|
Post by Amsterdammer on Sept 16, 2010 14:36:22 GMT 1
Can't see anything new there, apart from maybe that "with hindsight" (which is the crucial bit that lots of people ignore) maybe he should have kept him. Done to death. I disagree. The version of the story he is now telling is that he kept Madjo and Symes because he thought they were better players and that he had to release someone because he had signed Holt. Something is clearly wrong with that, because he also signed Walker, and Symes and Madjo only ever started two games from that point onwards for Paul Simpson so to suggest they were his grand plan when he released Constable is fanciful in the extreme. Mentioning Symes is rewriting history. Mentioning Madjo is pure comedy.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Sept 16, 2010 14:59:42 GMT 1
I can't remember any player being judged so highly on such flimsy evidence as Constable for his 2 goals against MKD. The number of times this has been cited as evidence of his quality beggars belief. They were simple enough finishes - great at the time but hardly evidence of lasting quality. I'm not saying he isn't a decent striker (though I'm not at all convinced he's the great lost hope that some seem to think) but you'd think he'd done a one man demolition of a great team the way some people talk of that night, rather than a couple of routine finishes against MKD. Constable was given very few chances to impress and one of the ones that he was his first start for us when at home where he scored 2 goals against MK Dons, a side who won the league that season. Just looking at the game results from that particular season on Shrewsweb - bearing in mind how poor we were that season: Constable scored 4 goals in 14 games. However 7 of those games were as a sub Only Hibbert (12 goals in 36 starts and 8 sub appearances), Davies (6 goals in 26 starts and 1 sub appearance) and Cooke (5 goals in 10 appearances and 4 sub appearances) managed more goals. And Hibbert and Davies both pens. Constable amassed 787 minutes on the pitch out of a possible 1260 from those 14 games. Although under Simpson he played 7 out of 10 possible games, although 5 were as sub and appeared a total of 274 minutes out of a possible 630 minutes from those 7 games, scoring just one goal. 4 out of 14 isn't the greatest strike record admittedly, but bearing in mind half those games were as sub, and this was a striker moving from a lower league into a struggling side, playing under 3 different managers, its not too bad and in my view was certainly enough to warrant getting more of a go the next season.
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Sept 16, 2010 16:19:50 GMT 1
Your faith in Simmo is touching Venceremos. Those two goals might have been tap-ins but Constable got himself in the position to take them against decent defenders and clearly had shown an eye for goal at Kidderminster - much more so than Elder or to a lesser extent Bright.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2010 17:41:10 GMT 1
JC is proving a lot of people wrong not just Paul Simpson. I wonder how many of you saw the reserves beat WBA 5-2? Constable SHOULD have had a hat-trick in the first 15 minutes. Simpson was there and he spurned chance after chance so it's not just about taking up the positions - you have to convert a percentage. Am I talking rot? Hmmm. Mansfield away anyone? Constable misses from a yard away and out came Simmo's crook seconds later. We lost 3-1. He let him go out on loan as we had Walker alongside Holt and near enough every one of you would have had that as the number one combo. One of a few Simmo mistakes granted, but I wonder if United fans still bleat about losing David Platt & Peter Beardsley? Doubt it. To the idiot who said I was wrong to say we had moved on from Paul Simpson: where's your evidence to suggest we haven't? Things like this happen in football all the time - when are you going to draw a line in the sand under Simpson's tenure here? For me, if he keeps Stockport County up, that's proof enough he's a good manager. Two successive promotions at Carlisle back up that belief. It didn't work out for him here, simple as that. Just put it to bed and look forward.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Sept 16, 2010 18:15:44 GMT 1
Your faith in Simmo is touching Venceremos. Those two goals might have been tap-ins but Constable got himself in the position to take them against decent defenders and clearly had shown an eye for goal at Kidderminster - much more so than Elder or to a lesser extent Bright. You may be touched but it's got nothing to do with Simpson. My point is that the argument for Constable always seems to come back to the 2 goals he scored against MKD. Like I said, great at the time but routine finishes. Where's the evidence from the other games he played for us that make an unarguable case for us keeping him after we brought in Holt and Walker? I can't recall seeing any. Apart from those goals, I remember him not making some runs that I thought he should have made and I remember Andy Cooke looking exasperated because they seemed to be on completely different wavelengths. In this context, his later goals for Oxford aren't relevant. That's hindsight. At the time, his being loaned to Oxford seemed a good move to me (for him as well as he wasn't going to be a starter for us). I'm not commenting on the who didn't keep in touch with who stuff. I'm saying that, take away hindsight and take away 2 routine goals against MKD and I don't think there's any compelling evidence to say that Simpson's decision to farm Constable out was wrong at that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2010 18:44:38 GMT 1
As Ive said on numerous threads, Simpson didnt necessarily make a mistake in letting him go out on loan and we were all delighted to get Walker in. His mistake was not keeping tabs on him and generally making feel Constable still part of the club. Once that was done he was never going to come back.
