| Would you take Tammy on loan again? 08:50 - May 10 with 11348 views | omarjack |
If it's possible?
He was superb with Bristol. scoring +20 goals or so..and we assume he's grown as player since then.
It's just..he's kind of a Dwight Gayle or Vydra..Superb EFL player..sh!t PL one.
so what do you think? |  |
| |  |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:27 - May 11 with 801 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:10 - May 11 by majorraglan |
Not arguing with most of what you are saying. The boy is talented and in the right team he will be very successful, but when you balance it all up because everything else didn’t fit in to place it was a poor signing. That’s not the lads fault, it’s the club’s fault. |
Well yes but you aren’t considering when he was signed. There was only one date in which he signed for us, it cannot be moved to suit someone’s argument. He was signed at the start when the plan was to move to a more dynamic approach - which was absolutely the right decision as the aftermath of this season will tell you - ergo, he was a good signing. The subsequent ones weren’t, but that doesn’t affect correct decisions before them. |  |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:29 - May 11 with 793 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:17 - May 11 by jack247 |
Absolutely. E20 knows that full well, but his ego is preventing him from admitting it |
For him to actually think he’s won this debate says a lot about the individual. |  | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:30 - May 11 with 793 views | jack247 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 11:50 - May 11 by E20Jack |
Like Spain not using a prime Costa you mean? And instead opting for a midfielder? Costa must be rubbish.
Sorry but you lost this debate pages ago, this latest twist is making it worse.
Dyer never played as a striker for us, he played as a wide forward in a support role. So you are making a point that Dyer was picked ahead of Tammy in a wide role, aye great. He’d be picked ahead of a prime Adebayor for that role too I would hope as he equally is not suited to such a role.
Are you the type that would pick Messi as CB instead of Fernandez just because it is Messi? Players have positions, this really is a year 7 debate.
That isn’t even getting to the point that you are spectacularly missing that we did indeed try to build the squad with Tammy in mind. Bids for Chadli and others failed leaving us with no option than a last ditch attempt to repeat last years dross by bringing in Bony and resorting to lumping things forward.
I fear you are just being argumentative for the sake of it now. Which is a shame. [Post edited 11 May 2018 11:57]
|
That last line absolutely screams hypocrisy. Arguing for the sake of it is what you do.
I also notice you’ve been down arrowing posts that others up arrow, but leaving the rest. A little narcissistic when you’re already replying to them, but this thread is about Tammy Abraham not you.
Who was Costa left out for? I’m guessing Xavi and Iniesta, probably the likes of Silva, Villa, Pedro, Fabregas? I’m guessing that team scored goals and won games. Comparing that to being left out for Dyer and Narsingh is desperate.
No. I wouldn’t pick Messi at centre back, but I’d also have to be desperate to leave a striker out for a winger who never scores, with an uncreative midfield behind him.
I’m not disputing your point about him not suiting our style of play, or that he would be more effective in other set ups.
To strip it back, I’m saying that he was a disastrous signing. I’m not blaming him, I’m blaming our recruitment team. |  | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:31 - May 11 with 788 views | jack247 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:29 - May 11 by 34dfgdf54 |
For him to actually think he’s won this debate says a lot about the individual. |
He doesn’t. But he’ll argue he has for 15 pages anyway. | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:35 - May 11 with 775 views | jasper_T |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:18 - May 11 by KGriz16 |
Watched a tactical video on Graham Potter last night on YouTube. He explained his tactics against Galatasaray in the Europa League. It was exciting to see he plays a more refreshing style and explains those tactics well... If, and a big if, Tammy was willing to come back, I think GP would get him playing big time. However, both are if's |
There's no 'if'. Tammy isn't coming back. He doesn't want to, we don't want him, and he's too expensive either way. | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:48 - May 11 with 747 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:29 - May 11 by 34dfgdf54 |
For him to actually think he’s won this debate says a lot about the individual. |
Whenever I am in a clearly unlosable debate Risca is there like clockwork stamping his feet.
It’s like a canary down the mine.  | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:55 - May 11 with 734 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:30 - May 11 by jack247 |
That last line absolutely screams hypocrisy. Arguing for the sake of it is what you do.
I also notice you’ve been down arrowing posts that others up arrow, but leaving the rest. A little narcissistic when you’re already replying to them, but this thread is about Tammy Abraham not you.
