|
Post by Gods on Aug 1, 2014 9:58:24 GMT
Am I the only one that thinks G-Cam played a decent part in our success last season? Nope. I thought he was good and I really don't think Bardsley is any improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 1, 2014 9:59:08 GMT
On the matter in hand I remain entirely unconvinced we should have signed Bardsley. We made our bed on the Cameron question at that point.
Regardless of whether people agree with your first sentence or not, I just can't see how anybody can argue with your second one.
|
|
|
Post by StokieAsh13 on Aug 1, 2014 9:59:53 GMT
Nope. I thought he was good and I really don't think Bardsley is an significant improvement. What do we do if Bardsley turns out to be poor or gets injured early in the season, if Geoff has gone? Slate him ? Pieters can play RB he did a good job against Schalke.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 10:00:18 GMT
Nope. I thought he was good and I really don't think Bardsley is an significant improvement. What do we do if Bardsley turns out to be poor or gets injured early in the season, if Geoff has gone? Realistically? Then i guess Marc Wilson would play Right Back, the next cab off the rank may be Andy Wilkinson or Muniesa at Left Back and Pieters on the Right which i doubt would work as Erik's quite left footed. If Shotton's still here then....well, yes. So that's the realistic answer.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2014 10:03:23 GMT
What do we do if Bardsley turns out to be poor or gets injured early in the season, if Geoff has gone? Realistically? Then i guess Marc Wilson would play Right Back, the next cab off the rank may be Andy Wilkinson or Muniesa at Left Back and Pieters on the Right which i doubt would work as Erik's quite left footed. If Shotton's still here then....well, yes. So that's the realistic answer. I didn't watch much of the game but Eric seems to have done a decent job defensively at right back against Schalke. I doubt if he contributed much in attack though on his "wrong" side. Wilson is a bit of a rarity in that he seems to play equally well in either full back position.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 1, 2014 10:04:37 GMT
What do we do if Bardsley turns out to be poor or gets injured early in the season, if Geoff has gone? Realistically? Then i guess Marc Wilson would play Right Back, the next cab off the rank may be Andy Wilkinson or Muniesa at Left Back and Pieters on the Right which i doubt would work as Erik's quite left footed. If Shotton's still here then....well, yes. So that's the realistic answer.
Indeed.
You've got to ask why we've just given Wilko a new contract?
Probably because he's prepared to be THIRD choice right back and know that his regular match day spot won't even be on the bench.
Not a spot Geoff fancies I imagine.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Aug 1, 2014 10:04:41 GMT
On the matter in hand I remain entirely unconvinced we should have signed Bardsley. We made our bed on the Cameron question at that point. Very true, Gods. The minute we signed Bardsley on a 3-yr deal on big money, Cameron's position in the squad was pretty much untenable - with Wilko already signed on for another year and content to be back-up and Wilson another candidate for game time there. Geoff doesn't seem to really be in the discussion for CB or CM - so bringing someone in as a specialist 200+ game Premier RB, clearly as prospective first-choice, sealed his fate. Hughes watched him start 37 of the 38 games at right-back, so he didn't make the decision blind and must've known it was likely to lead to his departure. He must have his reasons for rating Bardsley above him, but right now I'm unconvinced he's better defensively or going forward. But I'm not the manager!
|
|
|
Post by StokieAsh13 on Aug 1, 2014 10:10:05 GMT
Realistically? Then i guess Marc Wilson would play Right Back, the next cab off the rank may be Andy Wilkinson or Muniesa at Left Back and Pieters on the Right which i doubt would work as Erik's quite left footed. If Shotton's still here then....well, yes. So that's the realistic answer.
Indeed.
You've got to ask why we've just given Wilko a new contract?
Probably because he's prepared to be THIRD choice right back and know that his regular match day spot won't even be on the bench.
Not a spot Geoff fancies I imagine.