Its obvious that Simpsons transfer dealings were in the main poor and people often use Symes, Constable, Pugh & Ryan as examples as they were let go (or paid off) and gone on to be successful elsewhere. But lets look at the facts (well some opinion!!):
Jimmy Ryan hardly played under Peters despite being brought to the club by him so he obviously didnt impress. It wasnt like Simpson had an effect on his career as it was going nowhere with us before he came in
Symes was a strange one as looked a good player but everyone said that after the Mansfield game where he got sent off, he looked poor. He had loan spells at other clubs but did sod all and looked fairly ineffective when given a chance for us. I had no problems with him going.
Pugh is another interesting one as everyone now thinks he's a world beater but when he signed for Hereford a lot of people were saying they had got a dud, a one trick pony who went missing when things got tough and was largely ineffective. Personally I wish he had stayed with us but from memory he was in and out of the team under Peters so hardly someone else who's career was flourishing before Simpson came. But wasnt he restored to the team when Simpson came in?
Constable is one who wasnt given a chance to prove himself and I think Simmo's biggest mistake.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and clearly Simpson made mistakes but my point is mainly that the careers of the respective players werent really going anywhere under Peters so Simpson is not unique in not rating the players (plus the respective coaching staff).
And another thing to consider is we dont know what went on, on the training ground. We think of players at their best and think they should be in the team but who knows what they were producing on the training ground. If the players are moping around and not producing their best then they arent going to be put in the team.
Of course if someone comes back to me and can prove that the players gave 100% week in, week out in training but still werent given an opportunity by Simpson then that is undoubtedly poor management.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Sept 16, 2010 18:48:33 GMT 1
Sorry lads, I am far from convinced.
Symes had scored 3 goals in 25 appearance for us that season
Constable had scored 4 in 14 appearance (and 12 already for Kiddy)
It had nothing to do with the "Two goals" against MK Dons, and everything about an up and coming younger striker with a decent record in the conference being given a chance
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2010 18:57:43 GMT 1
Sorry lads, I am far from convinced. Symes had scored 3 goals in 25 appearance for us that season Constable had scored 4 in 14 appearance (and 12 already for Kiddy) It had nothing to do with the "Two goals" against MK Dons, and everything about an up and coming younger striker with a decent record in the conference being given a chance Wasnt it more about needing to get rid of someone to bring in a proven striker (or so we thought he was) and the only player anyone was interested in was this young and up and coming striker but unproven in league football. As I said, no problem with sending him out loan but have a call back clause, keep an eye on him, at least pick up the phone
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2010 19:42:17 GMT 1
As I said, no problem with sending him out loan but have a call back clause, keep an eye on him, at least pick up the phone Interesting point - an extract from a pre-season interview I did with PS (previously unseen) just before the play-off campaign regarding Constable: MW: I mentioned James Constable earlier on, and you and I had a brief conversation after a particularly fruitful evening for the reserves when they beat West Brom 5-2. James could have had a hat-trick in the opening 15 minutes that night and I remember thinking as I was writing my report, that you would be expecting a better conversion ratio from the lad. He was also guilty of several bad misses in first-team action, but he does take up good positions which all good strikers do. You must be hoping he bags plenty of goals for Oxford? PS: That’s what I’m hoping for. We’re in a situation where we’ve got a number of strikers and I wanted to have a look at Michael Symes. From my memory of Michael Symes before I got the job, I always felt there was something there. What he has to do is produce it now and I want to have a good look at him. With Holt, Walker, Hibbert, Symes and even Pugh who can go down the middle, I couldn’t see where James Constable was going to fit in with his levels of performance so far. We got asked if there was any chance of doing some business from a number of non-league clubs, but Oxford were persistent and I like them because of the time I spent there. So I felt we could afford to let James go, I hope he plays and like you said, I hope he scores plenty of goals for them. They will look after him and that’s important to me. I didn’t just want to send him anywhere where he might not get looked after, and hopefully he’ll come back to us better for his experience with another year playing under his belt. There’s no recall option on him and maybe I should have dug my heels in a bit with that one, but I felt they were doing us a bit of a favour so I just agreed to the deal and that was it.