Who was Costa left out for? I’m guessing Xavi and Iniesta, probably the likes of Silva, Villa, Pedro, Fabregas? I’m guessing that team scored goals and won games. Comparing that to being left out for Dyer and Narsingh is desperate.
No. I wouldn’t pick Messi at centre back, but I’d also have to be desperate to leave a striker out for a winger who never scores, with an uncreative midfield behind him.
I’m not disputing your point about him not suiting our style of play, or that he would be more effective in other set ups.
To strip it back, I’m saying that he was a disastrous signing. I’m not blaming him, I’m blaming our recruitment team. |
Not at all, you have a penchant for making people see it your way or you start throwing your toys out of the pram. I am perfectly happy in the knowledge I am correct as well as the statistical data that backs me up to start kicking and screaming like you do. You are more than welcome to continue to be wrong, doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
You are so entrenched in this you are now throwing your toys out of the pram about down arrowing silly posts. How about instead of trying to tell people what they really think, you try and win the debate by actually talking about your own points, you know, the ones that make very little sense and change at the drop of a hat due to the weak nature of them?
It is utterly irrelevant, your point is that if a striker does not suit a particular style of play that the team is forced to play so instead use someone more suited then it means that striker is a bad player. It’s ridiculous and completely nonsensical. Just like you trying to claim that Nathan Dyer played as a striker, but we will gloss over that.
You can strip it back all you like mate, you are still just spouting noise and hot air. He was not a disastrous signing for the factual indisputable reasons I explained to you so very patiently. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:59 - May 11 with 727 views | Drizzy |
As if anyone needed reminding, here's another thread providing reason never to engage with delusional Dimi.
A worrying individual who spends the vast majority of his worthless time arguing in circles on this forum. Completely devoid of any self-awareness or knowledge.
Here's hoping the moderators get bored with his endless tedium and ban him. Until then, I'd stay well away. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:01 - May 11 with 721 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:31 - May 11 by jack247 |
He doesn’t. But he’ll argue he has for 15 pages anyway. |
We both know I absolutely do, and we both know that my points are indesputable - hence your clear frustrations and need to convince yourself of the above. Your rants are not going to change anything. It won’t change the date he signed, it won’t change the correct decision to sign him due to the direction we wanted to go in and lastly it won’t change the fact he has been the most likely source of a direct goal per minute than anyone else in the squad. You can not like it, you can be frustrated by it, you can even deny it if you want - but these still don’t change. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:03 - May 11 with 713 views | hobo |
I'd try to bring him in permanently. Him and Oli leading the line in the Championship will get us goals |  | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:04 - May 11 with 708 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:59 - May 11 by Drizzy |
As if anyone needed reminding, here's another thread providing reason never to engage with delusional Dimi.
A worrying individual who spends the vast majority of his worthless time arguing in circles on this forum. Completely devoid of any self-awareness or knowledge.
Here's hoping the moderators get bored with his endless tedium and ban him. Until then, I'd stay well away. |
Another of the canary down the mine club.
Welcome, “I know the struggle” Drizzy. Long overdue too.
I could feel your pure frustration at me being right from here. I am the poster you wish to be but are unable to be, this is why you spend your days floating around the forum like some pre pubescent teenager swearing and abusing anyone and anything you admire.
You will grow out of it, and your username I hope, all the rage with the kids isn’t he. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:05 - May 11 with 708 views | jack247 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:55 - May 11 by E20Jack |
Not at all, you have a penchant for making people see it your way or you start throwing your toys out of the pram. I am perfectly happy in the knowledge I am correct as well as the statistical data that backs me up to start kicking and screaming like you do. You are more than welcome to continue to be wrong, doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
You are so entrenched in this you are now throwing your toys out of the pram about down arrowing silly posts. How about instead of trying to tell people what they really think, you try and win the debate by actually talking about your own points, you know, the ones that make very little sense and change at the drop of a hat due to the weak nature of them?
It is utterly irrelevant, your point is that if a striker does not suit a particular style of play that the team is forced to play so instead use someone more suited then it means that striker is a bad player. It’s ridiculous and completely nonsensical. Just like you trying to claim that Nathan Dyer played as a striker, but we will gloss over that.
