The very best posts from KUMB over the years ...
- Posts: 29198
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:54 pm
- Location: Marking Us With The Sight Of What We Might Have Known
No was my vote.
Carroll took too much of a chunk out of our budget, when it was obvious that he would need competition in the striking stakes. I appreciate that Nolan chips in with goals, but, when you take him and Carroll out of the equation, I think we will struggle to net enough this season.
I also don't have any confidence in AC's record regarding injuries and return to fitness, when we have practically built the team around him.
Midfield could have been freshened up. I like Noble and Diame, but there are issues with how they play together in the middle of the park. Some teams seem to have sussed them out - both seemed powerless to prevent Nzonzi dominating midfield last weekend and we have no-one really on the bench who imo could come on as a sub and put some more bite into a midfield battle.
We did well to sign Rat, but he's not a long-term option.
We have only 3 specialist CB's with any kind of Prem experience.
Turns to Stone
- Posts: 9484
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
- Location: Tony Almeida
Turns to Stone wrote:The squad has improved. The issue is that I think many of us hoped that it would improve a little more.
upton o'good wrote:
And that is precisely the problem. They do know to expect a lot of long ball hoofing / getting the ball down the wings and hung up for the big striker in the middle... even when the big striker isn't actually playing.
As I've said on literally thousands of occasions. I don't think this is how we play. I think it's how we play when we're playing badly. We resort to this, but generally we play some nice stuff. The Cardiff game, the interchanges were a delight, Nolan's second goal game from a passing move that started in our own half and resulted in a 16 pass-move ending with the ball being passed into the back of the net.
Stoke we were poor, the players didn't look up for the game, the midfielders didn't come and get the ball from Collins or Demel as they had been doping previously, so Collins resorted to form and kept launching aimless balls forward.
We played badly. It doesn't define us though.
- Posts: 11438
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
- Location: Enfield, In the grim parts of North London
No. As much as i like Carroll lets be honest, we've signed a injury prone striker for six years on 100k a week. We spent so much money on him that we couldn't secure a suitable backup striker to cover for his lengthy spells out leaving us pretty toothless up front. I'll reserve judgment on the rest of the signings untill january.
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:00 am
Now with the beauty of a bit of hindsight who would change their vote...?
- Posts: 9589
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:27 pm
- Location: Long Live the Boleyn
Not a criticism, well perhaps a constructive one...I would have chosen an option of "partly" pleased if available, as I think it's not a black and white question.
That was my post from earlier in the thread.
I was pleased with what we did, but didn't think we'd done enough.
- Posts: 8966
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: Somewhere south of sanity
Hampshire Hammer wrote:TBH I had to sit on the fence with undecided, I'm very pleased with those we did sign but a bit disappointed that we failed to recruit another goalscorer. Everybody, including the manager and owners, identified the issue of not scoring enough goals and that we created chances but didn't convert them; which suggests that we needed to find someone who could convert more of those chances.
Only time will tell how much of an issue it will be.
I may have said this once or twice
At the moment I'd probably be sliding from "undecided" to "no" with hindsight.
- Posts: 2281
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:28 pm
- Location: The Beast from the East is Rising
Metal Hammer wrote:I voted neither - I was please with how we started out but the way we were left grubbing around looking for some bargains on the last day was disappointing.
Still think this.
- Posts: 22505
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:28 am
- Location: East, East, East London
Sorry...I had to say no...flame me!
And to be honest, when the Chairmen and Manager have both said that they needed depth up front as their priority then they will probably agree too.
Carroll just seems to be one of those players who put themselves about and as a result will get whacked about constantly....especially as he will have two CB's on him.
He's been injured since May, has had no pre-season and we are relying on him coming in and being match fit and hoping that he doesn't get a recurrence or another injury.
His back up is a player that we shelled out £5 million on last year and almost immediately it was clear that the manager didn't fancy him, hardly played him and we supposedly spent all summer trying to sell.
Who knows, we might be fine and Andy will have 10 goals by Xmas and I'll eat humble pie. I just remember 2003 where everyone was worried about relying on 2 injury prone strikers and a rookie and lo and behold.
I wish I'd kept my gob shut now......