|
|
|
Post by mrmagoo on Sept 16, 2010 20:50:54 GMT 1
Pugh is another interesting one as everyone now thinks he's a world beater but when he signed for Hereford a lot of people were saying they had got a dud, a one trick pony who went missing when things got tough and was largely ineffective. Personally I wish he had stayed with us but from memory he was in and out of the team under Peters so hardly someone else who's career was flourishing before Simpson came. But wasnt he restored to the team when Simpson came in? . I can answer this one, no...
|
|
|
Post by stainesr on Sept 16, 2010 22:37:28 GMT 1
As I said, no problem with sending him out loan but have a call back clause, keep an eye on him, at least pick up the phone Interesting point - an extract from a pre-season interview I did with PS (previously unseen) just before the play-off campaign regarding Constable: MW: I mentioned James Constable earlier on, and you and I had a brief conversation after a particularly fruitful evening for the reserves when they beat West Brom 5-2. James could have had a hat-trick in the opening 15 minutes that night and I remember thinking as I was writing my report, that you would be expecting a better conversion ratio from the lad. He was also guilty of several bad misses in first-team action, but he does take up good positions which all good strikers do. You must be hoping he bags plenty of goals for Oxford? PS: That’s what I’m hoping for. We’re in a situation where we’ve got a number of strikers and I wanted to have a look at Michael Symes. From my memory of Michael Symes before I got the job, I always felt there was something there. What he has to do is produce it now and I want to have a good look at him. With Holt, Walker, Hibbert, Symes and even Pugh who can go down the middle, I couldn’t see where James Constable was going to fit in with his levels of performance so far. We got asked if there was any chance of doing some business from a number of non-league clubs, but Oxford were persistent and I like them because of the time I spent there. So I felt we could afford to let James go, I hope he plays and like you said, I hope he scores plenty of goals for them. They will look after him and that’s important to me. I didn’t just want to send him anywhere where he might not get looked after, and hopefully he’ll come back to us better for his experience with another year playing under his belt. There’s no recall option on him and maybe I should have dug my heels in a bit with that one, but I felt they were doing us a bit of a favour so I just agreed to the deal and that was it.There it is. Further evidence about Simmo being crap in the transfer market. Not that I was ever massively impressed with Constable, but he certainly has proved himself since leaving us.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Sept 16, 2010 23:57:45 GMT 1
There it is. Further evidence about Simmo being cr@p in the transfer market. Not that I was ever massively impressed with Constable, but he certainly has proved himself since leaving us. I don't see how Simpson getting rid of a player that he didn't sign and that hadn't ever "impressed" with us is evidence of his being crap in the transfer market. Surely that's a sensible thing to do? It only becomes evidence of being crap if you apply the benefit of hindsight, which makes great managers of all of us but which the real manager never has available.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Sept 17, 2010 1:17:32 GMT 1
I don't see how Simpson getting rid of a player that he didn't sign and that hadn't ever "impressed" with us is evidence of his being cr@p in the transfer market. Surely that's a sensible thing to do? Symes and Madjo fit that bill: he didn't sign them and they were poor (or never played) for him. So him releasing Constable on that premise was very weak indeed: as other players had played less and played worse without being released...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2010 6:35:54 GMT 1
If you look at Paul's response to the question, there are a few interesting comments. One is where he mentions 4, potentially 5 strikers who were ahead of him in the pecking order. And he speaks of the number of enquiries received from NON-LEAGUE clubs. Hardly bashing the door down from a football league point of view no matter how well he's doing now or how well he does in the future. He also talks about his performances so far. At that point Simpson had seen only 10 games and also saw reserve games and had him in training every day. So ultimately, his decision was based on that. Everyone dissecting that decision based on a thousand goals for Oxford since, are clearly much wiser after the event.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Sept 17, 2010 9:36:16 GMT 1
