Jump to content

Colin: "I can't see them scoring... this season"


Recommended Posts

On 20/01/2018 at 20:03, paulrs said:

That’s one of the things that really irritates me about Warnock - always has to comment on the opposition, not just on the 90 minutes against his own team but over a season or regards how the club is run. 

 

Mind you, with a beak like that it’s probably hard NOT to stick your nose in 

it's the 'bitter pig' way, look at whatshisname after the draw at the lane, (another conker that 'knew how we would set up') and yet didn't score despite that.

they talk about the opposition, 'cos they have nothing to say about their own diminishing fortunes, pigs and cardiff both in this division next term.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beauchief Owl said:

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Cardiff last season were the most boring time-wasting, injury-feigning bunch of them all in their quest for a 0-0 draw. Fortunately FF scored a late goal to give us the three points. Must have escaped Colin's memory!

 

Ye, I know.

 

Colin is the biggest WUM in football. Full of praise for us before the game. He would have given us a load more praise if they had beaten us. If we manage to have won, we would have got a load more dogs abuse. 

 

Typical Colin - he’s been the same throughout his management. A leopard doesn’t change his spots!

 

I honestly don’t know what he’s on about anyway - Let’s be honest, they were the better team for the first 40 minutes but after that we more than held our own and probably should have won given we had 4 excellent chances which we should have converted probably 2 of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21 January 2018 at 19:13, The Captain said:

 

The chairman went on record to state that CC was directly involved in player recruitment.  This was earlier this season, when Carvalhal was still in a job here.

 

Is there any reason that Chansiri may have misled the fans on this issue?

 

I agree that our recruitment in summer 2017 was lacking; we are still weak at RB, LB, CDM (hopefully Pelupessy will remedy this) and RW, despite the problems that we had last season with these positions.  But the majority of Championship managers would be happy to add the likes of Boyd, Rhodes, Venancio etc to their respective squads on an individual basis.

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

 

I think it's no coincidence that we've had an unusually high number of 'non-contact' injuries to the majority of CC's first choice XI during the winter months, when games come thick and fast and the fitness levels of squads are pushed.  Yet our newly appointed manager, several experienced pundits/ex-players and even our own current players have criticised the squad's lack of fitness.

 

I don't think the fitness situation has been overstated at all.  Most of our best players will miss crucial games between and the end of the season; not only has it ruined our chances of promotion, we're going to have a fight just to stay up now IMO.

 

While I agree there has been a visible upturn in the player's moral and confidence since Luhukay took charge, I don't think the players were deliberately performing badly at the end of Carlos reign and during Bullen's caretaker spell. 

 

To suggest that our players have lacked desire to succeed isn't really on IMO.  If the players had stopped responding to CC's methods, then it is the head coach's responsibility to put that right, isn't it?

 

There were some good days under CC but overall, I feel that history will view Carvalhal's time here as a missed opportunity at best and rank bad mismanagement at worst.

 

Directly involved in player recruitment meant he said players and positions he wanted. The club then signed players who were not on his original list. For example do you think he only wanted to sign George Boyd last summer - of course he wanted others but the club could not deliver and so he was forced to work with a stale,aging squad.

 

Happy we both have our views on fitness but I will keep asking why has it not been a problem in our last two games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Wakefield owl said:

 

Directly involved in player recruitment meant he said players and positions he wanted. The club then signed players who were not on his original list. For example do you think he only wanted to sign George Boyd last summer - of course he wanted others but the club could not deliver and so he was forced to work with a stale,aging squad.

 

Happy we both have our views on fitness but I will keep asking why has it not been a problem in our last two games?

 

Your first paragraph is pure speculation.  Is there any source available that shows that Boyd, Rhodes, Venancio, Van Aken and Butterfield are players that CC said he didn’t want?

 

A “stale, aging squad” - Hmm, yet that same squad was good enough to finish in the top 4 last season.  None of our key players were sold (I’m sure there would have been some offers) last summer, quite a bit of deadwood was released and several new signings were recruited.

 

You can’t have it both ways.

 

In the last 12 months, our team went backwards under CC’s watch, even though our squad improved IMO.

 

The results spoke for themselves.

 

In regards to our last two league matches, whether the fitness situation is going to cause more disruption is yet to be seen.  But the fact that we have had so many ‘non-contact’ injuries, when taken into context with the reported fitness problems of the squad, speaks for itself IMO.

 

To have 10 or more players out through injury at this stage of the season, has left us with a collection of fringe players and U23s, with the odd senior player, who might have just returned from injury themselves.  If you honestly think that the fitness situation had no influence on this outcome, then you are entitled to that view.  But I disagree.

 

Like I’ve already posted, our players have had a visible upturn in morale and confidence under the new manager.  That could be down to a number of factors.  But if the players had stopped responding to CC’s methods, then it was the responsibility of the head coach to put that right, wasn’t it?

