Garry Monk “there were a lot of things wrong at SWFC”

[SallyCinnamon]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Playing Forestieri at wing-back in one of his few appearances, trying to turn Reach into a striker and personally scouting Da Cruz and picking him ahead of others didn't help matters. All decisions made by the manager.

 

Nobody is saying the major problems don't go above 1st team management level, just that some managers haven't done a great job of trying to mitigate the chaos.   

Agree Monk made some strange decisions. But so did Pulis, so did Jos and so did Carlos. 

The one constant has remained over the past 6 years. Regardless of formations, tactics, positions - the club is set up to not be successful. And until that happens we will keep struggling. Let’s hope relegation will FINALLY be the light bulb moment for the owner.

[SallyCinnamon]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

He was sacked. 

What reputation does he have? Because the majority of our fans didn't want him and his reputation managing us in the first place. 

Before joining Wednesday he had the best points per game record in Championship football. He had never been relegated as a manager. He worked wonders at Stoke.

 

His football is often looked down upon, but he has had a pretty solid career everywhere he’s been. With perhaps the exception of West Brom (but that wasn’t completely disastrous). 
 

Backed properly in January I’m completely convinced he would have kept us up. In my opinion as soon as it became apparent to him he wouldn’t, he was looking for a way out. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, SallyCinnamon said:

Agreed but I do wonder if Pulis was promised players in the transfer window. He kept banging on about needing 2 or 3 players but ultimately they never arrived and he fell out with the chairman. 

 

If we signed a left back, CM and target man in January under Pulis I’m completely confident we would have been safe.

 

If we were never going to back him with players in January, it was just a completely nonsensical appointment.

 

Pulis asked for Hutchinson, we decided to sign him even after Pulis had gone!

 

We have been crying out for a striker and a left-back as priorities for two transfer windows and the fact we didn't appoint a manager after Pulis and give him a chance to assess and bring in new players in January shows we our poor approach to trying our best to survive this season. 

I was optimistic about Pulis but there were no signs he would turn it around with a couple of signings, his results we no better than Monk's and the style of football was arguably worse, which was some achievement. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, SallyCinnamon said:

Before joining Wednesday he had the best points per game record in Championship football. He had never been relegated as a manager. He worked wonders at Stoke.

 

His football is often looked down upon, but he has had a pretty solid career everywhere he’s been. With perhaps the exception of West Brom (but that wasn’t completely disastrous). 
 

Backed properly in January I’m completely convinced he would have kept us up. In my opinion as soon as it became apparent to him he wouldn’t, he was looking for a way out. 

 

His time has gone. His record was based primarily on what he did with Stoke, which was amazing and he was a perfect fit for them. He did fairly well at MIddlesbrough as well but the style was not enjoyed by their fans. He needs a specific type of player to make his system work, it was clear we don't have those players and weren't likely to bring many in during the transfer window. I suspect he won't have much more success at Championship level or above in the future. 

[SallyCinnamon]

3 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Pulis asked for Hutchinson, we decided to sign him even after Pulis had gone!

 

We have been crying out for a striker and a left-back as priorities for two transfer windows and the fact we didn't appoint a manager after Pulis and give him a chance to assess and bring in new players in January shows we our poor approach to trying our best to survive this season. 

I was optimistic about Pulis but there were no signs he would turn it around with a couple of signings, his results we no better than Monk's and the style of football was arguably worse, which was some achievement. 

I think any manager would have kept us up comfortably with a left back and a target man.

 

We completely failed to address these glaring issues and subsequently we’re getting relegated. 

[SallyCinnamon]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

His time has gone. His record was based primarily on what he did with Stoke, which was amazing and he was a perfect fit for them. He did fairly well at MIddlesbrough as well but the style was not enjoyed by their fans. He needs a specific type of player to make his system work, it was clear we don't have those players and weren't likely to bring many in during the transfer window. I suspect he won't have much more success at Championship level or above in the future. 

That’s exactly the point I’m making! We didn’t have the players for his system, so why appoint him in the first place?!

 

I could understand if we were willing to back him in January with signings to play his style but it’s clear we weren’t prepared to do that.

 

So it was just a daft appointment from the chairman - not for the first time. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, SallyCinnamon said:

That’s exactly the point I’m making! We didn’t have the players for his system, so why appoint him in the first place?!

