|
Post by venceremos on Sept 17, 2010 13:39:25 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. It's not strange at all. Constable was attracting attention from non-league clubs so he was more saleable. In itself, that doesn't make him a better player than the others. I certainly preferred Symes at the time as I thought he could still come good again for us and he's a more naturally skilled footballer than Constable. You seem to be arguing that it was Simpson's job to motivate Peters' demoralised players but then you say Turner hasn't retained many of Simpson's squad. By that logic, wasn't it Turner's job to motivate Simpson's players? The real answer of course is that a new manager should be free to make his own decisions on players and Simpson deserves the same treatment as Turner on that point.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Sept 17, 2010 13:40:36 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. and but for a decent save from MKDs keeper he would have had 3 this was a poor town side playing the in form side in the league yes only 1 game but constables performance that night was no flash in the pan, he bullied the bullies, something the likes of bright could only do if he were to play in an under 11 game bright was signed on the back of 75min in a dull friendly v tranmere in which he didnt even score the whole simpson/constable argument is the average fan could see something that our well paid so called professional simply could not he even dug himself into a deep hole by stating constable would never score goals at this level i really hope constable scores 6 tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Sept 17, 2010 13:49:38 GMT 1
Funny how divisive a subject James Constable still is! I didn't think too much of him at the time. Maybe he's become a much better player but, since he's new to the league and it's still early days, I'll wait and see on that point.
All I know is that I don't think Simpson was wrong to let him go and, for all that some people here thought he was promising, there didn't seem to be any interest in him from another league club.
I'm not bothering myself with what happened afterwards because I don't know. I've read comments from Simpson and Constable and I doubt that either represents the whole truth. Some people have seized upon Constable's words in B&A as conclusive evidence of something but, in the end, it's just his side of the story and there are others. You only accept one person's side of an argument as the whole truth if you're biased in his favour, or biased against the other party as I suspect is the case here.
We'll never know the whole story and it doesn't matter anyway, it's history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2010 13:57:55 GMT 1
great point. In fairness, this board has been lacking healthy, reasoned and balanced debate. This thread at least proves that we can disagree on an issue but still manage to put over each others points eloquently without too much angst.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Sept 17, 2010 14:15:54 GMT 1
Some people have seized upon Constable's words in B&A as conclusive evidence of something but, in the end, it's just his side of the story and there are others. I am not sure that is entirely fair. The known facts of the situation point to Simpson's comments in the Oxford Times being very strange indeed, regardless of anything in the fanzine. Of course there are two sides to every story. Simpson's side has just baffled a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Sept 17, 2010 14:16:20 GMT 1
great point. In fairness, this board has been lacking healthy, reasoned and balanced debate. This thread at least proves that we can disagree on an issue but still manage to put over each others points eloquently without too much angst. I agree with that. Now then, what next?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2010 15:27:20 GMT 1
Apologies if I confused anyboyd and if I invented the word 'Sellable' - thanks venceremos for -picking up on my point,
I think both Simpson and Turner inherited a few downhearted players, the main difference between PS and GT seems to be that (with the exception of Holden) GT seems to be working with the failures of last season
As much as I like and am impressed by David Raven, I do feel that Holden is unfairly scapegoated, Chris Neal and SCS could have also fallen in this bracket but for injuries to Smith and O'Donnell,
You never know Dean Holden, may come back to haunt us one day,
It would be interesting to see the treatment of players from GT if we get promoted to League 1, quite a few may have to be Sacrificed as they may not be up to it, still a long way from that at the moment.
