collapse collapse

Please donate to help keep this site going.

The Fanzine

Heroes & Villains Fanzine

Get your fix of all things Claret & Blue by subscribing to the online version!

* H&V Best Of

Follow us on...

Author Topic: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)  (Read 38204 times)

Offline dave.woodhall

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 52141
  • Location: Treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry.
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #720 on: February 16, 2020, 11:05:17 PM »
Fully understood though the Cascarino deal was a coin toss.  The point I am trying to make is that we do not know if Dean Smith has anything like the player acquisition authority that was enjoyed by Sir Graham, Sir Brian or Sir Ron. Has the placing of player buying in hands other than the team manager improved player quality consistency?  Cooks and broth.

I don't think many managers have these days. Football's a different world.

Offline ROBBO

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6286
  • Location: MELBOURNE
  • GM : 31.12.2020
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #721 on: February 16, 2020, 11:35:24 PM »
Drinkwater has slowed an already pedestrian midfield I wonder whether Smith has total control over team selection seeing that he doesn't seem to see what the rest of us see. I don't know whether Drinkwater is finished in the top division I would have to see him after a big pre season but he shouldn't be in a side that is fighting relegation.

Offline robbo1874

  • Member
  • Posts: 2546
  • Location: Bris-vegas
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #722 on: February 17, 2020, 08:05:32 AM »
I thought he was alright v Spurs. At least better than Iíve seen him previously for us- he does look to be improving. Blowing out his arse though when he got the hook, as BFR would say.

Online Monty

  • Member
  • Posts: 17505
  • Location: El Alamein.
  • GM : 26.08.2019
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #723 on: February 17, 2020, 08:10:56 AM »
He started pretty badly, then had a spell in the first half where he looked decent, anticipating their attempts to counter, mopping up and helping us maintain the pressure. He faded badly again after that though, and in general looked clumsy, like his feet weren't quite obeying him.

Offline Demitri_C

  • Member
  • Posts: 843
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #724 on: February 17, 2020, 08:13:35 AM »
b
Fully understood though the Cascarino deal was a coin toss.  The point I am trying to make is that we do not know if Dean Smith has anything like the player acquisition authority that was enjoyed by Sir Graham, Sir Brian or Sir Ron. Has the placing of player buying in hands other than the team manager improved player quality consistency?  Cooks and broth.

Smith doesnít look like the kind of manager who would tolerate players being signed without his consent.

Smith/purslow/Suso record£ is quite poor when you dissect it

Wesley 22m
Jota 4m
Engels 8m
Trez 12m
Kalinic 7m
Hause 2m

I think nakambaa d luiz have been good buys. Samatta too early. Mings and konsa both good I think as were Heaton and Reina.

I donít think el ghazi is good enough but I can see why we signed him.


Of the 18 players we've signed under the new set-up, you've only listed 6 buys you think are poor, one of whom was allegedly agreed before Smith took over.

Without getting into the ones I disagree with, I don't think that qualifies as 'quite poor' - I'd say 1 in every 3 signings not coming off would be more or less standard for most managers or dofs. Look at some of the duds Ferguson and Wenger signed over the years - for every Ronaldo there was a Kleberson.

For me, the main failing was that one of those midfield signings needed to be a defensive midfielder.

I think the only signings that can be truly agreed as a complete waste so far are Jota, Kalinic and Drinkwater; there are a lot who have shown potential in flashes but not been consistent enough and as such would be in the 'time will tell' category.

You've also missed out Guilbert, who if you are saying Nakamba and Luiz are good buys, has performed far more consistently than either of them and at £4.3m according to the internet, was a fantastic bit of business.

Guilbert and targett i think have been good buys. The ones i have highlighted above i think have been poor buys. Drinkwater again i agree with you but i dont really want to mention him because he was always going to be a disaster signing. Not sure ehat the helm smith was thinking with this signing.

I think trez has been a very signing tbh. Adds very little to games and his decisoon making 8 times out of 10 is  very poor. Seems to only do well as a sub.when he starts he is generally crap. Samatta looks alot better than wesley and was half of the fee.

Jota was peanuts so cant classify him as a huge flop but i think players like hause el ghazi are not good enough for pp level. Could probably do a job as squad players but of you want tp push on in pl they are not good enough.

But it is what it is . I think if we do go down if we keep the likes of guilbert targett konsa and possibly engels (i think he would be good in chamoionship) defence will be good enough.heaton and reina id keep also.