Everyone dissecting that decision based on a thousand goals for Oxford since, are clearly much wiser after the event. But we aren't basing it on that. Many said it at the time. Now he is going public with a version of what happened that makes no sense whatsoever. Constable had a decent scoring record before he came to us. Constable did ok for us and showed promise, but at the time he was released there is absolutely no way that Simpson could say Symes or Madjo were "ahead" of him. Madjo was a bit part player with off field difficulties and Symes was away on loan at Macclesfield and not scoring for them. You could say Symes' form for Accrington and now Bournemouth in the division above means releasing him was a mistake but it was not. He had been in poor form for us for a while and evidently needed a change. No-one is basing his form since as evidence we should have kept him. Same with David Hunt, now re-established as a league one first team player. Why did we sell Constable at the end of a season where he had just scored 23 goals for Oxford and was under contract to us? Not only did Simpson bin off Constable to keep Symes and Madjo (who never played for him), he also kept him frozen out and flogged him on the cheap even after another good season. In that interview you just put up Simpson says "hopefully he’ll come back to us better for his experience with another year playing under his belt" Constable's version of that part of the story is unprintable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2010 9:51:27 GMT 1
Dave - and Constable alledgedly bad-mouthing his manager in the Oxford local papers didn't in any way speed up his exit? Jaap Stam was adored at OT but Taggart binned him off cos he called the Nevilles 'busy little c*nts.' Managers are all faced at some point or another with difficult decisions. Our return on Constable was supposed to have been significantly higher than our outlay but in these days of undislosed fees, we may never know by how much. It's my opinion that we are all too pre-occupied with what PS did wrong in his time here. Crap manager, cant spot talent etc. Hmmm... didn't Gylfi Sigurdsson (going nowhere at Reading at the time) just get sold on for 6 million smackers? Bet Reading's directors will be eternally grateful to Paul Simpson for allowing Shrewsbury T to get the boys career back on track. Don't you think? Eh? A little credit where it's due or stick in the throat a bit too much?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Sept 17, 2010 10:01:43 GMT 1
To say he had the choice of either Holt or Constable doesn't really look as though he is putting his hands up and saying he dropped a bollock to me. He is trying to say there that his hand was forced, it was one or the other (and lets be fair, if it was then he made the right decision. I think everyone would have taken Holt over Constable)...and I'm not entirely sure I believe that were the case considering. He's trying to pop a get out clause in there with that statement and it doesnt really sit right...
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Sept 17, 2010 10:02:09 GMT 1
Dave - and Constable alledgedly bad-mouthing his manager in the Oxford local papers didn't in any way speed up his exit? If he did, then it would be a matter of public record wouldn't it? I would like to see the article. It's my opinion that we are all too pre-occupied with what PS did wrong in his time here. cr@p manager, cant spot talent etc. Hmmm... didn't Gylfi Sigurdsson (going nowhere at Reading at the time) just get sold on for 6 million smackers? Bet Reading's directors will be eternally grateful to Paul Simpson for allowing Shrewsbury T to get the boys career back on track. Don't you think? Eh? A little credit where it's due or stick in the throat a bit too much? As I said earlier: the signing of Holt that summer was an excellent move by Simpson and a great bit of business for STFC. The issue being discussed here is not just throwing stones at Simpson, and no-one is slagging him off on this thread are they? All we are doing is commenting on a recent article involving Simpson where he says some new things about his time here. And some of the things he has said a couple of days ago are distinctly different from reality. If you want a "What did Paul do right" discussion then start one. But on here people are talking about Constable because this week Simpson was in the press talking about Constable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2010 10:33:36 GMT 1
I think what I have already presented is far more eloquent than 'clueless man' as one poster put it. And you say his comments this week differ from the reality. Really? How do you know that? There are always bound to be 2 sides to each story - not too many will know for certain what really happened. So why speculate? JC is happy. We're happy (I think). So it's all good. Isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Sept 17, 2010 10:43:20 GMT 1