Id still prefer Geoff over Sidwell.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 10:15:30 GMT
We'd be mad to sell Geoff. We should be looking to move Shotton on and having Cam and Bardsley as our right back options, with Geoff offering cover elsewhere too. Wilko is nothing more than a good head to have around the place. An expensive head to have around the place, granted, but it's nothing more than that. Hughes clearly doesn't rate the lad, same for Shots too.
I see a place for both Cameron and Bardsley in the squard. Geoff won't get free reign at the RB berth like he did last year, but I can still see him getting 20+ game over the course of a Season with healthy competition now rife. It'll be a similar situation for Muniesa and Pieters too.
Hughes will be explaining to them all that they have part to play and that they will get their chances.
If Cameron isn't happy with the added competition then he might want to leave. I think his attitude so far would suggest that that wouldn't be the case though.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Aug 1, 2014 10:15:38 GMT
Not sure why people think Bardsley would be worse at RB than Cameron. It's his specialist position with years of top level experience as apposed to Cameron who doesn't know what he is. While Cameron was OK last season and he is very athletic, he had some very poor games and the manager, judging by his touchline actions, does not rate Geoff as a right back.
Bardsley will be a more consistent performer over the season in that position.
I'd keep Cameron as a player who can put pressure on several positions. Whether he would be happy with that is up to him.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Aug 1, 2014 10:18:44 GMT
Isn't that what Citeh fell foul of when they got nabbed last season? Don't know the specifics, Paul, although it obviously makes sense to put limits on sponsorships to 'cook the books', particularly when the sponsor is the owner. It's a real minefield though for the authorities - what's to stop, say, Emirates giving £100m to a third party/subsidiary who then sponsor the stadium? I dare say the bigger clubs with bigger lawyers can exploit the loopholes... I'm not too sure its anything the football authorities should be overly concerned about. My understanding of FFP is that it was introduced with the intent of ensuring football clubs are run to a financially stable set of limits and are in no way intended to produce a level playing field but rather to stop irresponsible owners (ie Pompey) overburdening any club with unsustainable debt in a manner where they could walk away and leave the clubs future in jeopardy. I'm not sure its even a merit-worthy idea to stop rich benefactors bankrolling clubs, just so long as they play with their own money not the clubs future therefor any investments they make should be either gifts or made into shares as the Coates' do. Debt is what needs to be controlled not investment. I'm absolutely sure with the right set of legal arguments, BET 365 could sponsor everything Stoke City they wanted right down to the bog rolls and easily avoid any FFP penalties.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Aug 1, 2014 10:20:10 GMT
Am I the only one that thinks G-Cam played a decent part in our success last season? I thought he played well to be honest, although I appreciate he had the odd few poor games, so did others.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Aug 1, 2014 10:25:23 GMT
If its a choice of keeping 2 out of Muniesa/Wilson/Cameron then I would much prefer to keep Wilson and Muniesa as utility players.
We need to start selling players to balance the books, and we are in the privileged position to sell squad fillers which is very good.
Much rather Cameron, Crouch, Walters being sold than genuine first teamers. We cant give Palacios/Shotton/Ness away for free it seems
|
|
|
Post by alster on Aug 1, 2014 10:25:45 GMT
Realistically? Then i guess Marc Wilson would play Right Back, the next cab off the rank may be Andy Wilkinson or Muniesa at Left Back and Pieters on the Right which i doubt would work as Erik's quite left footed. If Shotton's still here then....well, yes. So that's the realistic answer. I didn't watch much of the game but Eric seems to have done a decent job defensively at right back against Schalke. I doubt if he contributed much in attack though on his "wrong" side. Wilson is a bit of a rarity in that he seems to play equally well in either full back position. Wilson is fairly solid cover in either fullback position but does not really have have the pace to get back into position if he tries to help out further up the field. I'd not really want to see him in either position long term, I think the managers philosophy relies on the full backs offering something further up the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Aug 1, 2014 10:26:04 GMT
Am I the only one that thinks G-Cam played a decent part in our success last season? Nope. I thought he was good and I really don't think Bardsley is any improvement. Copycat.
