else for the role plus Hayden on whom we were taking a bit of a punt. But we didn't. We have relied on him getting fit. And you can see it every time an opposition team runs 40 yards uncontested at our centre backs. Fortunately most are not good enough to take advantage of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It would be different if we'd signed someone else for the role plus Hayden on whom we were taking a bit of a punt. But we didn't. We have relied on him getting fit. And you can see it every time an opposition team runs 40 yards uncontested at our centre backs. Fortunately most are not good enough to take advantage of it. 

Maybe we rated Gibbs as the 'someone else' ?

I don't know that to be the case, obviously. Just speculating

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

×
×
  • Create New...