Have to acceot that its likely mcginn mings and grealish will be sold of we go down. That should raise 150m (maybe more) so ffp wont be a worry. Tye worry is replacing them three

Offline brian green

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14978
  • Age: 81
  • Location: Nice France
  • GM : 19.06.2020
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #725 on: February 17, 2020, 08:27:16 AM »
It is probably my age but I think things were less monumental error prone when transfers were handled by one person.  The nature of human intelligence dictates that one good brain works more effectively than several quite good brains combining.  Of course by "brain" and "intelligence" I include wisdom, experience, intuition and indefinable savvy but, I submit, all of those qualities function better inside one cranium.  What did Sir Graham first see in the lad on the beach in the Caribbean playing keepie uppie with a plastic ball?  Probably the huge smile.

Offline robbo1874

  • Member
  • Posts: 2546
  • Location: Bris-vegas
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #726 on: February 17, 2020, 08:36:44 AM »
He started pretty badly, then had a spell in the first half where he looked decent, anticipating their attempts to counter, mopping up and helping us maintain the pressure. He faded badly again after that though, and in general looked clumsy, like his feet weren't quite obeying him.
there was one occasion where we lost possession, the Spurs player took off and he just kind of gave up as he knew he had no chance of catching him

Offline aj2k77

  • Member
  • Posts: 8920
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #727 on: February 17, 2020, 09:13:18 AM »
He has been the bad joke that the majority of people thought he would be. A desperate, cheap, punt, that was unlikely to and hasn't worked.

Offline Mister E

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11674
  • Location: Mostly the Republic of Yorkshire (N)
  • GM : 10.02.2021
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #728 on: February 17, 2020, 09:15:00 AM »
He had a 30 minute period where he played well yesteday: saw the interceptions, made the early passes and saw the Samatta / AEG runs early too.
But he faded bacdly - must really have burned his body out on the lash for several months .....

Offline pauliewalnuts

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 59967
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #729 on: February 17, 2020, 09:19:42 AM »
He clearly needs a proper pre-season to get match fit.

Getting him up to fitness - or trying to - during a relegation run in is stupidity.

Offline Clark W Griswold

  • Member
  • Posts: 3197
  • Location: Wallyworld
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #730 on: February 17, 2020, 09:42:05 AM »
Fully understood though the Cascarino deal was a coin toss.

I'm not sure about that Brian, Cascarino had a good record, was the sort of number 9 we were using at that time and was supposed to be the extra bit of quality to bring us the title in the last couple of months of 89-90. I think he was bought in as an improvement on Ian Olney, who was not a bad player but you wouldn't have thought the same level as Cascarino, until we saw Cascarino play a few games that is.

As for Drinkwater, i think Risso's comments sums it up exactly for me. I didn't think he was quite as bad as many have suggested yesterday but the fact that he can stand up straight makes him better than i thought he'd be. He certainly isn't up to the physical side but he did show that he could pass the ball yesterday. I would still play Nakamba over him though, who is younger and our own player, and im still struggling to get my head around why he's even here.

Offline Demitri_C

  • Member
  • Posts: 843
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #731 on: February 17, 2020, 09:42:26 AM »
He clearly needs a proper pre-season to get match fit.

Getting him up to fitness - or trying to - during a relegation run in is stupidity.

Exactly yet smith keeps gambling by starting him. What do players like hourihane and lansbury think of this? A unfit player that isnt ours keeps getting picked ahead of them.

This is how you get dressing room unrest. Its dangerous and foolish from smith.

Offline Bren'd

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 16294
  • Location: North Birmingham Clique teritory
  • GM : 02.03.2021
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #732 on: February 17, 2020, 09:53:50 AM »
He clearly needs a proper pre-season to get match fit.

Getting him up to fitness - or trying to - during a relegation run in is stupidity.

Exactly yet smith keeps gambling by starting him. What do players like hourihane and lansbury think of this? A unfit player that isnt ours keeps getting picked ahead of them.

This is how you get dressing room unrest. Its dangerous and foolish from smith.

No it isn't.  He watches them in training and knows which of the players make up the best of the midfield.  He was okay yesterday and in my mind a better option than Hourihane or Lansbury  who go missing too often.

