Reachy and bazza..how will they be looked backed on??

[Kopparberg]

13 minutes ago, parajack said:

All they represent to me is failure 

Fair enough, as long as you include every player in the last 25 years too then. 
 

[Dutch McLovin]

I think Reach will be remembered as Meh, but will probably go onto better.

He is a good championship winger who was better when we signed him but as so many do got into the Wednesday way and regressed. His tackling is pathetic. That said we don’t help him by playing him here there and everywhere. 
 

Bannan will be remembered fondly. He’s been a good player for us, especially when played correctly which he was first season wide with a strong full back so he can drift in in a attacking side. Unfortunately since then he’s not been used correctly but again that’s more us than him. 

[Dutch McLovin]

1 hour ago, bubbleowl said:

The two distinct differences between them is whether he played well or had a stinker, we won or lost Bannan comes across as though  he cared and wanted to be here. Where as with Reach I don't get that specially 

this season, he seems to be going through the motions, look at the lack of celebration for his goal at Blackburn.

I also believe Bannan had developed into a better player during his time here, were as Reach to me is still the same player we signed 5 years ago which is a player with great potential, but ultimately will never achieve with us. Say what you want about Atty, lee and Hutchinson they always came across as they would sweat blood for the club even if they had less talent. That's why these player have a sort of admiration or even cult status at our club, where as people like Reach and others will soon be forgotten unfortunately 

That is correct. Reach is not as good as he was. 

[McRightSide]

Reach will be playing LM somewhere generating 10-12 assists a season and we’ll be asking why he never played like that for us. 
 

The reality is that he does pretty much every time he plays LM but we basically never play him there

[briggowl]

I think Bazza has been fairly consistently a good player for us, I'll always wonder in that Wembley season if we'd had the big bully man we'd have faired better. Always seemed a luxury player that had to have a couple of big lads next to him which he's never had. 

 

Reach, meh, could have been, should have been!

[Emilianenko]

We accommodate both at times to the detriment of the team. In games like yesterday when they are not creating anything we get bullied and over run. Yet neither ever seems to get brought off .

[Hack-Abusi]

Bannan has been alright for us, odd assist, goal and pirouette ... nowt special. Overrated and a lot blow smoke up his arris. Didn't cost us owt so can't complain too much

 

Reach. Decidedly average. Apart from one spell under Luhukay, his general return has been abysmal ..

[SiJ]

Two lads who play well when things are going well.

 

Both pretty much useless when we are under the cosh. It's a cliche, but you wouldn't want either of them in the trenches with you.

 

Bannan would try and back heel a grenade and Reach would just run away.

[trev]

Quality footballers for this level.

 

We won't have better for a long time.

[Sumi Shimamoto]

9 hours ago, Sticky Micky said:

Nearly men 

Both looked promising in their first seasons here

But got worse time after time 

Reach could have played at a higher level but doesn't have the determination to get there 

 

Bannan is majorly overrated 

Can't get in Scotland team, which says it all really 

I wouldn’t go as far as majorly overrated, but for someone who regularly gets quoted as one of the best players in the championship, by pundits & other managers, I agree he doesn’t impact games enough in terms of direct assists.

[Animis]

For me, BB is the best creative player we've had at the club in the last 20 years. Can't believe he's hung about at SWFC as he's too good for us and with better attacking players would get far more assists. He is limited though, and doesn't get forward enough - happy to sit back when we need his energy in the attacking third. 

 

Reach, on the whole, has been a disappointment. He's technically a good player with a good football mind: reads the game well. However, he doesn't like a scrap and tends to hide in games - can't tackle so no point having him in the middle. We didn't need him in 2016 and could/should have spent the money on a quality central midfielder to support BB. We got Abdi and Jones - absolute joke of a transfer policy at the time.

 

He'll rack up 200 games for us this season, so at least this demonstrates that he is generally injury-free and reliable on that count - something we fail at generally.

[Costello 77]

1 hour ago, Animis said:

For me, BB is the best creative player we've had at the club in the last 20 years. Can't believe he's hung about at SWFC as he's too good for us and with better attacking players would get far more assists. He is limited though, and doesn't get forward enough - happy to sit back when we need his energy in the attacking third. 

 

Reach, on the whole, has been a disappointment. He's technically a good player with a good football mind: reads the game well. However, he doesn't like a scrap and tends to hide in games - can't tackle so no point having him in the middle. We didn't need him in 2016 and could/should have spent the money on a quality central midfielder to support BB. We got Abdi and Jones - absolute joke of a transfer policy at the time.

 

He'll rack up 200 games for us this season, so at least this demonstrates that he is generally injury-free and reliable on that count - something we fail at generally.

Good post but we definitely had a problem on the left in 2016 that he was bought for.

[Chris Apolon]

For me I will remember both fondly as two of the few players since I've followed Wednesday (mid 90s) that sprinkled a bit of magic

 

Yes, not consistently but that's why they're with us in the first place but as 2 of our most high profile players they'll always be in for more criticism

 

Personally I'll remember more the Hollywood balls, worldies and never missing games or moaning than poor corners or neshing tackles

[Lincowl]

Bannan has been our key player on a free transfer.

 

Reach was £5m, inconsistent and never really worked out his best position. The fee could have been much better spent on improving the squad.

[bubbleowl]

3 hours ago, Dutch McLovin said:

That is correct. Reach is not as good as he was. 

Reach is not a bad player, but we bought a player with potential the problem is 5 years on he's still a player with potential and has not developed. If he was so good out wide why has a succession of managers not played him there? The answer is quite simple he's not consistent enough 

[Lincowl]

You’d think the Middlesboro chairman would go easier on us given the fees we paid for Rhodes and Reach.

[Gob_Bluth]

Decent championship players, nothing more or less

 

Interestingly enough both played their best football for us on the left.

[Truth is out there]

2 hours ago, SiJ said:

Two lads who play well when things are going well.

 

Both pretty much useless when we are under the cosh. It's a cliche, but you wouldn't want either of them in the trenches with you.

 

Bannan would try and back heel a grenade and Reach would just run away.

TBF running away from an explosive device appears a sensible approach to me

[SiJ]

41 minutes ago, Truth is out there said:

TBF running away from an explosive device appears a sensible approach to me

Sounded better in my head.

[FreshOwl]

Amazed people are so obsessed with Reach’s (a winger) tackling 

 

Mind boggling