 

I could understand if we were willing to back him in January with signings to play his style but it’s clear we weren’t prepared to do that.

 

So it was just a daft appointment from the chairman - not for the first time. 

 

Not arguing with that, as I've said countless times the main problems are above 1st team management level but that doesn't excuse every decision or performance that is made by managers and players.

I would question why Pulis took the job in the first place, given the squad that we had and the amount of business that we had managed to do in numerous previous transfer windows and the state of our accounts. Seriously, what was he expecting to happen?

 

I'd also question why Pulis chose to appoint a Celtic scout with no recent coaching experience as his assistant manager. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, SallyCinnamon said:

I think any manager would have kept us up comfortably with a left back and a target man.

 

We completely failed to address these glaring issues and subsequently we’re getting relegated. 

 

I wouldn't go as far as comfortably but we should certainly have been able to stay up had we addressed those glaring issues. 

[SallyCinnamon]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Not arguing with that, as I've said countless times the main problems are above 1st team management level but that doesn't excuse every decision or performance that is made by managers and players.

I would question why Pulis took the job in the first place, given the squad that we had and the amount of business that we had managed to do in numerous previous transfer windows and the state of our accounts. Seriously, what was he expecting to happen?

 

I'd also question why Pulis chose to appoint a Celtic scout with no recent coaching experience as his assistant manager. 

Probably money and ego? A lot of these managers see a club like us and believe they can be the ones to finally get it moving again. Probably why Bruce took the job too.

 

But when they actually get inside they see what a basket case it is and want out as soon as possible.

 

As for Trusson, god knows. Probably because, by his own admission, all his other men are happily retired and didnt want to get involved. 

 

[SallyCinnamon]

2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

I wouldn't go as far as comfortably but we should certainly have been able to stay up had we addressed those glaring issues. 

Yes comfortable the wrong term. But I think we would be in a far stronger position. 

[parajack]

3 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Honestly if I were Chansiri and suddenly had a pang of guilt about my performance as chairman over the last 5 years and thought I'd hold my hands up and change my ways, one quick read through this thread would tell me really clearly that there'd be no need as there are fans out there just excusing away any calamatous decisions I make!

Literally untouchable!

TBH  i agree,same ones who will be wearing their blue and white goggles,paying top dollar to watch L1 football, but happy because they can cheer onto the pitch, 'Hutch' Westy...TL.....BB.....and whilstever they do,NOTHING will change......

[parajack]

On 28/03/2021 at 16:53, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Playing Forestieri at wing-back in one of his few appearances, trying to turn Reach into a striker and personally scouting Da Cruz and picking him ahead of others didn't help matters. All decisions made by the manager.

 

Nobody is saying the major problems don't go above 1st team management level, just that some managers haven't done a great job of trying to mitigate the chaos.   

AND he did that(FF,Reach) for how many games? and who was injured/unavailable at the time?...wheres your link that GM personally scouted Da Cruz?  Can you not see how weak your argument is?? Da Cruz came in as yet another loan didnt he?

You really think GM wanted this?? No long term replacement for SF?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, parajack said:

AND he did that(FF,Reach) for how many games? and who was injured/unavailable at the time?...wheres your link that GM personally scouted Da Cruz?  Can you not see how weak your argument is?? Da Cruz came in as yet another loan didnt he?

You really think GM wanted this?? No long term replacement for SF?

 

Weak argument?

There are quotes in this thread on Monk talking about how he tracked Da Cruz, that's the point.

Even if we had no defenders nobody in their right mind would pick Forestieri at wing-back and as for Reach, Monk stated central forward was where he was going to be most effective this season.

 

Have a day off mate.  

[parajack]

8 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Weak argument?

There are quotes in this thread on Monk talking about how he tracked Da Cruz, that's the point.

Even if we had no defenders nobody in their right mind would pick Forestieri at wing-back and as for Reach, Monk stated central forward was where he was going to be most effective this season.

 

Have a day off mate.  

And WHY did he say that???...(about Reach? he needed a stand in mate,).tracking Da Cruz mate is a far stretch from what you put,and as we now know,that means little any way doesnt it/ All that was available were those that came....FF i believe was put at wingback for what 1 game? 2?  TBH  in the time period we are talking about GM  had enough and allegedly wanted out.....