You can strip it back all you like mate, you are still just spouting noise and hot air. He was not a disastrous signing for the factual indisputable reasons I explained to you so very patiently. |
Again four paragraphs of waffle.
I’m not sure where you’ve got the kicking and screaming bit from. I don’t care about being downarrowed. I just find it pitifully amusing that you’re doing it to every post that gets up arrowed. It’s almost as if you can’t handle people agreeing with me.
Third paragraph. I haven’t said he’s a bad player, I’ve said he was a disastrous signing.
You think he did what was expected of him. I was expecting substantially more. | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:12 - May 11 with 698 views | Loyal |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:03 - May 11 by hobo |
I'd try to bring him in permanently. Him and Oli leading the line in the Championship will get us goals |
And when we do go one up front Oli will be my choice every time.
Not sure aka Tammy will like the bench splinters on offer in the championship. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:16 - May 11 with 693 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 12:05 - May 11 by E20Jack |
He wasn’t a terrible signing at all.
He was signed with a plan in mind. Which was the right plan of course, which is why it was not a mistake. We sold Llorente and Gylfi to try and regenerate as a side and move away from the stifling relegationball we were morphing into deeper every year.
Tammy was sourced and signed early on and was a significant piece of that plan. However other key targets clearly failed to materialise and we ended up panicking and going back to the tried and tested relegationball, then came the last gasp signing of Bony.
Tammy was the victim of that, not a victim of his own ability (which is what this ridiculous debate is surrounding). When he came on he showed in the right situations what he can do. Just like against Southampton last week immediately got in on the action flashing a shot in at their goal. Let’s also not forget that it is a fact that he produced more direct goals per minute than anyone else in the side (stat accurate up to a few weeks ago, not checked since).
It is a case of what could have been with Tammy. But his signature was not the mistake, the mistake was not complimenting it with others. [Post edited 11 May 2018 12:08]
|
Of course he was.
Signing someone with a plan in mind without the ability to implement the plan is stupidity at its most extreme.
It's like saying you've booked and paid for a brilliant hotel for your holiday and can't get the flights to get to it. It doesn't make the hotel a good use of your money, it makes it a bloody stupid use of your money.
It's not the hotel's fault - it's a great hotel if you can get to it, but it's not accessible so it's a really bad choice.
As I've said previously, he's a good player in the right team. Not as good as you are making out mind - he missed some real chances - but good for his age and stage of development.
It's the way we've done everything in the past few years. Brendan's team was greater than the sum of its parts, because it worked well together. We signed players to fit. Recently we've signed pieces of a jigsaw that may be great pieces in their own right, but they don't make a picture. That makes them bad signings.
Gomis was the first. Signed without a clear idea of how he'd fit. We've done it over and over again since then, which is why these players then look so bad. They don't fit. And that's why we can't get value for them in shipping them out afterwards as well. We've made them look less than they could be. | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:16 - May 11 with 689 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:05 - May 11 by jack247 |
Again four paragraphs of waffle.
I’m not sure where you’ve got the kicking and screaming bit from. I don’t care about being downarrowed. I just find it pitifully amusing that you’re doing it to every post that gets up arrowed. It’s almost as if you can’t handle people agreeing with me.
Third paragraph. I haven’t said he’s a bad player, I’ve said he was a disastrous signing.
You think he did what was expected of him. I was expecting substantially more. |
As we have come to see from you, “waffle” means answers you don’t like and do not wish to engage with.
Again, your hang up about down arrows. I think your opinion (still not sure if it is a genuine one) is utterly ludicrous devoid of any semblance of sense or reality. If someone echoes that sentiment then I will down arrow them. It seems like it is you that can not handle this, not me. You even need to try and claim that people agree with you even if you have to drop large parts of your own argument to do so.
I don’t care whether you think he is a good player or not, you are wrong in every sense about his absolute and the quality of signing, it’s as clear as day. Again I have patiently explained the reasons for that.