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Aug 1, 2014 10:27:05 GMT
For all of Bardsley's 'experience' at PL level, it's not as if he's ever stood out or been particularly brilliant. He's been part of average defences in average teams. For me, he's a good, steady player who will probably offer less than Cameron going forward but more in terms of defence and positioning. I wouldn't say he's better than Cameron, purely for the fact that we finished 9th with Cameron a virtual ever-present last season.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 1, 2014 10:27:15 GMT
We'd be mad to sell Geoff. We should be looking to move Shotton on and having Cam and Bardsley as our right back options, with Geoff offering cover elsewhere too. Wilko is nothing more than a good head to have around the place. An expensive head to have around the place, granted, but it's nothing more than that. Hughes clearly doesn't rate the lad, same for Shots too. I see a place for both Cameron and Bardsley in the squard. Geoff won't get free reign at the RB berth like he did last year, but I can still see him getting 20+ game over the course of a Season with healthy competition now rife. It'll be a similar situation for Muniesa and Pieters too. Hughes will be explaining to them all that they have part to play and that they will get their chances. If Cameron isn't happy with the added competition then he might want to leave. I think his attitude so far would suggest that that wouldn't be the case though.
But who would you drop from the bench in my post above WD to accommodate him?
When you've already got Wilson and Muinesa on there, you can't really justify having a third utility player as one of your subs.
|
|
|
Post by Claus_SCFC on Aug 1, 2014 10:28:37 GMT
We'd be mad to sell Geoff. We should be looking to move Shotton on and having Cam and Bardsley as our right back options, with Geoff offering cover elsewhere too. Wilko is nothing more than a good head to have around the place. An expensive head to have around the place, granted, but it's nothing more than that. Hughes clearly doesn't rate the lad, same for Shots too. I see a place for both Cameron and Bardsley in the squard. Geoff won't get free reign at the RB berth like he did last year, but I can still see him getting 20+ game over the course of a Season with healthy competition now rife. It'll be a similar situation for Muniesa and Pieters too. Hughes will be explaining to them all that they have part to play and that they will get their chances. If Cameron isn't happy with the added competition then he might want to leave. I think his attitude so far would suggest that that wouldn't be the case though. spot on
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2014 10:30:05 GMT
I didn't watch much of the game but Eric seems to have done a decent job defensively at right back against Schalke. I doubt if he contributed much in attack though on his "wrong" side. Wilson is a bit of a rarity in that he seems to play equally well in either full back position. Wilson is fairly solid cover in either fullback position but does not really have have the pace to get back into position if he tries to help out further up the field. I'd not really want to see him in either position long term, I think the managers philosophy relies on the full backs offering something further up the pitch. I agree. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I wanted Wilson to start regularly at full back. I was simply pointing out that, as cover, he is probably a bit more use at right back than Pieters who is much more reliant on his left foot whereas Wilson is pretty much two footed. To summarise - I rate Pieters as a left back, whereas Wilson is decent COVER in a few positions but would not be my first choice starter in any of them.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Aug 1, 2014 10:31:13 GMT
He shouldn't be anywhere near the first team in any of his favoured positions and should never again be considered an option at right back. However, he can cover three different positions and last season showed how quickly you can run out of options in different positions due to suspensions and injuries. Unless we get an offer of £5,000,000 plus then I would keep him, if he's happy to be a reserve. I can see him making 20+ appearances next season if he stays.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Aug 1, 2014 10:36:20 GMT
If its a choice of keeping 2 out of Muniesa/Wilson/Cameron then I would much prefer to keep Wilson and Muniesa as utility players. We need to start selling players to balance the books, and we are in the privileged position to sell squad fillers which is very good. Much rather Cameron, Crouch, Walters being sold than genuine first teamers. We cant give Palacios/Shotton/Ness away for free it seems Palacios is difficult to say the least. I've read of some interest in Shotton. I've never even seen Ness in the flesh so have no idea whether he's saleable or worth holding onto and loaning out again. They must be on about £70K a week between them thats most of the £4M p/a that Lakeland reckons we're over the top in wages. Add Jeromes wages to that prob about £30K a week and we'd be in bloody good shape if we could just shift them and maybe Crouch or Walters to make room for one more big earner.