[Ante's Bubbly]

On 26/03/2021 at 18:28, Marro said:

So you would prefer Dawson or Wildsmith then.  The former flaps at crosses and is as quiet as a mouse / doesn’t organise his defence.  The latter is seriously error prone.

 

I would play Westwood with one arm over either of them any day.  The problem has been not replacing Westwood with a quality keeper. 

 

All Monk's fault though?

 

If I remember rightly all three goalkeepers were here when Monk arrived. Also, with our chairman having told Jos exactly what he wanted regarding playing fit players and Jos interpreting that and acting on it, was Monk told the same thing? 

 

We were supposed to only be playing players when they were fit after Chansisri had been bombarded by question after question about all the injured players that were turning out for the team and being taken off sometimes even before half time, which restricted what the team could do and was influencing more and more games. We all discussed on here even during Carlos's time in the hot seat, that we rarely made tactical substitutions anymore, with older players and injured players making up the majority of our substitutions.

 

Westwood was a brilliant goalkeeper for us before Chansiri came along and was one of our best players under Jones and Gray, but then he had injury problems during Carlos's time and eventually his loss of form and injuries took their toll. He was out for 7 months prior to Jos's arrival and Jos quite rightly continued to pick the best available goalkeeper and saw no reason to change that when Westwood became fit again.

 

Westwood was also seen as a saleable asset and we were desperately short of money and back up at the time Jos came in.

 

Under pressure from the EFL we had to sell Jack Hunt and let Rhodes go out on loan, but if anybody had made an offer for Westwood at that time I find it very difficult to imagine us not selling him, but the only problem, as with Rhodes, is that we were paying him more money than other clubs were prepared to offer, so, unless Westwood was to go out on loan, how could we get him off the payroll, or get any money in for him? Similarly with Hutchinson, another player that had become more and more unreliable in terms of fitness and performance, If Jos could have sold him, or Westwood and brought a couple of players in on lower wages, I have no doubt that he would have been allowed to do so.

 

At the time he was forced into playing a lot of other younger players, mostly for the first time and with varying degrees of success, with Penney, Baker, the two young goalies, Thorniley and others all being given games. 

 

The mental states of Westwood and Hutchinson and maybe even some of the the alleged; trouble making, lack of respect shown to coaches and teammates, bad attitude during training etc may or may not have been contributing factors, but one thing that is definite is that Monk was not at the club then and was not responsible for any of the problems that he walked into.

 

Not the financial problems regarding the ridiculously high wage bill, not the lack of quality players, not the lack of money for players, not the attitudes of the once highly paid players that had spat out their dummies, did not perform for the club or were unable to perform at the standard because they were no longer fit enough to play regularly in the Championship, not the possibility of a 20 point deduction, not the clearing out of all the players that were now deemed too expensive and surplus to requirements, none of these problems, or any of the clubs other problems at the time were down to Monk and neither was the fact that he did not have the authority, power, or personal wealth to get us out of those difficulties without the full backing of his boss.

 

The fact that large numbers of our overpaid squad were signed through Monk's bosses best mate and these players were now unhappy, must also have played some part in the very difficult situation that Carlos had found himself in, Jos had found himself in and Monk then found himself in.

 

All of Chansiri's chosen coaches have commented on the fact that there is something wrong at the club, even Pulis, who was only here for two minutes. There is something wrong to do with the players, the power that they have, or think they have, the signing of players, the not signing of players that we need and that coaches want etc and I think that this could ultimately ruin the club altogether if something is not done about it, but none of it has a tiny little thing to do with Garry Monk and anybody that holds that belief really needs to consider the other side of the story, because he has done as much as any other coach in the last ten years, towards getting us to play the best football we can play with the players that we have available to us.

 

As I said after before we sacked Carlos; as a club, when Chansiri first arrived we were debt free, we finished in 13th position under Stuart Gray, with a chunk of league 1 players still with us and noticeably short of any real quality in key areas. We really needed another centre half, two full backs, an attacking midfield player, holding midfield player, two wingers and a striker. Six, or seven good quality players in those positions would have seen us challenging for the title in my opinion, but instead we sacked  the head coach and brought in a vast procession of players and coaches that have cost the club a fortune yet still left us with very little material value right now.

