End of september to now (1 Viewer)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

“Wow”?

That’ll be the guy who got 1 goal 1 assist in the Champ yesterday?

What did he cost? Oh. Free agent signed last month until the end of the season. Not a huge long term contract risk then.

With a squad as threadbare as ours this season having a 6ft3 ex £10m Prem Eng u21 low risk low cost back up to Vik (I mean who’s up top if he’s suspended or out - bye bye any lingering play off hopes)

“Wow, just wow”

Clown.

Hang on, haven’t you also been devoting a lot of posts criticising our signing of Waghorn who was also 31, also free, also a former England U21, and also had pedigree at this level and elsewhere?

He’s scored also scored the same for Huddersfield as Wickham has for Cardiff, in the same time. Let’s extend his contract and hope nobody comes in for him.

 

---

[The Philosopher]

Hang on, haven’t you also been devoting a lot of posts criticising our signing of Waghorn who was also 31, also free, also a former England U21, and also had pedigree at this level and elsewhere?

He’s scored also scored the same for Huddersfield as Wickham has for Cardiff, in the same time. Let’s extend his contract and hope nobody comes in for him.

Wickham was 29 and a 6 month deal. We have no forward in the squad over 5 ft 10 other than Vik.

Waghorn 31 and 2 years. We also had Godden (5 9 wiki) Walker (5 10 wiki) who play that kind of role.

We have Hamer in the squad who can be a great deliverer of a cross or dead ball. Think back, how many times have we had players jump and not get to one of his crosses? How many times recently have we seen Godden jump in vain?

So to answer you question, yes I was critical of signing 31 year old Waghorn on a 2 year deal. Simply put: we didn’t need him and the money better spent elsewhere in the squad.

Yes. I said at that time. I’ll claim a “I told you so” for that.

With Wickham, 29, Totally different, and anyone with any sense knows this.

 

[Boosh]

What a lunatic

 

[Sick Boy]

Clown.

 

[The Philosopher]

Are Boosh, Sick Boy and Grendel the same person? Mentality of a 12 year old. Bless.

 

[clint van damme]

Wickham was 29 and a 6 month deal. We have no forward in the squad over 5 ft 10 other than Vik.

Waghorn 31 and 2 years. We also had Godden (5 9 wiki) Walker (5 10 wiki) who play that kind of role.

We have Hamer in the squad who can be a great deliverer of a cross or dead ball. Think back, how many times have we had players jump and not get to one of his crosses? How many times recently have we seen Godden jump in vain?

So to answer you question, yes I was critical of signing 31 year old Waghorn on a 2 year deal. Simply put: we didn’t need him and the money better spent elsewhere in the squad.

Yes. I said at that time. I’ll claim a “I told you so” for that.

With Wickham, 29, Totally different, and anyone with any sense knows this.

Philosopher and Connor Wickham discuss his impending transfer to theSky Blues

 

[The Philosopher]

Philosopher and Connor Wickham discuss his impending transfer to theSky Blues

View attachment 28952

? Heavy night last night?

 

[Tommo1993]

Wickham was 29 and a 6 month deal. We have no forward in the squad over 5 ft 10 other than Vik.

Waghorn 31 and 2 years. We also had Godden (5 9 wiki) Walker (5 10 wiki) who play that kind of role.

We have Hamer in the squad who can be a great deliverer of a cross or dead ball. Think back, how many times have we had players jump and not get to one of his crosses? How many times recently have we seen Godden jump in vain?

So to answer you question, yes I was critical of signing 31 year old Waghorn on a 2 year deal. Simply put: we didn’t need him and the money better spent elsewhere in the squad.

Yes. I said at that time. I’ll claim a “I told you so” for that.

With Wickham, 29, Totally different, and anyone with any sense knows this.

Hamer is a class player, no doubt. City’s best player imo.

But his dead ball ability could use some work. He’s much better with it moving and us switching play.

 

[The Philosopher]

Hamer is a class player, no doubt. City’s best player imo.

But his dead ball ability could use some work. He’s much better with it moving and us switching play.

Agreed. The fact that we switched to short corners was interesting yesterday,

I thought Gus’s whipped in close to the line corners caused problems in the past

Having a 6ft3 striker option to get on the end of them to flick on or nod in seems sensible.

 

[Boosh]

Are Boosh, Sick Boy and Grendel the same person? Mentality of a 12 year old. Bless.

Stick to watching Andrew Tate videos, they’ve got you believing all sorts of conspiracies clearly

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Wickham was 29 and a 6 month deal. We have no forward in the squad over 5 ft 10 other than Vik.

Waghorn 31 and 2 years. We also had Godden (5 9 wiki) Walker (5 10 wiki) who play that kind of role.

We have Hamer in the squad who can be a great deliverer of a cross or dead ball. Think back, how many times have we had players jump and not get to one of his crosses? How many times recently have we seen Godden jump in vain?

So to answer you question, yes I was critical of signing 31 year old Waghorn on a 2 year deal. Simply put: we didn’t need him and the money better spent elsewhere in the squad.

Yes. I said at that time. I’ll claim a “I told you so” for that.

With Wickham, 29, Totally different, and anyone with any sense knows this.

They are both former England U21s who have each scored once for their current clubs this season. Extend Waghorn and bring in Wickham perhaps?

