Jump to content

cowl

Member
  • Posts

    5,704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by cowl

  1. No idea whether Hutchinson would make a good coach, but he did actually get involved with coaching within the youth setup at Chelsea when he initially retired. It might well be something that interests him again once his playing days are behind him. Still, for now there's little to suggest that he's got any immediate plans to hang his boots up. In fact, I can imagine he'll play for as long as he possibly can.
  2. Isn't the point obvious? Our points yield for the season thus far shows the squad is pretty much a mid-table type of team.
  3. Me neither. It made so little sense at the time anyway, and then as we got deeper and deeper into an awful run of form it just made less and less sense. I don't think that decision alone cost him his job, but it certainly made it unnecessarily tougher. And even if he'd already decided that Hutchinson wouldn't be offered a new contract (a decision I would've at least had some understanding of, assuming we had replacements lined up), then why jump the gun so early before the expiry of his contract, by essentially putting him on gardening leave? Just such a mindless and impatient thing for him to do and couldn't have failed more spectacularly.
  4. It's not obvious we need to change anything right now. Is there actually an advantage to doing so? Folk will argue that it provides certainty all around, but, again, it's not obvious that the ‘lack’ of certainty right now is a problem. Thompson's points yield has been beyond what anyone would've expected. He really has done a fantastic job in that regard. And without us significantly boosting our firepower either, it's all the more impressive. I honestly thought that if we didn't buy at least two strikers, we'd not stand much chance, and yet here we are scoring goals through Rhodes and Paterson! The defeats to Coventry and Millwall were worrying, but on the other hand, we immediately bounced back each time, so he certainly has something about him as a personality in the dressing room, you'd think. Longer term, I'm not sure. But that's alright because whilst ever we not changing anything we can just take each game at a time. It seems to be working pretty well right now.
  5. First half he seemed to play more typically in that central defensive position. Second half he seemed to drop even deeper to the point that he really did seem to be part of the back-line. In fact, with being the last man on all our corners too, he got through a lot of his work tonight as pretty much a centre back. Played quite well tonight, although I still prefer him in defence.
  6. First thing that came to my mind too when I saw the ‘mouth’. Nice touch!
  7. I suppose we were never going to be able to compete with Watford. Still, I'm not sure he's going to be getting much game time there (assuming he can stay fit anyway.) But in any case, if all this is true then it does at least clear up the question of whether his contract was cancelled before or after the window shut.
  8. Hagan was training with the squad the other day as he was in one of the training ground photos. Not sure where he is in relation to full fitness though, of course.
  9. Did the same. It's shocking how gullible some folk are.
  10. I don't believe this ‘bid’ is real for a moment. This Alonso guy is a blatant shyster.
  11. I remain to be convinced with Dunkley. He's only had 5 starts and the appearance last night for us after all. He attacks the ball, is very vocal, and is a definite presence; excellent qualities as a starting point for a centre back, but it still remains to be seen just how he'll perform from one week to the next. As it is Iorfa, Lees, and Hutchinson would be pick for our 3 best centre backs, but I'm not sure this would be the best trio to play together. The problem is that neither Lees or Iorfa are at their most comfortable in the centre of a back 3, as both would favour the right. Hutchinson is very comfortable in the centre, however, and would probably be fine and the right, and possible even the left too. But this would leave at least either Lees or Iorfa playing slightly out of position and probably less successfully. The obvious natural fits for the left-handed centre back role are Börner and van Aken. But Börner seems strangely unhappy on the left of a back 3 (although is actually ‘okay’ in the centre of a back 3). Van Aken has his frailties whether in a back 4 or back 3, but his game is (or was) improving slightly (it's all relative, of course!). Urhoghide and Brennan are coming through. Neither are ready yet, although Urhoghide is further ahead. I like him. He's raw still, but I love how he attacks the ball. I think he's another that is most comfortable on the right of a back 3 which is where there's most competition. I think for the next game, I'd like to see a back 3 of: Lees - Dunkley - Hutchinson We need to see whether that combination could be workable. It ‘ought’ to be, although I've reservations about Dunkley anyway, it's still something for which the only to find out is to try it.
  12. No problem. Everyone can see the truth of the matter anyway.
  13. Against Preston he was abysmal. Last night was merely poor-to-average. But nowhere near as good as we know he can be. For me, he should play only on the left, whether that be as a wing back, winger, or wide midfielder. Playing him more centrally often leads to a poor performance from him, even if he still often plays a role in goals.
  14. A definite agenda. Obvious to practically everyone, although I'm sure at some point it will be explained that it was all just a joke because the site is only about having a laugh and all that. Still, the main thing now is that Hutchinson is back and can hopefully help keep us up, and then we can part ways in the summer in a way far better fitting for a player that never gives less than 100%.
  15. Not sure on this one. I don't think Paterson intended to hit it that weakly, of course, but hitting it early before the keeper was ready might well have been entirely intentional. Full credit to Paterson if so.
  16. Because the scenario even gets mentioned at all, obviously. And even to paint the scenario in such a way to almost pin a relegation on one player, for one moment, in one game when there's been 45 other games. That's why it's an agenda.
  17. Definitely no agenda here. I can't understand why you keep getting heat over this.
  18. Without doubt whatsoever. It's painfully obvious to most, at least.
  19. This is certainly true of Pelupessy. He's been mostly effective this season. The games when he's poor happen still (Coventry for example, most recently), but for the most part now is more or less at grips with each game. I would even go so far as to say he was excellent in the first half last night. Paterson hasn't really been here long enough yet, and I'm still far from convinced about him. He got a lot of rave reviews for his performance against Preston, which I just couldn't understand because I thought he was awful. Not enough that went into him stuck. He does always work hard though. Last night, however, I thought he was much better. Much better ball retention, and it was a shame when he had to go off.
  20. The willingness of some to so readily believe the pathetic insinuations of failing managers about players that have given far more and enjoyed so many more good moments with the club than the vast majority of all others we've had over the last 20 years, ought never to have happened. I'd be so utterly ashamed to have been so gullible.
  21. The form of the side—10 points from 12—since it's been rumoured Hutchinson was on his way back has been fantastic. The excitement from the squad to have Hutchinson back is obvious. I remember when some on here wouldn't ever shut up about him being a bad egg too! Seems so stupid now, I suppose. Must be fairly embarrassing for them actually. I just can't imagine what it's like to so gullibly believe the insinuations from a struggling former manager without question and then still find myself defending it almost a year later. Hopefully they can just put it behind them now and recognize they were just very wrong about this (and quite a few other things too).
  22. But he also said that CC had him training pretty much all the time, and that hitherto he was probably guilty of erring too much on the side of caution when it came to how much he could push himself, which he said was due to his history and experiences with injury. He said he was glad that CC did this. I guess the ‘agreement’ between them came as a result of that tacit trust that developed between them (I'm going on Hutchinson's words here).
  23. Not so much his ‘training hours’ as a certain flexibility about when he was able to train properly. The implication being absolutely not that he was on some kind of skive.
  24. @Andrew6666 still waiting for you to provide evidence of Hutchinson setting his own hours...
×
×
  • Create New...