Ridgewell first impression.

A

Another Berkshire Seagull

Well-known member

Sep 20, 2003

1,652

Brighton and now regret the username

• Jan 24, 2016

• #41

Seen him play all the games so far and he's been pretty poor throughout. Yesterday he was a real liability and at fault for their goal although not in such calamitous style as Rotherham. The sooner we can get Bong back the better and we can ship Ridgewell back to the MLS.

 

One Teddy Maybank

Well-known member

NSC Patron

Aug 4, 2006

21,625

Worthing

• Jan 24, 2016

• #42

Not as good as Calderon playing LB for me based on yesterday. But he did play better at Blackburn.

 

greenfordgull

New member

Feb 2, 2009

84

• Jan 24, 2016

• #43

I thought he was ok for the purpose we have signed him for, short term cover. He is slightly more solid than Calderón but inferior going forwards IMHO. ..

 

F

fleet

Well-known member

Jul 28, 2003

12,222

• Jan 24, 2016

• #44

One Teddy Maybank said:

Not as good as Calderon playing LB for me based on yesterday. But he did play better at Blackburn.

Click to expand...

You clearly weren't at Brentford then!

 

One Teddy Maybank

Well-known member

NSC Patron

Aug 4, 2006

21,625

Worthing

• Jan 24, 2016

• #45

[MENTION=659]fleet[/MENTION] Yes was there as well, but IMO that was the only time Caldy was really exposed, and he wasn't helped by the fact Murphy spent the majority of the game watching and not tracking back.

 

Langley

New member

Mar 10, 2008

781

Waltham Chase, Hants

• Jan 24, 2016

• #46

Another Berkshire Seagull said:

Seen him play all the games so far and he's been pretty poor throughout. Yesterday he was a real liability and at fault for their goal although not in such calamitous style as Rotherham. The sooner we can get Bong back the better and we can ship Ridgewell back to the MLS.

Click to expand...

Quite agree with you, in my opinion he is the type of player who is just doing enough to keep out of trouble, so that he returns to his parent club fit and ready to go, and we have seen enough of that with many of the previous loans that we have had. The days of the Paul Dikov ( spelling ) type of loanee are long gone.

 

ewe2

Well-known member

Mar 14, 2008

2,671

Hailsham area

• Jan 24, 2016

• #47

On that showing,and the first time i have seen him play. He just not a full back,he had a poor game throughout It was as a central defender he made his career ,and i reckon we will sign him at some stage ,next season if we don t go up,as Dunks replacement.

 

Big G

New member

Dec 14, 2005

1,086

Brighton

• Jan 25, 2016

• #48

Distinctly average unfortunately!

 

T

theboybilly

Well-known member

Apr 25, 2013

6,179

Along the Shoreham Road in er, Shoreham

• Jan 25, 2016

• #49

Herr Tubthumper said:

And started the move which led to Rotherham's second.

Click to expand...

Actually I think the 2nd Rotherham goal was down to a poor decision by Stephens in that he let a ball roll out of play for a throw when he could just as easily taken possession himself in acres of space when we were chasing an equaliser. I just had a feeling we were going to regret that and seconds later...........

 

Pavilionaire

Well-known member

Jul 7, 2003

30,582

• Jan 25, 2016

• #50

His performance vs Huddersfield reminded me of last season's loan signing who couldn't give a sh1t. Bong and Rosenior would have cut out the cross that led to their equaliser, Ridgewell ambled over. I thought he was disappointing.

 

E

Exile

Objective but passionate

Aug 10, 2014

2,367

• Jan 25, 2016

• #51

fleet said:

You clearly weren't at Brentford then!

Click to expand...

And you clearly weren't at Rotherham

 

ditchy

a man with a sound track record as a source of qua

Jul 8, 2003

5,209

brighton

• Jan 25, 2016

• #52

For me , and i may be doing him an injustice,but i thought he was off the pace . Certainly no better than Calde has been , but will certainly give him the benefit of the doubt for later games .

 

JCL666

absurdism

Sep 23, 2011

2,190

• Jan 25, 2016

• #53

I thought he was ok. I've only seen him against Huddersfield though.

He was at fault(ish) for the goal as his positioning wasn't great, although it was a nice pass that picked out their right back (decent player), who he failed to close down.


Just shows that this "we need a left footed player at left back and everything will be dandy" stuff is nonsense.

 

beefypigeon

Well-known member

Aug 14, 2008

960

• Jan 25, 2016

• #54

He didn't have a great game, and could certainly have done a better job of preventing the cross for their goal.

Whilst Murphy didn't exactly have a stormer either, I feel that Ridgewell's presence afforded him more freedom to attack.

 

B

BensGrandad

New member

Jul 13, 2003

72,015

Haywards Heath

• Jan 25, 2016

• Thread starter
• #55

JCL666 said:

I thought he was ok. I've only seen him against Huddersfield though.

He was at fault(ish) for the goal as his positioning wasn't great, although it was a nice pass that picked out their right back (decent player), who he failed to close down.


Just shows that this "we need a left footed player at left back and everything will be dandy" stuff is nonsense.

Click to expand...

It is not just being left footed which is the problem we need a player who is a left back not a CB or right back who has played their occassionally, that is the crux of the matter. Ridgewell showed he is naturally a CB, probably quite good with his vast experience, but it is not the same as having an orthodox left back.

 

S

Sweeney Todd

New member

Apr 24, 2008

1,636

Oxford/Lancing

• Jan 25, 2016

• #56

If he keeps playing poorly, and we keep winning, I will be happy.