Edited by The Captain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Captain Scarlett said:

Say what you will about Warnock but I loved his performance as Griphook in Harry Potter

 

Ca9owe1XEAAMmOF.jpg

Why did you feel the need to post a side by side comparison? Could've done without the pic on the left, and posted just the one of Griphook. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2018 at 20:02, attyjake said:

Jordan Rhodes is stealing money from us fans .....fact

 

36 negs just for telling the truth  WOW  you lot need to take off your blue n white tinted spectacles, it's this simple, he is a striker he gets paid to score goals, he isn't scoring for us , ergo he does not defend or tackle or chase lost causes and fair enough he is not expected to as he is an out and out striker but he is expected to earn his money by scoring goals, ergo he is getting paid for not doing his job, money we all pay in entrance fees so he IS STEALING OUR MONEY. If any of us didn't do the job we were getting paid for we would get the sack... simples. Don't get me wrong I was one of the people that wanted him to come here I thought he would be a revelation BUT HE AINT IS HE.  He had two prolific seasons when he was scoring goals for fun unfortunately for us he was not playing for us in those two seasons. He is a burnt out spent force. There are now much better strikers in this division and league one even. WE should cut our losses and sell ( that's if anyone will have him). 

OK Rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having seen the extended highlights, Warnock should be happy he didn't have to deliver a post-match conference explaining why they lost by 3 or 4 goals. The chances Joao and Rhodes had, and failed to bury, that wasn't due to our setup, that simply down to last bit of clinical, cool finishing. And that will come!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, The Captain said:

 

Your first paragraph is pure speculation.  Is there any source available that shows that Boyd, Rhodes, Venancio, Van Aken and Butterfield are players that CC said he didn’t want?

 

A “stale, aging squad” - Hmm, yet that same squad was good enough to finish in the top 4 last season.  None of our key players were sold (I’m sure there would have been some offers) last summer, quite a bit of deadwood was released and several new signings were recruited.

 

You can’t have it both ways.

 

In the last 12 months, our team went backwards under CC’s watch, even though our squad improved IMO.

 

The results spoke for themselves.

 

In regards to our last two league matches, whether the fitness situation is going to cause more disruption is yet to be seen.  But the fact that we have had so many ‘non-contact’ injuries, when taken into context with the reported fitness problems of the squad, speaks for itself IMO.

 

To have 10 or more players out through injury at this stage of the season, has left us with a collection of fringe players and U23s, with the odd senior player, who might have just returned from injury themselves.  If you honestly think that the fitness situation had no influence on this outcome, then you are entitled to that view.  But I disagree.

 

Like I’ve already posted, our players have had a visible upturn in morale and confidence under the new manager.  That could be down to a number of factors.  But if the players had stopped responding to CC’s methods, then it was the responsibility of the head coach to put that right, wasn’t it?

 

My first paragraph is not speculation but I didn't say CC said he didn't want the players, I am saying they were not his first choices. There is a difference there.

 

Likewise the fitness I am not saying we were at the levels we should have been but it's being overstated, a bandwagon that many have jumped on. I also believe many of our injuries are not related to fitness issues - Hutchinson, Lee, Forestieri, Fletcher, Boyd all have had injuries not to do with fitness. IMO injuries relating to lack of fitness/conditioning tend to be muscle pulls and strains and not many of our injuries have fallen into this category.

 

You say we have a better squad but I have to disagree - none of the players you mention would be first choice if everyone was fit.  That's to me has been the real issue at our club there is only Reach who would get into our side from the play off final 19 months ago - that's the main reason we have not progressed.

 

The squad is stale and we need to move some players on - most teams do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

Colin though

 

Bitter to the end

 

Can't beat a virtual reserve team with his play off high hopefuls

 

So instead of berating his own flops

 

He has a dig

 

And some people wanted him here

 

Isn't that just prudent management? Mourinho likes to stir it if he wants to take attention away from the players and Warnock does the same. Plus, he likes to wind Wednesday fans up and he keeps getting them to fall for the predictable routines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Wakefield owl said:

 

My first paragraph is not speculation but I didn't say CC said he didn't want the players, I am saying they were not his first choices. There is a difference there.

 

Likewise the fitness I am not saying we were at the levels we should have been but it's being overstated, a bandwagon that many have jumped on. I also believe many of our injuries are not related to fitness issues - Hutchinson, Lee, Forestieri, Fletcher, Boyd all have had injuries not to do with fitness. IMO injuries relating to lack of fitness/conditioning tend to be muscle pulls and strains and not many of our injuries have fallen into this category.

 

You say we have a better squad but I have to disagree - none of the players you mention would be first choice if everyone was fit.  That's to me has been the real issue at our club there is only Reach who would get into our side from the play off final 19 months ago - that's the main reason we have not progressed.

 

The squad is stale and we need to move some players on - most teams do this.

 

If the players that were brought in last summer, definitely weren't CC's first choices - I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up.  Has Carvalhal ever actually said that?

