|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2015 9:21:53 GMT
Dunno but I'd bet she is fitter than any bird you've ever been near too
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2015 9:21:54 GMT
His central midfield partner and sub replacement both screwed up to cost us the game and Van Ginkel is getting the shit sublime. Him and Afellay did well yesterday. Whelan and Adam didn't. Regardless of opinions though it's likely we'll see all of the above over the next few weeks because of the fixture pile up.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Dec 20, 2015 9:22:35 GMT
Opinions hey I actually thought he did ok yesterday and for sure over this period we will see him and Cameron start in the middle and they might be an interesting combination. .
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Dec 20, 2015 9:22:49 GMT
Had a decent game I thought.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Dec 20, 2015 9:24:00 GMT
He's toss.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Dec 20, 2015 9:25:30 GMT
Only two players made more passes, only two players made more passes in the attacking third, nobody won more tackles. Unlucky not to score as well. Played a cracking reverse pass to Pieters in the box at one point as well.
Steady 7/10 for me.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 20, 2015 9:26:49 GMT
Thought he did OK I think he'll ger better as the season develops. That said I still think we need another DM as GCam, Whelan and him aren't enough in the defensive role with Sidwell clearly not up to standard. What happened to Badu?
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 20, 2015 9:27:19 GMT
But not quite as toss as Charlie Adam or Glenn Whelan on yesterdays showing though hey?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Dec 20, 2015 9:32:33 GMT
But not quite as toss as Charlie Adam or Glenn Whelan on yesterdays showing though hey? The former have had outstanding games for Stoke. Van Ginkel is toss.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 20, 2015 9:33:59 GMT
But not quite as toss as Charlie Adam or Glenn Whelan on yesterdays showing though hey? The former have had outstanding games for Stoke. Van Ginkel is toss. They have. But yesterday he was better than both put together.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Dec 20, 2015 9:35:44 GMT
The former have had outstanding games for Stoke. Van Ginkel is toss. They have. But yesterday he was better than both put together. He's toss.
|
|
|
Post by cozmick on Dec 20, 2015 9:49:55 GMT
They have. But yesterday he was better than both put together. He's toss. My sentiments exactly, the bloke is toss.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 20, 2015 10:09:27 GMT
My sentiments exactly, the bloke is toss. No he's not, no he's not, no he's not. Jinxed, no return.
|
|
samuel32
Youth Player
Jack Clarke's Shorts
Posts: 367
|
Post by samuel32 on Dec 20, 2015 10:12:21 GMT
Not sure you can criticize him based on yesterday's performance. Thought he had a bit more swagger about him.
It's a boring cliche, but a lot of foreign players need games to get used to The Prem.
The problem was that he was expected to go straight into central midfield at the start of the season. It was a big ask.
This spot needs looking at in Jan. Cameron's good, but he seems to be picking up injuries.
Has Nzonzi got a twin?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2015 10:17:50 GMT
He wasn't 'toss' by any stretch yesterday.
He's not the finished article for sure...but shows promise for a young lad, being thrust on to the Premier League stage.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 20, 2015 10:37:06 GMT
The way I see our midfield options are
Whelan - played above himself and has carried us for a while now. Was poor yesterday which is worrying as if he does have a bad patch he should be dropable the problem is there is no one to cover for loss of form / injury.
Van Ginkle - started very poorly but is showing real signs of improvement. Needs protecting as he looks a confidence player. Definitely worth persevering with.
GCam - I like him in DM as he's a real athlete. Like Dean Whitehead but a far better footballer. Seems injury prone.
Charlie - Not a DM far too reckless and not good enough defensively. Unfair on him playing at DM as he's far too attack minded. If we get a DM in I could see him leaving .
Sidwell - looks past his best. Needs loaning out selling.
I'd like to see Muni given a run too see how he gets on but games are too important to risk him.