Maybe that is your problem then, you expected a 19 year old goal poacher to be able to be thrust into a side that hoofs balls to him due to an error in subsequent signings to score a shed full. Others that know the game had a more realistic expectation. I again take this back to the playground level of debate. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:17 - May 11 with 689 views | jack247 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:01 - May 11 by E20Jack |
We both know I absolutely do, and we both know that my points are indesputable - hence your clear frustrations and need to convince yourself of the above. Your rants are not going to change anything. It won’t change the date he signed, it won’t change the correct decision to sign him due to the direction we wanted to go in and lastly it won’t change the fact he has been the most likely source of a direct goal per minute than anyone else in the squad. You can not like it, you can be frustrated by it, you can even deny it if you want - but these still don’t change. |
Neither will it change the indisputable facts that he got 5 league goals all season in a side that is about to get relegated. He will be disappointed with himself. As will SCFC and Chelsea.
Whether he would have been a better signing if other targets had been secured is immaterial. They weren’t and he floundered.
Wouldn’t you expect the only striker in a squad to have the best goals per minute ratio? It’s a pretty feeble brag. | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:19 - May 11 with 682 views | jack247 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:16 - May 11 by E20Jack |
As we have come to see from you, “waffle” means answers you don’t like and do not wish to engage with.
Again, your hang up about down arrows. I think your opinion (still not sure if it is a genuine one) is utterly ludicrous devoid of any semblance of sense or reality. If someone echoes that sentiment then I will down arrow them. It seems like it is you that can not handle this, not me. You even need to try and claim that people agree with you even if you have to drop large parts of your own argument to do so.
I don’t care whether you think he is a good player or not, you are wrong in every sense about his absolute and the quality of signing, it’s as clear as day. Again I have patiently explained the reasons for that.
Maybe that is your problem then, you expected a 19 year old goal poacher to be able to be thrust into a side that hoofs balls to him due to an error in subsequent signings to score a shed full. Others that know the game had a more realistic expectation. I again take this back to the playground level of debate. |
No. Waffle is immaterial nonsense like the majority of your last post.
Would you have been happy with 5 goals from the outset?
People that up arrow my posts agree with them. That’s a fair assumption even in your book surely? | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:28 - May 11 with 659 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:16 - May 11 by londonlisa2001 |
Of course he was.
Signing someone with a plan in mind without the ability to implement the plan is stupidity at its most extreme.
It's like saying you've booked and paid for a brilliant hotel for your holiday and can't get the flights to get to it. It doesn't make the hotel a good use of your money, it makes it a bloody stupid use of your money.
It's not the hotel's fault - it's a great hotel if you can get to it, but it's not accessible so it's a really bad choice.
As I've said previously, he's a good player in the right team. Not as good as you are making out mind - he missed some real chances - but good for his age and stage of development.
It's the way we've done everything in the past few years. Brendan's team was greater than the sum of its parts, because it worked well together. We signed players to fit. Recently we've signed pieces of a jigsaw that may be great pieces in their own right, but they don't make a picture. That makes them bad signings.
Gomis was the first. Signed without a clear idea of how he'd fit. We've done it over and over again since then, which is why these players then look so bad. They don't fit. And that's why we can't get value for them in shipping them out afterwards as well. We've made them look less than they could be. |
He most certainly was not.
As I have said to others, this is football not a computer game. You can only plan so much, the rest is left to negotiation. You said yourself that the decision to sell Gylfi and Llorente was perfectly sound given the situation.
Well the succession plan of that was to reinvest into a different style of player to being about a more dynamic approach. Tammy Abraham cost 2m and was a very cheap first part of that puzzle. The puzzle then got much harder when WBA decided they no longer want 15m for Chadli and wanted 25m. It has absolutely no comparative relevance to a holiday in which every part of the trip can be easily coordinated to be booked without affecting the other. But you know that.
I haven’t made out anything, you are reading between the lines and coming to your own conclusions with that. Yes he definitely missed chances, as did Llorente and Michu. Even more so when you do not get a regular run in the side to build confidence and continuity. But still managed to chip in at a greater rate than anyone else in the side - again the caveat being this was accurate as to the last discussion a few weeks ago, not checked since, but it wont have changed that much.
Agree with your last two paragraphs but feel you are simplifying it when it really is not that simple. Every club in the world decides they wish to sign players in order to complete a certain plan, doesn’t mean that plan will come to fruition mind and by that time some of that plan may already be in place - they are the right signings not the wrong ones, they are the ones that fit the plan.
If you then have to abort that plan it does not mean they were bad signings, they just become the victim of circumstance and have to be forced in the best they can until the plan is able to be complete. In our case the plan is now out the window as relegation will see a turnover in these players, and the pieces put in place will have to be removed as quickly as they were put there.