 

As far as I'm concerned, CC is as culpable as anyone else at the club for our expensive hit-and-miss recruitment since Wembley.  The chairman went on record recently to say that Carvalhal was significantly involved in the club's first team recruitment, so how can CC not be at least partly responsible for the situation we are in now?

 

I agree with you that the first team has gone stale in the last 12 months.  But it's the head coach's job to get the very best our of the players available, recognise when things are going wrong and sort out the problems.  For months, Carvalhal was failing to do that.

 

The question of whether any of the 5 summer signings would make a Wednesday first choice XI if everyone was fit, is subjective, especially as we have a big squad.  What cannot be argued is that on the first game of the season, when all of our players were fit and available, Carvalhal selected Rhodes and Boyd to go straight into the team and start against Preston.

 

That was what the head coach chose to do.  Hooper, Fletcher, Nuhiu and Wallace all started the match on the bench.  Why would CC do that if CC thought that the summer signings weren't up to scratch?

 

Butterfield, Venancio and Van Aken hadn't been signed at that point. 

 

In any case, Rhodes, Boyd and Butterfield are all seasoned professionals at Championship level.  Other managers in this division have managed to get consistent performances from those players at different clubs.  It's disappointing that CC wasn't able to.

 

Likewise, Van Aken and Venancio were signed with decent pedigree too; plenty of first team appearances under their belts and both at good ages with potential to develop in time.  I considered these two defenders to be exciting prospects at the time.  And with the benefit of hindsight, both have contributed more to the first team than some of our more experienced players.  I'm looking forward to see what they can do under a manager who puts an emphasis on defensive solidarity.

 

Carvalhal was backed in every transfer window.  Yet for a long time prior to his exit at Wednesday, he was taking us backwards.

 

Our team clearly got worst throughout 2017, even though our squad of players, is one of the best in the division.  That is because of a number of factors.  Our previous head coach is responsible for several aspects of our team's deterioration IMO.

 

You and I have both made it clear that we disagree with each other in regards to where this season has gone wrong, and every time you've quoted me - that's fine, nothing wrong with a healthy debate.  But we're obviously not going to totally agree here.

Edited by The Captain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Captain said:

 

If the players that were brought in last summer, definitely weren't CC's first choices - I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up.  Has Carvalhal ever actually said that?

 

As far as I'm concerned, CC is as culpable as anyone else at the club for our expensive hit-and-miss recruitment since Wembley.  The chairman went on record recently to say that Carvalhal was significantly involved in the club's first team recruitment, so how can CC not be at least partly responsible for the situation we are in now?

 

I agree with you that the first team has gone stale in the last 12 months.  But it's the head coach's job to get the very best our of the players available, recognise when things are going wrong and sort out the problems.  For months, Carvalhal was failing to do that.

 

The question of whether any of the 5 summer signings would make a Wednesday first choice XI if everyone was fit, is subjective, especially as we have a big squad.  What cannot be argued is that on the first game of the season, when all of our players were fit and available, Carvalhal selected Rhodes and Boyd to go straight into the team and start against Preston.

 

That was what the head coach chose to do.  Hooper, Fletcher, Nuhiu and Wallace all started the match on the bench.  Why would CC do that if CC thought that the summer signings weren't up to scratch?

 

Butterfield, Venancio and Van Aken hadn't been signed at that point. 

 

In any case, Rhodes, Boyd and Butterfield are all seasoned professionals at Championship level.  Other managers in this division have managed to get consistent performances from those players at different clubs.  It's disappointing that CC wasn't able to.

 

Likewise, Van Aken and Venancio were signed with decent pedigree too; plenty of first team appearances under their belts and both at good ages with potential to develop in time.  I considered these two defenders to be exciting prospects at the time.  And with the benefit of hindsight, both have contributed more to the first team than some of our more experienced players.  I'm looking forward to see what they can do under a manager who puts an emphasis on defensive solidarity.

 

Carvalhal was backed in every transfer window.  Yet for a long time prior to his exit at Wednesday, he was taking us backwards.

 

Our team clearly got worst throughout 2017, even though our squad of players, is one of the best in the division.  That is because of a number of factors.  Our previous head coach is responsible for several aspects of our team's deterioration IMO.

 

You and I have both made it clear that we disagree with each other in regards to where this season has gone wrong, and every time you've quoted me - that's fine, nothing wrong with a healthy debate.  But we're obviously not going to totally agree here.

 

A well worded post even if I don't agree with some of it.

 

Re recruitment I wasn't trying to say CC was not partly responsible but I was saying his first choice picks were not signed. Where he was culpable imo was not saying no to some of the players offered to him - Jordan Rhodes being the best example of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DJMortimer said:

 

Isn't that just prudent management? Mourinho likes to stir it if he wants to take attention away from the players and Warnock does the same. Plus, he likes to wind Wednesday fans up and he keeps getting them to fall for the predictable routines.

Maybe

 

I just like pointing out he’s a c0ck should anyone forget

  • Like 1

Just a bloke, who used up all his luck in one go when he met his wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...