Texeira, McCourt and Agdestein

[smudge]

Tex has potential. McCourt is highly over-rated, in fact extremely highly, probably because some fans are so desperate for a cult figure.
Agustein; enough has been said on here. We were sold a dud.

 

[GT49er]

How times change in August everybody on here was saying how they preferred Samis attacking football and it was a revelation.

Everybody?

 

[Springal]

We need an experienced head as mentioned like Hammond or Andrews. Shame again out fans never appreciated them when they were here.

 

[Geriatric Seagull]

Grovel time. Yes, I meant Agustien and whilst I agree with many of the critical comments about both him and Paddy, I do feel that bringing one of them on for twenty minutes or so when the impetus is clearly with the opposition might not do any harm. What's the point of paying them good money when neither of them even get a look in?

 

[British Bulldog]

I would have gone with Tex but not McCourt problem was the number of loans . Sami preferred that donkey Halford as a sub.

Halford was in the squad because Greer was out injured and we needed centre back cover on the bench, it doesn't take a lot of working out.

 

[BensGrandad]

Everybody?

That was a generalisation obviously there were some exception to this, like me.as I would prefer 15 wins even 1 -0 at the moment.

 

[BensGrandad]

Halford was in the squad because Greer was out injured and we needed centre back cover on the bench, it doesn't take a lot of working out.

Calderon could have come in and done a job for part of the game and given us the attacking option of Tex to come on. To my mind a much better option than letting Halford anywhere near the team.

 

[MattBackHome]

Hammond was not available on a free and it's laughable to suggest he was.

 

[British Bulldog]

Calderon could have come in and done a job for part of the game and given us the attacking option of Tex to come on. To my mind a much better option than letting Halford anywhere near the team.

Calderon is a full back and that's what he was there to cover, it's a bit pointless having seven places on the bench if you don't at least use it to cover all the positions.

 

[BensGrandad]

Hammond was not available on a free and it's laughable to suggest he was.

He was out of contract at Southampton so was available. I think Leicester signed him just before his contract ran out for a nominal fee, no big money.

 

[BensGrandad]

Calderon is a full back and that's what he was there to cover, it's a bit pointless having seven places on the bench if you don't at least use it to cover all the positions.

A full back who has and can play centre back if needed abd in doing sk woukd probably be better than Halford who is argueably about the same standard as El Abd.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

He was out of contract at Southampton so was available. I think Leicester signed him just before his contract ran out for a nominal fee, no big money.

Leicester paid an undisclosed fee.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/player/3579/dean-hammond

 

[BensGrandad]

Leicester paid an undisclosed fee.

Which was said to be nominal what do you class as nominal? To a Div 2 side £20k to a championship side £100k who knows.certainly not as much as we paud for Stephens or COG. We havent adequately replaced Bridcutt, or the injured Stephens and Croft.

 

[British Bulldog]

A full back who has and can play centre back if needed abd in doing sk woukd probably be better than Halford who is argueably about the same standard as El Abd.

And I bet if we'd lost either Dunk or Hughes early on in the game you'd have been one of the first on here slagging Hyypia off for not having proper cover on the bench.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Andrews or Hammond from last season, we could have signed either on a free. The best I have seen us was when Holla nd Ince played together in that role each covering a full back when needed.

Yet once again reading has let you down. Both left their previous club on a free and we could have signed either having had them on loan. No mention of signing Hammond from Leicester. Andrews from Bolton and Hammond from Southampton before they joined their present clubs.

Which was said to be nominal what do you class as nominal? To a Div 2 side £20k to a championship side £100k who knows.certainly not as much as we paud for Stephens or COG. We havent adequately replaced Bridcutt, or the injured Stephens and Croft.

You said he was available on a free. As you have now been shown to be wrong, you've changed it to nominal. None of us know what Leicester paid.

 

[BensGrandad]

Virtually free but if you get a player for free you pay a signing on fee and in most cases equivalent or nearly to their
transfer value. So a player costs £100k to the club plus £20k signing on fee or £,120k to the player and nothing to the club, whats the difference in your outlay.

 

[MattBackHome]

Also, even if Hammond was available on a free, Leicester will have offered him significantly more than we could have.

Clayton is a better example to suit your argument, BG.

 

[perseus]

What do these three have in common?
Granted that all three can be inconsistent, on their day each has the ability and potential to turn a game which is being lost, yet not one of them even featured on the bench on Saturday. It was clear to everyone except, apparently, the dynamic duo, that once we had scored we had completely lost the midfield. Surely it would have been worth having at least one of the three on the bench? After all, it was not the first time we have seen something similar happen.

Names are often spelt wrongly!

 

[nwgull]

Grovel time. Yes, I meant Agustien and whilst I agree with many of the critical comments about both him and Paddy, I do feel that bringing one of them on for twenty minutes or so when the impetus is clearly with the opposition might not do any harm. What's the point of paying them good money when neither of them even get a look in?

No need to apologise. It's not as if his name has appeared in the squad list on the Amex big screen more than about 3 times in the past 18 months.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

Regarding Scott Parker, for some reason I was taken aback in the second half when a ball boy behind the North Stand retrieved the ball and threw it to him, he responded with a "cheers mate".

Cant recall seeing that too often, in any standard of football.

I also liked the ball that hadn't gone out of play but the ref had whistled, the ball was a yard off the ES touch line with a Fulham player asking the ballboy to chuck the ball back. The ball boy obviously had orders not to go onto the pitch so knelt down and stretched to get to the ball. It made me laugh in an otherwise laughter free second half.