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Aug 1, 2014 10:36:20 GMT
On the matter in hand I remain entirely unconvinced we should have signed Bardsley. We made our bed on the Cameron question at that point. the same could be said with all the signings are they all better ,looks like we will have to wait and see
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 1, 2014 10:40:18 GMT
Don't know the specifics, Paul, although it obviously makes sense to put limits on sponsorships to 'cook the books', particularly when the sponsor is the owner. It's a real minefield though for the authorities - what's to stop, say, Emirates giving £100m to a third party/subsidiary who then sponsor the stadium? I dare say the bigger clubs with bigger lawyers can exploit the loopholes... I'm not too sure its anything the football authorities should be overly concerned about. My understanding of FFP is that it was introduced with the intent of ensuring football clubs are run to a financially stable set of limits and are in no way intended to produce a level playing field but rather to stop irresponsible owners (ie Pompey) overburdening any club with unsustainable debt in a manner where they could walk away and leave the clubs future in jeopardy. I'm not sure its even a merit-worthy idea to stop rich benefactors bankrolling clubs, just so long as they play with their own money not the clubs future therefor any investments they make should be either gifts or made into shares as the Coates' do. Debt is what needs to be controlled not investment. I'm absolutely sure with the right set of legal arguments, BET 365 could sponsor everything Stoke City they wanted right down to the bog rolls and easily avoid any FFP penalties.
If PSG's lawyers couldn't do it, then I can't really see why you think Stoke City's would be able to.
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27243933
"The sponsorship deal was deemed to have an unfair value by Uefa's independent investigation panel. That means the Qatari-owned club, who reached the Champions League quarter-finals this season, exceeded allowed financial losses by a wide margin."
I'll be very surprised if the Premership FFP's rules don't reflect the same principle as that of UEFA's in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Aug 1, 2014 10:40:26 GMT
Wilson is fairly solid cover in either fullback position but does not really have have the pace to get back into position if he tries to help out further up the field. I'd not really want to see him in either position long term, I think the managers philosophy relies on the full backs offering something further up the pitch. I agree. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I wanted Wilson to start regularly at full back. I was simply pointing out that, as cover, he is probably a bit more use at right back than Pieters who is much more reliant on his left foot whereas Wilson is pretty much two footed. To summarise - I rate Pieters as a left back, whereas Wilson is decent COVER in a few positions but would not be my first choice starter in any of them. Totally agree I think Wilson is a better utility player than Cameron as he has a better football brain. Cameron is a better athlete but I'm not sure that appeals to me that much personally.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Aug 1, 2014 10:48:21 GMT
When we had no pace and few attacking players overlapping full backs were a great option and to a large extent still are. If we are to play Diouf, Bojan, Ireland, Arnie and Odem going forward as well as Adam, Nzonzi or Sidwell on occasions we need someone to stay home. Pieters only occasionally moves forward when it is safe to do so and I expect Bardsley to do the same. We have options for Bardsley and Cameron has always maintained that he is not a right back. So the question arises where do you play him? Of course their are others I would wish to see go first but as far as I see no one is queueing up for them and we have our release some.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Aug 1, 2014 10:50:49 GMT
I'm not too sure its anything the football authorities should be overly concerned about. My understanding of FFP is that it was introduced with the intent of ensuring football clubs are run to a financially stable set of limits and are in no way intended to produce a level playing field but rather to stop irresponsible owners (ie Pompey) overburdening any club with unsustainable debt in a manner where they could walk away and leave the clubs future in jeopardy. I'm not sure its even a merit-worthy idea to stop rich benefactors bankrolling clubs, just so long as they play with their own money not the clubs future therefor any investments they make should be either gifts or made into shares as the Coates' do. Debt is what needs to be controlled not investment. I'm absolutely sure with the right set of legal arguments, BET 365 could sponsor everything Stoke City they wanted right down to the bog rolls and easily avoid any FFP penalties.
