Confort Zone

[First Jedi 0]

On the whole Hucks not being signed thing...

I''ve always thought that Hucks played best when he is outside of his comfort zone - when he first joined and had a point to prove, after Grant criticised him and gave him a kick up the bum, when Roeder not always playing him as the "first on the team sheet".

Now, I''m suggesting this is a "FACT!?!?!lolz!!!" but mearly a thought and even a hope - that Roeder hasn''t re-signed Hucks because he needs to be kept continually motivated.

The same applies to a lesser extent to all the other players, but I think Hucks *needs* this more, and obviously he is such a great player for us, that we''re all so desperate to keep him and therefore it''s rather stark in our faces.

Yeah, he''s had to earn his contract (and in turn has given us improved performances because of it), yeah, his agent talks up his player all the time, but maybe Roeder never planned on *not* re-signing him...? And we''ve had a better Hucks because of it.

Hell - had Huck been signed earlier in the season, and he''d played badly - we''d be criticising Roeder for wasting money!

Whatcha think?

[First Jedi 0]

*sigh* appologies for the poor spelling...

[Gingembre 0]

I agree, 2 managers and a player have both told me they think he''s the best loan signing possible, not so good once all signed up.Good post

[Gingembre 0]

PS, not a Hucks bash, just an observation!

[Old Boy 0]

[quote user="ob1"]

On the whole Hucks not being signed thing...

I''ve always thought that Hucks played best when he is outside of his comfort zone - when he first joined and had a point to prove, after Grant criticised him and gave him a kick up the bum, when Roeder not always playing him as the "first on the team sheet".

Now, I''m suggesting this is a "FACT!?!?!lolz!!!" but mearly a thought and even a hope - that Roeder hasn''t re-signed Hucks because he needs to be kept continually motivated.

The same applies to a lesser extent to all the other players, but I think Hucks *needs* this more, and obviously he is such a great player for us, that we''re all so desperate to keep him and therefore it''s rather stark in our faces.

Yeah, he''s had to earn his contract (and in turn has given us improved performances because of it), yeah, his agent talks up his player all the time, but maybe Roeder never planned on *not* re-signing him...? And we''ve had a better Hucks because of it.

Hell - had Huck been signed earlier in the season, and he''d played badly - we''d be criticising Roeder for wasting money!

Whatcha think?

[/quote]Poor spelling maybe, but I agree with you. Someone suggested earlier a "pay as you play" deal with bonuses, and that makes sense to me. He''s improved a lot in the last few games but he''s not the force he used to be, partly because he''s lost stamina, pace and acceleration and partly because other teams have long since worked him out. He''s made a conscious effort to get the fans onside and there was talk of him going to Palace, but if you read what Warnock said, that deal was very unlikely. In terms of his current contribution (not his talent), he''s an average Championship player, and should be offered a contract on that basis. If he tried harder, like he did when he first joined, he''d be worth what we paid him then. I still remember his first game here, when he came from bench-warming at ManCity, and ran for the whole 90 minutes: no-one could lay a glove on him that day - awesome.