In short, he was the right signing. Victim of us not being able to complete the plan of new direction we wanted to go. He did perfectly fine considering what was asked of him. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:32 - May 11 with 648 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:19 - May 11 by jack247 |
No. Waffle is immaterial nonsense like the majority of your last post.
Would you have been happy with 5 goals from the outset?
People that up arrow my posts agree with them. That’s a fair assumption even in your book surely? |
Well that is the true meaning kf the word yes, but you aren’t using it for that as what I am saying is perfectly on topic and incredibly pertinent to the discussion. You don’t like it so call it waffle in a transparent attempt to gloss over what would be areas of a discussion you understand would be hard to discuss.
I dont know what you are talking about regarding 5 goals. And I am stunned and confused as to why you are STILL talking about arrows. People on this forum would up arrow a post that says “I hate Swansea City” if it was in response to a point I make, don’t flatter yourself. It’s an amusing sideshow, stop getting so hung up about them. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:42 - May 11 with 638 views | jack247 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:32 - May 11 by E20Jack |
Well that is the true meaning kf the word yes, but you aren’t using it for that as what I am saying is perfectly on topic and incredibly pertinent to the discussion. You don’t like it so call it waffle in a transparent attempt to gloss over what would be areas of a discussion you understand would be hard to discuss.
I dont know what you are talking about regarding 5 goals. And I am stunned and confused as to why you are STILL talking about arrows. People on this forum would up arrow a post that says “I hate Swansea City” if it was in response to a point I make, don’t flatter yourself. It’s an amusing sideshow, stop getting so hung up about them. |
Right, so people who are up arrowing my posts are only doing it because they think you are a bit of a prick? | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:05 - May 11 with 611 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:42 - May 11 by jack247 |
Right, so people who are up arrowing my posts are only doing it because they think you are a bit of a prick? |
So we are still talking about arrows? I really wasnt kidding about year 7 debate was I. Utterly baffling.
But to answer your question, no. You are yet again making things up to suit yourself while lashing out to make yourself feel better about your floundering view point. You are shoehorning what is being said in order to draw your biased conclusions, very much like the rest of your contribution to this thread.
I have no idea the motives behind these arrows, some may actually genuinely share your basic understanding and lack of analytical thinking, this forum is hardly the bastion of intelligent thought so it’s not inconceivable. Others no doubt are doing it simply because they don’t like me being right and are continually offended by how I am able to back up my thoughts so well when they are unable to.
Only on Planetswans can you be called a prick for standing up for Swansea City players and their efforts with facts. [Post edited 11 May 2018 14:11]
| |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:13 - May 11 with 607 views | jack247 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:05 - May 11 by E20Jack |
So we are still talking about arrows? I really wasnt kidding about year 7 debate was I. Utterly baffling.
But to answer your question, no. You are yet again making things up to suit yourself while lashing out to make yourself feel better about your floundering view point. You are shoehorning what is being said in order to draw your biased conclusions, very much like the rest of your contribution to this thread.
I have no idea the motives behind these arrows, some may actually genuinely share your basic understanding and lack of analytical thinking, this forum is hardly the bastion of intelligent thought so it’s not inconceivable. Others no doubt are doing it simply because they don’t like me being right and are continually offended by how I am able to back up my thoughts so well when they are unable to.
Only on Planetswans can you be called a prick for standing up for Swansea City players and their efforts with facts. [Post edited 11 May 2018 14:11]
|
I’m just responding to your odd assumption that people are doing it just to spite you.
That aside then, I wouldn’t have taken 5 goals at the start of the season. I also wouldn’t have been happy with him not being able to force his way into the team ahead of non productive wingers. Maybe you would have. Your prerogative. | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:16 - May 11 with 604 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 13:28 - May 11 by E20Jack |
He most certainly was not.
As I have said to others, this is football not a computer game. You can only plan so much, the rest is left to negotiation. You said yourself that the decision to sell Gylfi and Llorente was perfectly sound given the situation.
Well the succession plan of that was to reinvest into a different style of player to being about a more dynamic approach. Tammy Abraham cost 2m and was a very cheap first part of that puzzle. The puzzle then got much harder when WBA decided they no longer want 15m for Chadli and wanted 25m. It has absolutely no comparative relevance to a holiday in which every part of the trip can be easily coordinated to be booked without affecting the other. But you know that.
