He still could have stayed at the club. He didn't have to leave. Did the manager force him out and tell him he had no future because of his style? If he did I stand corrected. And if he looked an England regular why did he end up at Bolton valued at around £5m and not a club of greater significance? Because future England regulars costing £5m don't come around every day. You'd think they'd be lined up around Villa Park to sign him.
Quote from: Toronto Villa on June 22, 2015, 05:58:54 PMHe still could have stayed at the club. He didn't have to leave. Did the manager force him out and tell him he had no future because of his style? If he did I stand corrected. And if he looked an England regular why did he end up at Bolton valued at around £5m and not a club of greater significance? Because future England regulars costing £5m don't come around every day. You'd think they'd be lined up around Villa Park to sign him.O'Neill clearly preferred the "stick it in row z" centre back to the "play your way out of defence" style.The reason he only went for 5m is that at that time he wasn't an England regular, he was a promising young defender. Dave is right, when we let him leave, almost everyone on here was disappointed to say the least, and it was indeed back at the time when we all thought MON was the messiah.The "he didn't want to stick around and fight for his place" argument is way too easy. How about the manager realising he was amongst the best defenders at the club and encouraging him to do so? Or actually playing him?I certainly find it very hard to imagine a set of circumstances under which Zat Knight is a better option than Gary Cahill was.
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on June 22, 2015, 07:57:29 PMQuote from: Toronto Villa on June 22, 2015, 05:58:54 PMHe still could have stayed at the club. He didn't have to leave. Did the manager force him out and tell him he had no future because of his style? If he did I stand corrected. And if he looked an England regular why did he end up at Bolton valued at around £5m and not a club of greater significance? Because future England regulars costing £5m don't come around every day. You'd think they'd be lined up around Villa Park to sign him.O'Neill clearly preferred the "stick it in row z" centre back to the "play your way out of defence" style.The reason he only went for 5m is that at that time he wasn't an England regular, he was a promising young defender. Dave is right, when we let him leave, almost everyone on here was disappointed to say the least, and it was indeed back at the time when we all thought MON was the messiah.The "he didn't want to stick around and fight for his place" argument is way too easy. How about the manager realising he was amongst the best defenders at the club and encouraging him to do so? Or actually playing him?I certainly find it very hard to imagine a set of circumstances under which Zat Knight is a better option than Gary Cahill was.If you're playing top trumps and go for the tallest player?
Anyway, Lowts has gone. Good luck to him.
Quote from: Duncan Shaw on June 22, 2015, 08:26:39 PMAnyway, Lowts has gone. Good luck to him.AgreedAt times looked quite good, at times a liability.Not quite good enough at this level, but gave it a good shot. - Especially at Stoke!
One thing I do like so far is Sherwood throwing out the garbage that has been stinking out the club for a while now. They guys who have gone and are going are really poor players in my opinion, the kind of players you see in relegation fights and at relegated clubs.