Quote from: sirlordbaltimore on June 19, 2018, 08:01:56 PMQuote from: john e on June 19, 2018, 06:21:13 PMcant speak for others but iv'e never criticized Bruce for not playing him morei have criticized Bruce for his midfield buys of Barney, Hourihane, Whelan and Lansbury who for me are probably the worst collection of midfield buys i can remember, costing fortunes in wages with virtually no money back Easily Championship level players though, as is Jedinak. I'd argue Hourianne has more then proved his worth. I also think Whelan gets a lot of undue flak for being the steady eddie keep it simple player he is. He was never going to come in and turn into Cowans. I bet the four of them cost less than 6/7m combined, and that's about all they're worthWhoever sanctioned their wages (i say that, we have no idea what their wages actually are other than pure speculation) should be asked some strong questions though for surewell i'm glad your happy with them because that's the midfield Bruce has built for next season so we should be all setthey might not have cost the earth to buy but i bet they are on the highest wages in the whole of the championship for a midfield quartet
Quote from: john e on June 19, 2018, 06:21:13 PMcant speak for others but iv'e never criticized Bruce for not playing him morei have criticized Bruce for his midfield buys of Barney, Hourihane, Whelan and Lansbury who for me are probably the worst collection of midfield buys i can remember, costing fortunes in wages with virtually no money back Easily Championship level players though, as is Jedinak. I'd argue Hourianne has more then proved his worth. I also think Whelan gets a lot of undue flak for being the steady eddie keep it simple player he is. He was never going to come in and turn into Cowans. I bet the four of them cost less than 6/7m combined, and that's about all they're worthWhoever sanctioned their wages (i say that, we have no idea what their wages actually are other than pure speculation) should be asked some strong questions though for sure
cant speak for others but iv'e never criticized Bruce for not playing him morei have criticized Bruce for his midfield buys of Barney, Hourihane, Whelan and Lansbury who for me are probably the worst collection of midfield buys i can remember, costing fortunes in wages with virtually no money back
He didn’t play more often because some of his performances were direpeople on here questioning whether he was an actual footballer at timesyes he had his moments, they all did in that central midfield area but all to few and none were consistent enough
Whelan wasn't needed though as we had Jedi, BB and got Onomah on loan, though he was never played in his preferred sitting position. I know he was cheap but the money spent on his wages should have been used elsewhere, now we have a player on high wages who no-one else will want.
Quote from: garyshawsknee on June 20, 2018, 10:57:55 AMWhelan wasn't needed though as we had Jedi, BB and got Onomah on loan, though he was never played in his preferred sitting position. I know he was cheap but the money spent on his wages should have been used elsewhere, now we have a player on high wages who no-one else will want. We signed Whelan as Jedinak missed periods the previous season injured (and he also missed start of last season). Think there was also big talk at the time we would play 3-5-2 and it would be him, Chester and Terry as back 3.Of course Jedinak hardly misses a game from returning in September so suddenly Whelan looks a very expensive sub. Still hoping Boro will come in for him.
I'm not sure that there were many criticising those buys when they were made.
Lansbury had scored 6 in 19 at the time we signed him. He was a former Arsenal player, playing a division down but had been a good creative player scoring and creating chances, which is what many wanted us to go for.Whelan was slow, but given Jedinak had time out due to age and injury, and the number of games we were faced with, it seemed sensible if unimaginative.
Quote from: Drummond on June 20, 2018, 01:28:54 PMLansbury had scored 6 in 19 at the time we signed him. He was a former Arsenal player, playing a division down but had been a good creative player scoring and creating chances, which is what many wanted us to go for.Whelan was slow, but given Jedinak had time out due to age and injury, and the number of games we were faced with, it seemed sensible if unimaginative. That's all true about Lansbury, but it's irrelevant to what you asked because you said you didn't think there were many criticising those buys at the time and I just pointed out that I was against both of them from the first link because they weren't what we needed either in terms of numbers or quality.
Quote from: paul_e on June 20, 2018, 01:35:44 PMQuote from: Drummond on June 20, 2018, 01:28:54 PMLansbury had scored 6 in 19 at the time we signed him. He was a former Arsenal player, playing a division down but had been a good creative player scoring and creating chances, which is what many wanted us to go for.Whelan was slow, but given Jedinak had time out due to age and injury, and the number of games we were faced with, it seemed sensible if unimaginative. That's all true about Lansbury, but it's irrelevant to what you asked because you said you didn't think there were many criticising those buys at the time and I just pointed out that I was against both of them from the first link because they weren't what we needed either in terms of numbers or quality.Very true Paul, very true. I'm not sure why I posted it, such was it's irrelevance.Good on you for calling it though, you were right.
Quote from: Drummond on June 20, 2018, 01:51:06 PMQuote from: paul_e on June 20, 2018, 01:35:44 PMQuote from: Drummond on June 20, 2018, 01:28:54 PMLansbury had scored 6 in 19 at the time we signed him. He was a former Arsenal player, playing a division down but had been a good creative player scoring and creating chances, which is what many wanted us to go for.Whelan was slow, but given Jedinak had time out due to age and injury, and the number of games we were faced with, it seemed sensible if unimaginative. That's all true about Lansbury, but it's irrelevant to what you asked because you said you didn't think there were many criticising those buys at the time and I just pointed out that I was against both of them from the first link because they weren't what we needed either in terms of numbers or quality.Very true Paul, very true. I'm not sure why I posted it, such was it's irrelevance.Good on you for calling it though, you were right.So rather than being patronising why don't you explain how those stats show that Lansbury turned out to be a great signing for us and I was wrong to not want him.