Nicko - "tidy profit", "genuine quality" & "impressive work-rate"? If every player gave us what Holt did I think we'd be pretty happy! Of course his signing was a good thing and no, he wasn't too good for us. I saw him miss too many sitters to believe that. Cliques can form at any club with any players, regardless of their quality. He gave us an excellent goalscoring season and a profit at the end of it. We almost went up but we (and Holt) weren't good enough on the day. We'll remember Grant Holt long after we've forgotten most players so I'll never regret that we signed him. But it's not about his penalty goal scoring record, or his quality. My argument is that the £170k might have been better spent elsewhere in the team, like mid-field, which appears to have been a perennial problem for the Club. Like I said I questioned it that time and I still do wonder about it now. Yes it was great having Grant Holt here. Watching him marauding around the pitch, popping up in mid-field and even occasionally at left-back, but ultimately I believe his time here was detrimental to the Club and team. I also believe that if we had have been promoted Holt would still have gone to Norwich. They at the time were better equipped for a promotion challenge and so it proved, whereas I believe we would have struggled and possibly been relegated. Page 58 makes a point about Constable missing sitters and I glad you make the point about Holt doing the same. I believe that Grant Holt thought he was to good for us.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Sept 17, 2010 10:44:01 GMT 1
Everyone dissecting that decision based on a thousand goals for Oxford since, are clearly much wiser after the event. But we aren't basing it on that. Many said it at the time. Now he is going public with a version of what happened that makes no sense whatsoever. Constable had a decent scoring record before he came to us. Constable did ok for us and showed promise, but at the time he was released there is absolutely no way that Simpson could say Symes or Madjo were "ahead" of him. Madjo was a bit part player with off field difficulties and Symes was away on loan at Macclesfield and not scoring for them. You could say Symes' form for Accrington and now Bournemouth in the division above means releasing him was a mistake but it was not. He had been in poor form for us for a while and evidently needed a change. No-one is basing his form since as evidence we should have kept him. Same with David Hunt, now re-established as a league one first team player. Why did we sell Constable at the end of a season where he had just scored 23 goals for Oxford and was under contract to us? Not only did Simpson bin off Constable to keep Symes and Madjo (who never played for him), he also kept him frozen out and flogged him on the cheap even after another good season. In that interview you just put up Simpson says "hopefully he’ll come back to us better for his experience with another year playing under his belt" Constable's version of that part of the story is unprintable. Very much agree with you here TBH Another point, Constable had only been at the club for 6 months - he was signed on the last day of the January transfer window from non league Kidderminster. We were struggling at the time and the entire season in division 2. So he got only 3 months of the season to settle in to the club, play with new team mates, and impress under 3 different managers. That's not a lot of time. Just had another look at Shrewsbury's results that particular season, and from the moment Constable signed for us, in the subsequent 17 matches, we scored a total of 17 goals and 3 of them came against MK Dons - his finishes then might have been straight forward and routine, but the lack of goals scored in those games suggests that we needed someone to do the straight forward and routine finishes. Constable getting 4 goals in 14 was a pretty good achievement really in comparison with other team mates in that period: Davies got 2, Asa Hall got 2, Pugh got 2, McIntyre got 2, Hibbert got 1, Cooke got 1, Madjo got 1, Langmead got 1, and Moss got 1.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Sept 17, 2010 10:57:03 GMT 1
Hmmm... didn't Gylfi Sigurdsson (going nowhere at Reading at the time) just get sold on for 6 million smackers? Bet Reading's directors will be eternally grateful to Paul Simpson for allowing Shrewsbury T to get the boys career back on track. Don't you think? Eh? A little credit where it's due or stick in the throat a bit too much? I've seen some pro Simpson spin on here in my time but to suggest that Simpson was in some way responsible for getting Sigurdsson's career back on track is taking things to a whole new level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2010 11:38:45 GMT 1
Hmmm... didn't Gylfi Sigurdsson (going nowhere at Reading at the time) just get sold on for 6 million smackers? Bet Reading's directors will be eternally grateful to Paul Simpson for allowing Shrewsbury T to get the boys career back on track. Don't you think? Eh? A little credit where it's due or stick in the throat a bit too much? I've seen some pro Simpson spin on here in my time but to suggest that Simpson was in some way responsible for getting Sigurdsson's career back on track is taking things to a whole new level. So his time here didn't get his career back on track then? Is that what you're expecting me to believe? That a club who held an extremely high valuation of someone who couldn't get in their team, would happily allow him to go compete in the cloggers league in the 4th division? Do me a favour.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Sept 17, 2010 11:41:39 GMT 1
