Gary Gardner (1 Viewer)

[DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe]

Jesus. We play a narrow midfield four, he played every game within that midfield four. I put it to most of you who are using this as ammunition to slate Thorn that you might not know as much about Gardner's best position as you claim and are basing the opinion on a YouTube clip of a brace for the England U21s (cue righteous indignation)..! Moreover, I put it to you that he may be better suited to one of the two central midfield berths than McSheffrey or Baker, poor as they have been. We are down to the bare bones, he is a midfielder who played in midfield. If he was as good as his reputation (I'm not saying he will not be, I am saying we did not see true evidence of that), he would have been able to affect games from the position he played in (a mere ten or fifteen metres behind the position where he is suddenly a world beater). What about getting forward, taking the game by the scruff of the neck, showing for the ball? He might not have been played in his strongest position and we might be poor there, but we are not exactly laden with options anywhere in the midfield. No wonder there is such an anti Thorn feeling on here at times in threads, he is blamed for everything by some (i.e. 'Gary Gardner is every bit as good as the hype was, it was Andy Thorn who played him wildly out of position who is exclusively responsible for the fact he did not set the Ricoh alight... nothing to do with the fact that it was a short term loan from a player who was not quite up to speed because that was all that SISU were willing to finance and probably only did so after coming out in the media to promise the fans a couple of such signings').

 

---

[stupot07]

DiveDive - I agree with you. From what hears about him from villa fans he's a box-to-box midfielder with an eye for a goal making late runs into the box from deep, not an out an out attacking midfield player like Mata, etc. He'd suit one of those 2 central midfield places rather than in the hole - and that's where he played 2 of his 4 games for us.

 

[CUS Wyken]

Jesus. We play a narrow midfield four, he played every game within that midfield four. I put it to most of you who are using this as ammunition to slate Thorn that you might not know as much about Gardner's best position as you claim and are basing the opinion on a YouTube clip of a brace for the England U21s (cue righteous indignation)..! Moreover, I put it to you that he may be better suited to one of the two central midfield berths than McSheffrey or Baker, poor as they have been. We are down to the bare bones, he is a midfielder who played in midfield. If he was as good as his reputation (I'm not saying he will not be, I am saying we did not see true evidence of that), he would have been able to affect games from the position he played in (a mere ten or fifteen metres behind the position where he is suddenly a world beater). What about getting forward, taking the game by the scruff of the neck, showing for the ball? He might not have been played in his strongest position and we might be poor there, but we are not exactly laden with options anywhere in the midfield. No wonder there is such an anti Thorn feeling on here at times in threads, he is blamed for everything by some (i.e. 'Gary Gardner is every bit as good as the hype was, it was Andy Thorn who played him wildly out of position who is exclusively responsible for the fact he did not set the Ricoh alight... nothing to do with the fact that it was a short term loan from a player who was not quite up to speed because that was all that SISU were willing to finance and probably only did so after coming out in the media to promise the fans a couple of such signings').

So was he a worthwhile loanne?

In my eyes no. He played 4 games and we accumlated no points. As i said last month, i didn't want him because he had no experience and was only given to us to help his match fitness. We got no benefit whatsoever from him.

 

[DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe]

And this is Thorn's fault > SISU's fault? I don't understand your point, I am saying he did not set the world alight and this is not exclusively down to the fact that Thorn did not play him in the hole every week.

 

[CUS Wyken]

And this is Thorn's fault > SISU's fault? I don't understand your point, I am saying he did not set the world alight and this is not exclusively down to the fact that Thorn did not play him in the hole every week.

It was a bad move for us that was my point. We needed an experience head. Thorn openly came out in the press and said the right player weren't avaliable so that could be understood in various ways. Granted we haven't got the funds BUT Thorn played Gardner who by all accounts can score in the deepest role possible.

Just don't understand the logic. We lacked goals yet a so called midfield threat was played in a deep role. A position which Thomas, Bigi could have filled just as easy.

 

[DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe]

DiveDive - I agree with you. From what hears about him from villa fans he's a box-to-box midfielder with an eye for a goal making late runs into the box from deep, not an out an out attacking midfield player like Mata, etc. He'd suit one of those 2 central midfield places rather than in the hole - and that's where he played 2 of his 4 games for us.

This. Still.

 

[procdoc]

he scored one goal in his four games, that's one more than Bigi, Clingan and Thomas have had all season so he DID improve us. And as for the ridiculous statement that it makes no difference playing 15 metres behind where you normally play, if you've ever played the game you'd know that it does make a lot of difference

 

[CUS Wyken]

he scored one goal in his four games, that's one more than Bigi, Clingan and Thomas have had all season so he DID improve us. And as for the ridiculous statement that it makes no difference playing 15 metres behind where you normally play, if you've ever played the game you'd know that it does make a lot of difference

How did he improve us?

Did we get ANY points while he played? No. So out of a possible 12 points we got 0. How is that improvement?

 

[Covstu]

we needed him because we lack quality and creativity in midfield in particular!!! take your points about an 'experienced' head however we got the best we could afford and he was quality compared to our own crop of players. An experienced attacking midfielder is liek golddust at the moment particualrly getting someone on a cheap loan, it isnt going to happen. We had Gunnarson who we played for one year in an attacking role and shone, and then moved him to a defensive player and he was half as effective! This is a daft move by the club but i guess its too late to pull out of the position we are in anyway.....

When Gardner plays for England everyone on this site will be saying 'ah he played for us once!'

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

What the hell is wrong with some City fans, as soon as he goes back he is shit and we don't need him. This is Aron Gunnarsson all over again. Maybe he seemed poor because Thorn didn't utilise him properly? "No, no, no say City fans because Thorn is God, it is because Gardner is bad." Gardner in four games has probably had as many shots as Gael, Thomas, Baker, Bell put together and that is with him playing as DM for some of that time.
Another player suffers because of stupid expectations from City fans when he first arrives, you were deluded if you thought someone who had never played first team football was going to change our season. I remember when he first arrived some fans were already counting the number of points we would gain whilst here winning 6/7 games or something and referring to the "Gardner factor":laugh:

I am not happy he has gone back especially with Clingan's injury.

 

[Gaz]

Tbf to Gardner, he came here for only four games but has left as our joint 3rd top scorer with the grand total of ... 1

And if we look at it even closer, it had only taken him one game to reach that milestone.

It sort of suns our season up in a nutshell really.