For me we definitely need 1 more DM in who can hit the ground running and offer us energy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2016 23:47:34 GMT
Surprised he didn't get on today as we were struggling in the middle...
Well I say surprised, I wasn't really. Why doesn't Hughes use him? What does he have to do to get a run in the team?
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Jan 23, 2016 23:55:05 GMT
Surprised he didn't get on today as we were struggling in the middle... Well I say surprised, I wasn't really. Why doesn't Hughes use him? What does he have to do to get a run in the team? I guess Hughes doesn't rate him highly at all And I can see why I havent seen one thoroughly convincing performance from him all season
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jan 23, 2016 23:55:56 GMT
Surprised he didn't get on today as we were struggling in the middle... Well I say surprised, I wasn't really. Why doesn't Hughes use him? What does he have to do to get a run in the team? He has to offer something to the team. All we've seen of him is that he's a fairly tidy and energetic player who fails to positively or negatively affect a game in any given way. He just doesn't offer anything in particular that isn't offered elsewhere. Taking Charlie Adam as an example, for all his faults, he can be a matchwinner, or give the team real impetus. I've been disappointed in him, really. It would have been nice to see him take a game by the scruff of the neck.
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Jan 23, 2016 23:57:39 GMT
I would be very surprised if we pursued a permanent deal for MVG - talk of a big Imbula bid suggests Hughes does not see him as the answer. TBH he's been a bit of a disappointment.
|
|
|
Post by slicko on Jan 24, 2016 8:30:03 GMT
A future prospect with great potential. I would be surprised if he wasn't playing for a great European team in the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 8:36:30 GMT
Big mistake if we let him slip through our fingers. We MUST sign him permanently.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 24, 2016 10:50:59 GMT
What does he do on a football field? It's the problem I think he faces.
He can't tackle and pussies out if way too many tackles.
His passing is ok.
And when he attacks he doesn't really add anything to them.
What's he good at? What's his best use?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 10:55:18 GMT
Well if there's an option to buy him for £4m, and recoup some of that by offloading Ireland, Adam, or Bardsley I'd do it.
|
|
|
Post by DentySCFC on Jan 24, 2016 10:57:33 GMT
Mr Invisible. Send him back and get a CM who dictates play or you at least notice on the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by ryan4england on Jan 24, 2016 11:51:05 GMT
Big mistake if we let him slip through our fingers. We MUST sign him permanently. Why though? What does he offer? Can you answer BO's post after yours? For me as a midfielder you have to be willing to roll your sleeves up & get stuck in, we don't need 'any' player who isn't 110% comitted imo
|
|
|
Post by ryan4england on Jan 24, 2016 12:07:56 GMT
What does he do on a football field? It's the problem I think he faces. He can't tackle and pussies out if way too many tackles. His passing is ok. And when he attacks he doesn't really add anything to them. What's he good at? What's his best use? So in short, he's a tom cleverly
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Jan 24, 2016 12:18:08 GMT
what has done in a Stoke shirt to suggest hes the answer? Nobody actually knows what he is good at.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 24, 2016 12:20:13 GMT
What does he do on a football field? It's the problem I think he faces. He can't tackle and pussies out if way too many tackles. His passing is ok. And when he attacks he doesn't really add anything to them. What's he good at? What's his best use? So in short, he's a tom cleverly I don't mind Cleverly he at least keeps the game ticking over. I think Van Ginkel could become a good player but he nor the manager knows his best game.
|
|
|
Post by ryan4england on Jan 24, 2016 12:25:17 GMT
So in short, he's a tom cleverly I don't mind Cleverly he at least keeps the game ticking over. I think Van Ginkel could become a good player but he nor the manager knows his best game. Why sign him then? we'd of been better with that loftus cheek imo I liked the sound of ginkel at first but he has'nt nailed down his place and I agree with you in that when he's on the pitch his role is difficult to see. Difficult to sign a player who can't nail down a place that has been going begging.
|
|