I've seen some pro Simpson spin on here in my time but to suggest that Simpson was in some way responsible for getting Sigurdsson's career back on track is taking things to a whole new level. I did think that. I take the point that Simpson brought in a decent young player who benefited us. But he had played two first team games for Reading and was sent to us for 6 games (including subs). I don't think we will get a cut from Hoffenheim.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Sept 17, 2010 11:46:19 GMT 1
So his time here didn't get his career back on track then? Is that what you're expecting me to believe? That a club who held an extremely high valuation of someone who couldn't get in their team, would happily allow him to go compete in the cloggers league in the 4th division? Do me a favour. [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img][/quote] He played once for Reading after finishing with us and then they sent him back out to Crewe for the rest of the season. His career was never "off track", he was just a young lad who needed games. We gave him some. So did Crewe. I doubt Reading will be "eternally grateful" to Simpson for taking Gylfi on loan in the same way I doubt Man United are "eternally grateful" to Preston for allowing Beckham to "get his career back on track"
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Sept 17, 2010 12:13:55 GMT 1
Great posting from TBH on this thread, spot on with every well argued point in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2010 12:23:45 GMT 1
I think in all of this we also need to remember that Constable was the only 'sellable' transfer out of the club,
I guess Madjo and certainly Symes were ahead of him in the pecking order and that's what Simpson means. Madjo didn't get a chance and Symes was flirted with briefly when either Holt or Walker were injuried/unavailble and then sent out on loan
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I personally believe that Simpson brought more and better quality players to the club than Peters,
When Peters left we had a big percentage of players that were either demotivated or not up to the standard in the first place
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Sept 17, 2010 12:33:23 GMT 1
How can you say Simpson got Sigurdsson's career back on track? Simpson was such a visionary that Sigurdsson had actually been dropped to the sub's bench at the end and Coppell called him back to Reading.
Just another example of Simpson's lack of ability to get the best out of the players and budget he had at his disposal.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Sept 17, 2010 12:36:45 GMT 1
So his time here didn't get his career back on track then? Is that what you're expecting me to believe? That a club who held an extremely high valuation of someone who couldn't get in their team, would happily allow him to go compete in the cloggers league in the 4th division? Do me a favour. [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img][/quote] He played once for Reading after finishing with us and then they sent him back out to Crewe for the rest of the season. His career was never "off track", he was just a young lad who needed games. We gave him some. So did Crewe. I doubt Reading will be "eternally grateful" to Simpson for taking Gylfi on loan in the same way I doubt Man United are "eternally grateful" to Preston for allowing Beckham to "get his career back on track"[/quote] Absolutely spot on. Can't believe that statement. In fact didn't Simpson drop him and Reading ended up recalling him, only to send him out on loan to someone else?
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Sept 17, 2010 12:45:51 GMT 1
I think in all of this we also need to remember that Constable was the only 'sellable' transfer out of the club, I guess Madjo and certainly Symes were ahead of him in the pecking order and that's what Simpson means. Madjo didn't get a chance and Symes was flirted with briefly when either Holt or Walker were injuried/unavailble and then sent out on loan Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I personally believe that Simpson brought more and better quality players to the club than Peters, When Peters left we had a big percentage of players that were either demotivated or not up to the standard in the first place Not quite sure what you mean by the first paragraph, Constable was the only sellable transfer out of the club but Madjo and Symes were ahead of him in the pecking order, i.e. despite Constable being the only one other clubs wanted, Simpson preferred Madjo and Symes?? That's a strange statement! And yes Simpson probably did bring in better quality players than Peters, but when you're given the budget to allow the signing of £170,000 strikers, and captains from division one and championship clubs, I'd expect that to be the case. And 'when peters left we had a big percentage of players that were either demotivated' - isn't a managers job to motivate?? And 'not up to the standard in the first place' - there's not too many of the existing squad that Turner's retained is there - only Neal, Neal, Bright, Robinson, Elder (all under contract and in Elder's case injured long term), Leslie and McIntyre. The only other one is Holden who has been loaned out. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Simpson's squad.
|
|