 

We are massively in debt, we do not own the ground anymore having sold it for no real incoming revenue (it was just a juggling of accounts to fiddle the fair play rules), Chansiri has upset the EFL and many of clubs within in the league and greater footballing world, with his lack of respect for the rules and traditions, he has alienated the fanbase, fiddled and meddled with everything that he can possibly mess with, from the pitch, to the fake sponsorships, team shirts, player numbers, the club badge forward selling of season tickets, overcharging for match day tickets, taking actual responsibility for everything but public responsibility for nothing that goes wrong, blaming fans for some of his worst decisions (including selling the ground and getting the points deduction), yet despite all these bad things, despite selling the soul of our club to get to the Premiership, we are no nearer getting there and are odds on now to go down, to be so poor that we will be one of just a couple of Yorkshire clubs that will be playing next season outside the top two divisions.

 

We have finished in 16th position twice over the past 3 seasons and in the other season, we only managed to finish one place higher than we did under Gray, before all Chansiri's meddling really started, when we managed 12th spot. We still need a pair of fullbacks, a right winger, now two strikers, maybe a third if Rhodes goes, two attacking midfielders (with Bannan at a certain age now), a holding midfielder, or two (with Shaw going and massimo always injured), maybe a goalkeeper and a younger central defender.

 

People with a balanced view of life look at every angle and not some blinkered view. Especially not one that holds Westwood up as some kind of goalkeeping saint, or godlike figure with our young goalkeepers as useless devils that do everything wrong and with Monk orchestrating it all, controlling the finances of our club, buying and keeping whichever players he wants.

 

Sorry but people that throw these childish, ridiculous and vindictive ideas into the pot without any supporting evidence, just because they like, or do not like somebody is ridiculous. We all have a right to air our views, but to be taken seriously they have to be rational and have some basis in fact. The fact is that Westwood has played quite well since he came back, but has also made mistakes and has not been the rock solid, player that galvanises our defence and gets us more points than the two younger goalkeepers, he just makes different mistakes to them.

 

I personally hope that he can behave himself, be a model player, be a team player and a good example for our young goalies and sign a new contract that reflects where we all are right now and where we will be next season, but I cannot even start to wonder why any of the big list of things wrong with Sheffield Wednesday Football Club have anything to do with Garry Monk, apart from him getting himself sacked before he could get us into a position of safety, for one more season.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

38 minutes ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

 

All Monk's fault though?

 

If I remember rightly all three goalkeepers were here when Monk arrived. Also, with our chairman having told Jos exactly what he wanted regarding playing fit players and Jos interpreting that and acting on it, was Monk told the same thing? 

 

We were supposed to only be playing players when they were fit after Chansisri had been bombarded by question after question about all the injured players that were turning out for the team and being taken off sometimes even before half time, which restricted what the team could do and was influencing more and more games. We all discussed on here even during Carlos's time in the hot seat, that we rarely made tactical substitutions anymore, with older players and injured players making up the majority of our substitutions.

 

Westwood was a brilliant goalkeeper for us before Chansiri came along and was one of our best players under Jones and Gray, but then he had injury problems during Carlos's time and eventually his loss of form and injuries took their toll. He was out for 7 months prior to Jos's arrival and Jos quite rightly continued to pick the best available goalkeeper and saw no reason to change that when Westwood became fit again.

 

Westwood was also seen as a saleable asset and we were desperately short of money and back up at the time Jos came in.

 

Under pressure from the EFL we had to sell Jack Hunt and let Rhodes go out on loan, but if anybody had made an offer for Westwood at that time I find it very difficult to imagine us not selling him, but the only problem, as with Rhodes, is that we were paying him more money than other clubs were prepared to offer, so, unless Westwood was to go out on loan, how could we get him off the payroll, or get any money in for him? Similarly with Hutchinson, another player that had become more and more unreliable in terms of fitness and performance, If Jos could have sold him, or Westwood and brought a couple of players in on lower wages, I have no doubt that he would have been allowed to do so.

 

At the time he was forced into playing a lot of other younger players, mostly for the first time and with varying degrees of success, with Penney, Baker, the two young goalies, Thorniley and others all being given games. 