Offline Risso

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56207
  • Location: Northants
  • GM : 28.02.2021
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #733 on: February 17, 2020, 09:57:51 AM »
He clearly needs a proper pre-season to get match fit.

Getting him up to fitness - or trying to - during a relegation run in is stupidity.

Exactly yet smith keeps gambling by starting him. What do players like hourihane and lansbury think of this? A unfit player that isnt ours keeps getting picked ahead of them.

This is how you get dressing room unrest. Its dangerous and foolish from smith.

No it isn't.  He watches them in training and knows which of the players make up the best of the midfield.  He was okay yesterday and in my mind a better option than Hourihane or Lansbury  who go missing too often.

Jesus, if Drinkwater is the best we've got in training, then we're doomed this season.  He's so slow and unfit it's untrue.  The odd 4 yard pass of which Hourihane is just as capable in no way makes up for the fact that when running he looks like an arthritic 70 year old.  They outpaced us in midfield time and time again, so it's no surprise that they eventually won, even if it was gutting that it was in the 4th minute of injury time.

Online SheffieldVillain

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2329
  • Location: Poland
  • GM : 17.02.2021
Re: Danny Drinkwater (confirmed - on loan)
« Reply #734 on: February 17, 2020, 10:40:10 AM »
b
Fully understood though the Cascarino deal was a coin toss.  The point I am trying to make is that we do not know if Dean Smith has anything like the player acquisition authority that was enjoyed by Sir Graham, Sir Brian or Sir Ron. Has the placing of player buying in hands other than the team manager improved player quality consistency?  Cooks and broth.

Smith doesnít look like the kind of manager who would tolerate players being signed without his consent.

Smith/purslow/Suso record£ is quite poor when you dissect it

Wesley 22m
Jota 4m
Engels 8m
Trez 12m
Kalinic 7m
Hause 2m

I think nakambaa d luiz have been good buys. Samatta too early. Mings and konsa both good I think as were Heaton and Reina.

I donít think el ghazi is good enough but I can see why we signed him.


Of the 18 players we've signed under the new set-up, you've only listed 6 buys you think are poor, one of whom was allegedly agreed before Smith took over.

Without getting into the ones I disagree with, I don't think that qualifies as 'quite poor' - I'd say 1 in every 3 signings not coming off would be more or less standard for most managers or dofs. Look at some of the duds Ferguson and Wenger signed over the years - for every Ronaldo there was a Kleberson.

For me, the main failing was that one of those midfield signings needed to be a defensive midfielder.

I think the only signings that can be truly agreed as a complete waste so far are Jota, Kalinic and Drinkwater; there are a lot who have shown potential in flashes but not been consistent enough and as such would be in the 'time will tell' category.

You've also missed out Guilbert, who if you are saying Nakamba and Luiz are good buys, has performed far more consistently than either of them and at £4.3m according to the internet, was a fantastic bit of business.

Guilbert and targett i think have been good buys. The ones i have highlighted above i think have been poor buys. Drinkwater again i agree with you but i dont really want to mention him because he was always going to be a disaster signing. Not sure ehat the helm smith was thinking with this signing.

I think trez has been a very signing tbh. Adds very little to games and his decisoon making 8 times out of 10 is  very poor. Seems to only do well as a sub.when he starts he is generally crap. Samatta looks alot better than wesley and was half of the fee.

Jota was peanuts so cant classify him as a huge flop but i think players like hause el ghazi are not good enough for pp level. Could probably do a job as squad players but of you want tp push on in pl they are not good enough.

But it is what it is . I think if we do go down if we keep the likes of guilbert targett konsa and possibly engels (i think he would be good in chamoionship) defence will be good enough.heaton and reina id keep also.

Have to acceot that its likely mcginn mings and grealish will be sold of we go down. That should raise 150m (maybe more) so ffp wont be a worry. Tye worry is replacing them three


You're missing my point. You said recruitment was very poor. You then named 12 out of the 18 signings as good buys, and of the remaining six said Jota was peanuts so doesn't matter and Hause is an ok squad player. If the majority of the signings were good buys, then how is our record of signings quite poor? You can't have it both ways.

For me, the issue was more the couple of positions we didn't manage to bring in - one defensive mid rather than one of the centre mids (to be honest, I thought that was why Nakamba had been signed when he came but he clearly isn't a defensive mid) and another striker from the start to take the pressure off Wesley. That would have given us a far better first half of the season I think. The players we have signed largely are not bad players.