If PSG's lawyers couldn't do it, then I can't really see why you think Stoke City's would be able to.
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27243933
"The sponsorship deal was deemed to have an unfair value by Uefa's independent investigation panel. That means the Qatari-owned club, who reached the Champions League quarter-finals this season, exceeded allowed financial losses by a wide margin."
I'll be very surprised if the Premership FFP's rules don't reflect the same principle as that of UEFA's in this regard.
Its about having the right proposal to justify the amount of sponsorship. Remember Man City's was huge, I know they fell foul of FFP but I do seem to remember them getting away with the sponsorship deal with only minor adjustments to its value. Its not just about sponsoring the shirt and the ground but the academy and the training ground, the filled in corners, corporate hospitality. The avenues are very very wide for generous owner sponsorship. I don't think we're anywhere close to potential.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 1, 2014 10:55:35 GMT
If PSG's lawyers couldn't do it, then I can't really see why you think Stoke City's would be able to.
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27243933
"The sponsorship deal was deemed to have an unfair value by Uefa's independent investigation panel. That means the Qatari-owned club, who reached the Champions League quarter-finals this season, exceeded allowed financial losses by a wide margin."
I'll be very surprised if the Premership FFP's rules don't reflect the same principle as that of UEFA's in this regard.
Its about having the right proposal to justify the amount of sponsorship. Remember Man City's was huge, I know they fell foul of FFP but I do seem to remember them getting away with the sponsorship deal with only minor adjustments to its value. Its not just about sponsoring the shirt and the ground but the academy and the training ground, the filled in corners, corporate hospitality. The avenues are very very wide for generous owner sponsorship. I don't think we're anywhere close to potential. So you're suggesting that PSG's lawyers/accountants/executives are all just crap at their jobs then?
|
|
|
Post by alster on Aug 1, 2014 11:02:37 GMT
When we had no pace and few attacking players overlapping full backs were a great option and to a large extent still are. If we are to play Diouf, Bojan, Ireland, Arnie and Odem going forward as well as Adam, Nzonzi or Sidwell on occasions we need someone to stay home. Pieters only occasionally moves forward when it is safe to do so and I expect Bardsley to do the same. We have options for Bardsley and Cameron has always maintained that he is not a right back. So the question arises where do you play him? Of course their are others I would wish to see go first but as far as I see no one is queueing up for them and we have our release some. I'd use Cameron as the example of how a fullback could/should to be able to offer quite a lot in the oppositions half. I know his delivery was horrendous and if anything got even worse with practice. Now imagine your rightback or leftback getting into those same positions in attacking areas and having the ability to deliver a decent final ball. You'd forgive them the odd defensive howler because of the amount of goals they'd create/score throughout a season. Utopia would be them both having that level of ability. When one goes the other doesn't, add a beast of a defensive midfielder who just sits and screens the defense and you're all set up for some very exciting attacking football.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Aug 1, 2014 11:04:52 GMT
For all of Bardsley's 'experience' at PL level, it's not as if he's ever stood out or been particularly brilliant. He's been part of average defences in average teams. For me, he's a good, steady player who will probably offer less than Cameron going forward but more in terms of defence and positioning. I wouldn't say he's better than Cameron, purely for the fact that we finished 9th with Cameron a virtual ever-present last season.
He was one of if not the best Sunderland player last season and scored more goals than Cameron.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 1, 2014 11:07:03 GMT
Why do people think Cameron will be happy with being back up? He quite clearly isn't, he wants to play, fair play to him. He must of been reading your tweets about him. So if he goes youre to blame He can't, the sensitive sod has blocked me!
|
|