 

The mental states of Westwood and Hutchinson and maybe even some of the the alleged; trouble making, lack of respect shown to coaches and teammates, bad attitude during training etc may or may not have been contributing factors, but one thing that is definite is that Monk was not at the club then and was not responsible for any of the problems that he walked into.

 

Not the financial problems regarding the ridiculously high wage bill, not the lack of quality players, not the lack of money for players, not the attitudes of the once highly paid players that had spat out their dummies, did not perform for the club or were unable to perform at the standard because they were no longer fit enough to play regularly in the Championship, not the possibility of a 20 point deduction, not the clearing out of all the players that were now deemed too expensive and surplus to requirements, none of these problems, or any of the clubs other problems at the time were down to Monk and neither was the fact that he did not have the authority, power, or personal wealth to get us out of those difficulties without the full backing of his boss.

 

The fact that large numbers of our overpaid squad were signed through Monk's bosses best mate and these players were now unhappy, must also have played some part in the very difficult situation that Carlos had found himself in, Jos had found himself in and Monk then found himself in.

 

All of Chansiri's chosen coaches have commented on the fact that there is something wrong at the club, even Pulis, who was only here for two minutes. There is something wrong to do with the players, the power that they have, or think they have, the signing of players, the not signing of players that we need and that coaches want etc and I think that this could ultimately ruin the club altogether if something is not done about it, but none of it has a tiny little thing to do with Garry Monk and anybody that holds that belief really needs to consider the other side of the story, because he has done as much as any other coach in the last ten years, towards getting us to play the best football we can play with the players that we have available to us.

 

As I said after before we sacked Carlos; as a club, when Chansiri first arrived we were debt free, we finished in 13th position under Stuart Gray, with a chunk of league 1 players still with us and noticeably short of any real quality in key areas. We really needed another centre half, two full backs, an attacking midfield player, holding midfield player, two wingers and a striker. Six, or seven good quality players in those positions would have seen us challenging for the title in my opinion, but instead we sacked  the head coach and brought in a vast procession of players and coaches that have cost the club a fortune yet still left us with very little material value right now.

 

We are massively in debt, we do not own the ground anymore having sold it for no real incoming revenue (it was just a juggling of accounts to fiddle the fair play rules), Chansiri has upset the EFL and many of clubs within in the league and greater footballing world, with his lack of respect for the rules and traditions, he has alienated the fanbase, fiddled and meddled with everything that he can possibly mess with, from the pitch, to the fake sponsorships, team shirts, player numbers, the club badge forward selling of season tickets, overcharging for match day tickets, taking actual responsibility for everything but public responsibility for nothing that goes wrong, blaming fans for some of his worst decisions (including selling the ground and getting the points deduction), yet despite all these bad things, despite selling the soul of our club to get to the Premiership, we are no nearer getting there and are odds on now to go down, to be so poor that we will be one of just a couple of Yorkshire clubs that will be playing next season outside the top two divisions.

 

We have finished in 16th position twice over the past 3 seasons and in the other season, we only managed to finish one place higher than we did under Gray, before all Chansiri's meddling really started, when we managed 12th spot. We still need a pair of fullbacks, a right winger, now two strikers, maybe a third if Rhodes goes, two attacking midfielders (with Bannan at a certain age now), a holding midfielder, or two (with Shaw going and massimo always injured), maybe a goalkeeper and a younger central defender.

 

People with a balanced view of life look at every angle and not some blinkered view. Especially not one that holds Westwood up as some kind of goalkeeping saint, or godlike figure with our young goalkeepers as useless devils that do everything wrong and with Monk orchestrating it all, controlling the finances of our club, buying and keeping whichever players he wants.

 

Sorry but people that throw these childish, ridiculous and vindictive ideas into the pot without any supporting evidence, just because they like, or do not like somebody is ridiculous. We all have a right to air our views, but to be taken seriously they have to be rational and have some basis in fact. The fact is that Westwood has played quite well since he came back, but has also made mistakes and has not been the rock solid, player that galvanises our defence and gets us more points than the two younger goalkeepers, he just makes different mistakes to them.

 

I personally hope that he can behave himself, be a model player, be a team player and a good example for our young goalies and sign a new contract that reflects where we all are right now and where we will be next season, but I cannot even start to wonder why any of the big list of things wrong with Sheffield Wednesday Football Club have anything to do with Garry Monk, apart from him getting himself sacked before he could get us into a position of safety, for one more season.

