I really rate Sam as he has a lot to offer both in terms of ability and speed. We are not scoring goals so we need to try someone different - even the pundits are commenting on the fact that we do not have a Plan B. Perhaps therefore Sam should be our plan B - he is never going to get match fit sitting on the bench week in week out.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] will Baldock ever play for the club again ?
- Thread starter skintmanblues
- Start date
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
Watching the ‘We’re on our way’ dvd and Baldock was on fire at the beginning of last season and we desperately missed him at the end of the campaign. I find it completely bizarre that he’s not featured, especially as we lack pace up front.
AZ Gull
@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
I really don't think he would make an effective partner for Shane Duffy or Lewis Dunk.
That explains the lack of game time then.
When was the last time we forced any centre backs to perspire let alone tired enough for nap time?
1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,185
Where are you getting that info from?
Is it another made up stat like the one where we never lose when Baldock is playing?
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,161
CH is too much of a straight dealing football man to put SB on the bench if he had no intention of ever playing him again.
BensGrandad
New member
You would have thought that but money talks and if told to do it plus having very little alternative and not weakening the bench who knows what happens.
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,417
A mate met him on his Xmas work do, apparently he said the gaffer don't like me..
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
BensGrandad
New member
That seems like the case.
Glenvictoria
New member
- Dec 27, 2017
- 2
We have been crying out for him all season. We need two strikers that can run at defences. Muzza seems to want the ball placed at his feet and unfortunately as I rate him Hemed isn’t premier league. Is the Dembele deal gonna happen?
- Jun 27, 2012
- 13,881
Even If this is true and its clearly hearsay then it doesn't make sense.
He's been, when fit, a first choice for Hughton in the last 3 years and was vital last year in the promotion push and Hughton picked him 31 times. .
He was , presumably at Hughton's nod, given an expensive and brand new contract just months ago and he's been slowly (like Kayal who has only just started to appear again) nursed back to match fitness via the u21s and now the bench.
1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,185
All of this.
All the evidence clearly points to CH liking Baldock. Whether a fit Baldock would be first pick in this division remains to be seen, but any suggestion the gaffer doesn't like him couldn't be further from the truth.
- Jun 27, 2012
- 13,881
I get the impression that if Hughton was told who he had to pick or put on the bench he'd tell Bloom to do one.
- Jun 27, 2012
- 13,881
Its the NSC rule. Players can never be dropped, not play or not be in the squad for merely tactical or football reasons.
Its impossible. There must be , usually confirmed by a sauce of course, some alternative more exciting reason that , the manager and the club are doing their best to cover up. (fallen out with x , y or z, hidden injury, being protected from a new injury, on their "way out", sulking, affairs, discipline reasons, fisticuffs in training is a good one, career is over, being sold etc etc - fill yer boots)
Its impossible. There must be , usually confirmed by a sauce of course, some alternative more exciting reason that , the manager and the club are doing their best to cover up. (fallen out with x , y or z, hidden injury, being protected from a new injury, on their "way out", sulking, affairs, discipline reasons, fisticuffs in training is a good one, career is over, being sold etc etc - fill yer boots)
HantsSeagull
Well-known member
can't see anyone buying him with his injury record and not having played since the last one. if they want to sell him, they will have to start playing him.
BensGrandad
New member
Ninja Elephant
Doctor Elephant
- Feb 16, 2009
- 18,855
Any talk of Hughton not liking him is total rubbish. The easiest thing in the world would have been to bin him off after his pathetic first season with us, and then totally ordinary second season where his lack of goals cost us the title (how many games did he play in the first half of the season, and how many goals did he score? Any?), let alone promotion. He was bang average in a very strong team last season and scored a fair number of goals, for the first time in his Albion career, and was generously given a new contract in the summer. He is being overrated in the hideous extreme on this thread and based on absolutely nothing at all. He would be useless at this level, absolutely useless and he's extremely privileged to be sitting on the bench watching the talented players playing the game.
He isn't fit to clean Gross' boots, so any suggestion that Gross coming on was a mistake is hilarious. That said though, some people still don't realise just how good Pascal actually is, so there's no helping some people. Probably the same people who think Bong is better than Suttner, just totally beyond belief.
He isn't fit to clean Gross' boots, so any suggestion that Gross coming on was a mistake is hilarious. That said though, some people still don't realise just how good Pascal actually is, so there's no helping some people. Probably the same people who think Bong is better than Suttner, just totally beyond belief.
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
Blimey...a player who is injury prone and can't even get on when we are not playing well and losing?
We will be lucky to get a fee, let alone a million.
GT49er
Well-known member
Yes, of course, we all missed seeing it, didn't we? Gross changed the game for us yesterday, didn't he?
(Yes, Gross is a good player, one of our best. That doesn't negate the potential desirability of Baldock coming on and offering some sort of Plan B with his speed, rather than just an un-inspiring like-for-like substitution).