So what was your stupid reply for?No I wouldn’t have, because Doyle is better
our centre backs got dominated all game
Fadz got bullied at times and wasn't McNally 30 yards out of position for their goal? But something that happened as their bloke cheated is what is always mentioned. There was no Panzo trauma in the final for me because even from 100 metres away it was a clear handball. I'm shocked other people couldn't see itThe other centre backs were really good that day remember David
Wasn’t stupid at allSo what was your stupid reply for?
Sorry I thought you were trying to say we would have won and kept a clean sheet if Panzo had startedWasn’t stupid at all
recency bias over that clanger in the final
but our other centre backs weren’t great either, that’s my point ffs
This^Fadz got bullied at times and wasn't McNally 30 yards out of position for their goal? But something that happened as their bloke cheated is what is always mentioned. There was no Panzo trauma in the final for me because even from 100 metres away it was a clear handball. I'm shocked other people couldn't see it
No I’m echoing exactly what @David O'Day has just saidSorry I thought you were trying to say we would have won and kept a clean sheet of Panzo had started
I like McNally but I don’t get the status he gets on hereMatt has point, people seem to not mention the awful defencing Fadz and McNally did that day
The back line was dreadful for the first half . We knew what Luton what do and throw at us and didn't handle it .Matt has point, people seem to not mention the awful defencing Fadz and McNally did that day
Both , if which I'm reading we should've started Panzo , are absolutely bizarreNo I’m echoing exactly what @David O'Day has just said
I think Thomas will be a solid investment for usI like McNally but I don’t get the status he gets on here
he was good for us but nothing we can’t replace with Thomas
No one is saying thatThe back line was dreadful for the first half . We knew what Luton what do and throw at us and didn't handle it .
The weird assumption now that Panzo would've solved that seems very bizarre
I haven’t said that at all, Doyle is betterBoth , if which I'm reading we should've started Panzo , are absolutely bizarre
learn to read mate as that not what I saidBoth , if which I'm reading we should've started Panzo , are absolutely bizarre
I'm also glad we've got Thomas instead of McNally who also worried me on the ballNo one is saying that
We are talking about how one moment where a Luton player cheated is always brought up when you talk about Panzo but no one mentions McNally being in a different city to the Luton forward for their goal
Not saying he would have doneThe back line was dreadful for the first half . We knew what Luton what do and throw at us and didn't handle it .
The weird assumption now that Panzo would've solved that seems very bizarre
No one disputes that , everI haven’t said that at all, Doyle is better
I’m saying the defence weren’t great that day, what’s not to understand?
Don’t think you get my point MartinNo one disputes that , ever
I've just read that because of our collective defensive ineptitude that we should sign Panzo ?
If it isn't I apologize , just don't see Panzo as a step up on what we've already got or needlearn to read mate as that not what I said
Just to clarify, as I thought i did earlier , my point is not as regards his dreadful indecision in the final but throughout the season in my opinionNot saying he would have done
just saying that no one mentions how poor defensively we were in that first half
would Panzo have made it better? Maybe not
is it unfair to mask over the first half display and just dig out Panzo? Yes
Personally I dont think we need better just a capable back up which is what Panzo isIf it isn't I apologize , just don't see Panzo as a step up on what we've already got or need
We wanted to buy him, Burnley wouldn’t sell.I wouldn’t be interested in a loan for Panzo but if it’s a reasonable fee, he’s a good player to buy and develop imo.
It was widely reported that we wanted McNally on a permanent but Burnley were only wanting to loan him out.. hence his subsequent loan move. I absolutely fuckinglove the fact we own nearly all of our new signings, that they have room to grow and develop and are on long term contracts.
It’s a huge step in the right direction.
Nailed it, people only remember the heart attack he gave everyone at Wembley.I think people's perspective of Panzo is poisoned by a recency bias, particularly after what happened in the play-off final. He wasn't actually a bad player, he just fell out of form and was probably lacking in confidence after being displaced by Callum Doyle (who was class) in the latter half of the season. Realistically, as a left-footed CB around the age of 22-23, he currently fits our model of recruitment, and I think people have written him off far too soon. There's no doubt a decent player there imo. Definitely wouldn't mind having him back, especially for some much needed squad depth in the defensive department.
Alternatively, I also wouldn't mind taking a punt at Humphreys who would seem to offer some potentially similar qualities minus the trauma attached to Panzo due to that play-off incident
Panzo was technically a good player, his biggest problem is concentration. If we could pick him up for a reasonable fee I'd have him.
I wouldn’t be interested in a loan for Panzo but if it’s a reasonable fee, he’s a good player to buy and develop imo.
Panzo is one of those players I'd love as a permanent signing to bed in gradually because it's clear he has the quality & in time would be a perfect fit for us. We know that was the original plan but never materialised.
As it is though he makes some basic errors & looks lost positionally at the moment which is not ideal for a season long loan as we're developing him for someone else to ultimately benefit.
It was meant for the ones that think he was a world beater.Errm… Isn’t that wot I justsaid m8?
Christ, did Panzo run over your cat or something?I was asking where the massive improvement was to come ?
He was athletic and physical but technically inept , improving that is difficult in the short term
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?