I’ve only read the first half of this as didn’t have time to read it all, but there’s so many things wrong with it and I can’t believe we have fans who swallowed the nonsense from Jos and Monk about bad eggs and stuff.

 

Westwood only came here under Gray so he definitely wasn’t one of our better performers under Jones. His injury record... he played most of the games for 3 years between 2014-17, if someone plays 80+% of games then why do they get labelled a crock, that makes no sense. Was injured when Jos got here but you say that after he was fit again that Jos chose the best available keeper.. we all know that’s nonsense because even if Westwood isn’t at his best it’s clear he’s better than the other two.

 

Similarly with Hutchinson, you’re labelling him as a crock but hasn’t he just played about a dozen games in quick succession without missing any.. so that’s just not true.

 

We had injury problems in 2017-18 but I honestly don’t remember a time where we’ve ‘used all our subs on older, injury prone players’. Nor did Chansiri get pressured in to anything.. and nor did he specify to managers that they couldn’t select certain players. We already know that because managers have confirmed it and also because different managers have chosen to bring players back in from the cold straight away.

[mcmigo]

2 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

I’ve only read the first half of this as didn’t have time to read it all, but there’s so many things wrong with it and I can’t believe we have fans who swallowed the nonsense from Jos and Monk about bad eggs and stuff.

 

Westwood only came here under Gray so he definitely wasn’t one of our better performers under Jones. His injury record... he played most of the games for 3 years between 2014-17, if someone plays 80+% of games then why do they get labelled a crock, that makes no sense. Was injured when Jos got here but you say that after he was fit again that Jos chose the best available keeper.. we all know that’s nonsense because even if Westwood isn’t at his best it’s clear he’s better than the other two.

 

Similarly with Hutchinson, you’re labelling him as a crock but hasn’t he just played about a dozen games in quick succession without missing any.. so that’s just not true.

 

We had injury problems in 2017-18 but I honestly don’t remember a time where we’ve ‘used all our subs on older, injury prone players’. Nor did Chansiri get pressured in to anything.. and nor did he specify to managers that they couldn’t select certain players. We already know that because managers have confirmed it and also because different managers have chosen to bring players back in from the cold straight away.

'Didn't have time to read it all'

 

Glad you have time to type 4 paragraphs of old wallop tho.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

Just now, mcmigo said:

'Didn't have time to read it all'

 

Glad you have time to type 4 paragraphs of old wallop tho.

Was just setting straight the nonsense in the first half of his post. Skim read the second half now and he’s talking about Monk’s personal wealth being a factor in why he couldn’t turn things around. Laughable really 

[83owl]

39 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

I’ve only read the first half of this as didn’t have time to read it all, but there’s so many things wrong with it and I can’t believe we have fans who swallowed the nonsense from Jos and Monk about bad eggs and stuff.

 

Westwood only came here under Gray so he definitely wasn’t one of our better performers under Jones. His injury record... he played most of the games for 3 years between 2014-17, if someone plays 80+% of games then why do they get labelled a crock, that makes no sense. Was injured when Jos got here but you say that after he was fit again that Jos chose the best available keeper.. we all know that’s nonsense because even if Westwood isn’t at his best it’s clear he’s better than the other two.

 

Similarly with Hutchinson, you’re labelling him as a crock but hasn’t he just played about a dozen games in quick succession without missing any.. so that’s just not true.

 

We had injury problems in 2017-18 but I honestly don’t remember a time where we’ve ‘used all our subs on older, injury prone players’. Nor did Chansiri get pressured in to anything.. and nor did he specify to managers that they couldn’t select certain players. We already know that because managers have confirmed it and also because different managers have chosen to bring players back in from the cold straight away.

So it doesn’t matter if someone is constantly injured over the last few years they’re not a crock as long as they played over 80% of games between 2014 and 2017? 
 

Makes sense.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

5 minutes ago, 83owl said:

So it doesn’t matter if someone is constantly injured over the last few years they’re not a crock as long as they played over 80% of games between 2014 and 2017? 
 

Makes sense.

I think we should release Westwood at the end of the season but between 2017 and 2020 he was number one, was obvious. He had one serious injury but was available the rest of the time.. people calling him a crock back in 2017 are just wrong, which was what the post was on about