I think Marc Pugh was the one who was most harshy treated, and will prove PS wrong the most
In short yes it shouldn't really matter about Constable and Simpson, though as ex shrews player/manager it does to us all - I do wish them the best for the future and thank them for their efforts here
I've enjoyed this debate also without it getting to nasty
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Sept 17, 2010 16:25:21 GMT 1
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. It's not strange at all. Constable was attracting attention from non-league clubs so he was more saleable. In itself, that doesn't make him a better player than the others. I certainly preferred Symes at the time as I thought he could still come good again for us and he's a more naturally skilled footballer than Constable. You seem to be arguing that it was Simpson's job to motivate Peters' demoralised players but then you say Turner hasn't retained many of Simpson's squad. By that logic, wasn't it Turner's job to motivate Simpson's players? The real answer of course is that a new manager should be free to make his own decisions on players and Simpson deserves the same treatment as Turner on that point. Mr Cricket said that when peters left Simpson had a large percentage of either demotivated players - I've said surely it was Simpson's job to motivate those demoralised players? I've not said that any of Simpson's former players were demoralised and that's a different point to: He also said that 'or players that were simply not good enough' - I've stated that it seems evident than Simpson left Turner in the same boat as a lot weren't good enough as they've left. Actually in answer to your point about 'wasn't it Turner's job to motivate Simpson's players?' I think of those that he's kept, and that have been fit, you can say that he'd done that - Robinson looks like a new player, Chris Neal's drawn a lot of praise recently, and McIntyre is not being derided on here as he was last season. Leslie's done ok in his few appearances. There's really only Lewis Neal that's not shined as yet, as neither Bright or Elder have been fit.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Sept 17, 2010 16:44:41 GMT 1
Some people have seized upon Constable's words in B&A as conclusive evidence of something but, in the end, it's just his side of the story and there are others. Of course there are two sides to every story. Simpson's side has just baffled a lot of people. I agree with that, but it doesn't make the other side right either.
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Sept 17, 2010 16:47:28 GMT 1
Apologies if I confused anyboyd and if I invented the word 'Sellable' - thanks venceremos for -picking up on my point, I think both Simpson and Turner inherited a few downhearted players, the main difference between PS and GT seems to be that (with the exception of Holden) GT seems to be working with the failures of last season As much as I like and am impressed by David Raven, I do feel that Holden is unfairly scapegoated, Chris Neal and SCS could have also fallen in this bracket but for injuries to Smith and O'Donnell, You never know Dean Holden, may come back to haunt us one day, It would be interesting to see the treatment of players from GT if we get promoted to League 1, quite a few may have to be Sacrificed as they may not be up to it, still a long way from that at the moment. I think Marc Pugh was the one who was most harshy treated, and will prove PS wrong the most In short yes it shouldn't really matter about Constable and Simpson, though as ex shrews player/manager it does to us all - I do wish them the best for the future and thank them for their efforts here I've enjoyed this debate also without it getting to nasty I've noticed over time that you are a Holden fan, and as much as you acknowledge Raven, I seriously think that he is a much, much, much better player Holden's problems have been well documented, lack of pace, lack of positioning, anticipation, sometimes makes the wrong decisions with regards to going in for the tackle or standing off. I think Holden started shakily, improved mid-season, then was at his worst once he came back into the team from February on-wards. Some games last season, he was a liability, though I admit, he didn't have much help from in front of him. Raven on the other hand, seems to know what he's doing at both ends of the pitch, calm on the ball, knows when to go forward, puts blocks in, he's that good you do't notice him unless you focus on his game. I think we've had some vey decent right-backs over the last few years: Herd, Moss, Holden and now Raven. I do however feel that Raven is the best of the bunch, I am amazed he dropped down to this league. Holden, used to being a first team regular and we presume on a very decent wage, was in my opinion never going to be satisfied to sit on the bench. The decision to get him out on loan to Rotherham was the right move both us and them, and if Raven was to break his leg or something similar (hope not), then we have an adequate replacement ready to return from loan, with football under his belt, keen to make a point. We're all winners. Obviously that relies on Turner not casting out Holden like I believe Simpson cast out Constable during his loan period away from the club. I can't imagine Turner would follow that route.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Sept 17, 2010 16:49:55 GMT 1
You never know Dean Holden, may come back to haunt us one day, You never know, Dean Holden may come back to help us one day!
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Sept 17, 2010 16:55:34 GMT 1
maybe on a different scale but to me this seems as much as bad decision as west brom made when they let bully go to wolves
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2010 16:59:31 GMT 1
maybe on a different scale but to me this seems as much as bad decision as west brom made when they let bully go to wolves or Kiddy's when they let Constable go to Shrewsbury Town?
|
|