 

[The Philosopher]

They are both former England U21s who have each scored once for their current clubs this season. Extend Waghorn and bring in Wickham perhaps?

One was 29 and it’s a 6 month deal.
One was 31 for 24 months plus

One has aerial ability, one doesn’t.

You’re either not very bright or just trying to be a tool? It’s poor sarcasm at best. “Sign both”

Pathetic.

Bore off or put your pathetic come-back below:

 

[Deleted member 5849]

One was 29 and it’s a 6 month deal.
One was 31 for 24 months plus

One has aerial ability, one doesn’t.

You’re either not very bright or just trying to be a tool? It’s poor sarcasm at best. “Sign both”

Pathetic.

Bore off or put your pathetic come-back below:

You don't take well to people disagreeing with your POV, do you?

 

[Grendel]

Was it Bob Latchford on here who ignored anyone who didn’t agree with him then thought the site was closed down as no one was on here. Philosopher is the new Bob.

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

Agreed. The fact that we switched to short corners was interesting yesterday,

I thought Gus’s whipped in close to the line corners caused problems in the past

Having a 6ft3 striker option to get on the end of them to flick on or nod in seems sensible.

It’s funny how our 6 foot 3 centre back has yet to find the back of the net from these whipped in close to the line corners. It’s amazing how we just need to sign a tall centre forward and we’ll be free flowing from set pieces. Can’t believe we’ve not thought of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Philosopher]

It’s funny how our 6 foot 3 centre back has yet to find the back of the net from these whipped in close to the line corners. It’s amazing how we just need to sign a tall centre forward and we’ll be free flowing from set pieces. Can’t believe we’ve not thought of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think only McNally is over 6ft1 but no matter.

Most teams at this level have a couple of big centre backs that defend corners and mark the opposing aerial threats. These same players get forward for attacking corners and such.

We have a squad of relatively short strikers and midfielders. Other teams sometimes overload us with having 5/6 big units up for set plays and our 3/4 6ft plus guys do their bit and we have to bring Vik back (when you really want him as one of the best breakout strikers in the league) standing centre circle (and meaning your opponents have to keep 2 out of the attacking set play)

Look, I know this forum is full of contrarians who just want to make pointless points and sarky come-backs. Be better.

We have a short squad, no striker over 5 10 to back up Vik, a 6 3 freebie on a 6 month deal seems sensible to me.

He scored and made an assist yesterday. IMO he would have been a good bench option yesterday.

Clearly you are much smarter and don’t agree, why else comment?

 

[SBT]

Was it Bob Latchford on here who ignored anyone who didn’t agree with him then thought the site was closed down as no one was on here. Philosopher is the new Bob.

I used to read and occasionally reply to the Philosopher’s posts - when you think about how long they are, the productivity gains I’ve made since I’ve put him on ignore have been amazing. I can speak four languages now.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Look, I know this forum is full of contrarians who just want to make pointless points and sarky come-backs. Be better.

For the sole reason that they disagree with you? You are right and nobody may think different?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

One was 29 and it’s a 6 month deal.
One was 31 for 24 months plus

One has aerial ability, one doesn’t.

You’re either not very bright or just trying to be a tool? It’s poor sarcasm at best. “Sign both”

Pathetic.

Bore off or put your pathetic come-back below:

You seem stuck to this idea of just signing someone really tall on the off chance he scores a header.

 

[The Philosopher]

You seem stuck to this idea of just signing someone really tall on the off chance he scores a header.

I think having options in a threadbare squad rather than having 3 short strikers when we play Vik often as a lone striker is sensible.

30k per week of cost on players who don’t suit our preferred system and no decent back up elsewhere.

(Checks sanity above)

Yep. Rather have a tall option to add balance.

Is that odd to you?

 

[David O'Day]

I think having options in a threadbare squad rather than having 3 short strikers when we play Vik often as a lone striker is sensible.

30k per week of cost on players who don’t suit our preferred system and no decent back up elsewhere.

(Checks sanity above)

Yep. Rather have a tall option to add balance.

Is that odd to you?

Mate, you really need to have sex

 

[rob9872]

Mate, you really need to have semtex

 

[Skybluedownunder]

I think only McNally is over 6ft1 but no matter.

Most teams at this level have a couple of big centre backs that defend corners and mark the opposing aerial threats. These same players get forward for attacking corners and such.

We have a squad of relatively short strikers and midfielders. Other teams sometimes overload us with having 5/6 big units up for set plays and our 3/4 6ft plus guys do their bit and we have to bring Vik back (when you really want him as one of the best breakout strikers in the league) standing centre circle (and meaning your opponents have to keep 2 out of the attacking set play)

Look, I know this forum is full of contrarians who just want to make pointless points and sarky come-backs. Be better.

We have a short squad, no striker over 5 10 to back up Vik, a 6 3 freebie on a 6 month deal seems sensible to me.

He scored and made an assist yesterday. IMO he would have been a good bench option yesterday.

Clearly you are much smarter and don’t agree, why else comment?

I’d have preferred Wickham to Maguire to be honest, Maguire was such an underwhelming signing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Philosopher]

I’d have preferred Wickham to Maguire to be honest, Maguire was such an underwhelming signing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually forgotten we’d signed him. Good point.