I haven’t made out anything, you are reading between the lines and coming to your own conclusions with that. Yes he definitely missed chances, as did Llorente and Michu. Even more so when you do not get a regular run in the side to build confidence and continuity. But still managed to chip in at a greater rate than anyone else in the side - again the caveat being this was accurate as to the last discussion a few weeks ago, not checked since, but it wont have changed that much.
Agree with your last two paragraphs but feel you are simplifying it when it really is not that simple. Every club in the world decides they wish to sign players in order to complete a certain plan, doesn’t mean that plan will come to fruition mind and by that time some of that plan may already be in place - they are the right signings not the wrong ones, they are the ones that fit the plan.
If you then have to abort that plan it does not mean they were bad signings, they just become the victim of circumstance and have to be forced in the best they can until the plan is able to be complete. In our case the plan is now out the window as relegation will see a turnover in these players, and the pieces put in place will have to be removed as quickly as they were put there.
In short, he was the right signing. Victim of us not being able to complete the plan of new direction we wanted to go. He did perfectly fine considering what was asked of him. |
Yep, he was.
In our situation, if you are unable to guarantee having the players that can make his game work, you sign a player with the best possible versatility. Not a player who can only work in one particular way. If the only way for making Tammy work was signing Chadli (God knows why - there are many players who could do the same as Chadli but let's go with that for one moment), then unless you have a deal in place for Chadli you don't sign Tammy. If you don't have that deal in place, you don't sign him.
If you don't know what else will be in place, you go with versatile. A player that can be used in a number of ways depending on who else you are able to recruit. He didn't cost £2m - we have to pay wages, substantial wages at that, that could be used elsewhere.
I'm not saying he's a bad player, just a bad signing. And given his cost, inability to get in the team, and goals scored this year, that's undeniable. It doesn't matter why it didn't work, just that it didn't.
I didn't say anything, as an aside, about Llorente other than he wanted to go. If we had any choice (which we didn't), replacing Llorente with Bony was ridiculous. Which I did say at the time. | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:21 - May 11 with 585 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:13 - May 11 by jack247 |
I’m just responding to your odd assumption that people are doing it just to spite you.
That aside then, I wouldn’t have taken 5 goals at the start of the season. I also wouldn’t have been happy with him not being able to force his way into the team ahead of non productive wingers. Maybe you would have. Your prerogative. |
I’m not, I am making a factual observation that is clearly motivation for some as it is shown on a daily basis, others are genuinely that stupid I guess.
Again your last paragraph shows your lack of awareness of the situation we, and he, was faced with. When you mean “at the start” what do you mean? So you mean when we signed him? If so, then I agree with you. However things changed after that as I have explained. In a free flowing attacking side as was expected to be able to have been assembled with £55m to spend I most certainly would not have been happy with the 8 goals he got.
However as soon as it was clear the recruitment plan failed and we resorted to relegationball then 8 goals from the obvious subsequent limited game time and our most productive goal threat per minute is a perfectly reasonable return. Not being chosen as a wide forward when you aren’t a wide forward is no sleight on his ability, but we both know that. Or at least I hope you do otherwise I am convinced more than ever you are still in year 7. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:26 - May 11 with 576 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:21 - May 11 by E20Jack |
I’m not, I am making a factual observation that is clearly motivation for some as it is shown on a daily basis, others are genuinely that stupid I guess.
Again your last paragraph shows your lack of awareness of the situation we, and he, was faced with. When you mean “at the start” what do you mean? So you mean when we signed him? If so, then I agree with you. However things changed after that as I have explained. In a free flowing attacking side as was expected to be able to have been assembled with £55m to spend I most certainly would not have been happy with the 8 goals he got.
However as soon as it was clear the recruitment plan failed and we resorted to relegationball then 8 goals from the obvious subsequent limited game time and our most productive goal threat per minute is a perfectly reasonable return. Not being chosen as a wide forward when you aren’t a wide forward is no sleight on his ability, but we both know that. Or at least I hope you do otherwise I am convinced more than ever you are still in year 7. |
I'm not entering an argument but it's genuinely better to refrain from calling posters stupid or acting like they're in year 7 and then writing 'is no sleight on his ability' ... | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
