FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

127 posts
User avatar
Alan Partridge
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 7368
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 13:25
Location: In a daft little ground, watching a silly game so fcuk off

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by Alan Partridge » 03 Nov 2009 19:54

I'm not sure what's worse really, demanding a manager sacked after 5/6 games or this guff, claiming all his signings are brilliant because they've finally done what their paid to do in ONE match.

We are still massively in the relegation mixup and nowhere near the good scrap at the top of the league. Is that progression or the signs of a unified well run club? That we've gone from the 8th best team in the country to the 41st in just over 2 years?

Rodgers signings have been extremely hit and miss already, although i would say it's still early doors. Cummings has shown nothing to suggest he's as good as a frankly ordinary Rosenior, he's been so poor Rodgers would sooner pick Tabb, a left footed central midfielder to play there. Rasiak is one of those players that is going to split opinion. Some will hate him and think he's clumsy and useless and some will look straight at the stats. I am probably more towards the latter having seen him a few times. I think he's awkward, extremely average but he's one of those players that will end up with 10-15 goals. He just has a knack of being in good areas and I back him a million times more than any of the others to put a chance away.

McAnuff is your typical CHampionship winger, looks brilliant for 30minutes, then drifts off. He'll be up and down, although I prefer him to Kebe. I think there is a little more consistancy with him but he's not going to be any sort of superstar.

Howard I've only seen a couple of times and I was most hopeful for him than any of the other signings but I don't think he's particularly any better than what we've got. I don't think he's significantly better than Davies, Sigurdsson and especially Marek.

So I don't know really. But talk of corners turned and Rodgers is now some sort of genius is ridiculously premature. Massive game for him Saturday. After they won at Preston they blew it in the next games. Now the challenge is there for them again, lose Saturday and whatever slight confidence he's gained in the last week is totally gone again.

I personally don't think Rodgers will be here for a great deal longer. He's one bad run away from it being all over. Not a good position to be in.

User avatar
facaldaqui
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1934
Joined: 17 Dec 2004 05:10

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by facaldaqui » 03 Nov 2009 20:06

A note to Royal Lady. Yes, you do get picked on a bit. I strongly advise you to use assertiveness rather than passive aggression in response. In short, argue with people only on the points they make and ignore their personal remarks; make no personal remarks or emotive statements of your own. If you do this, you'll be able to make your points without being sidetracked into squabbling. Anyone who picks on you will then just look silly.

Please don't assume that we are "all" against you: people can think for themselves and most of us, predominantly lurking, will judge your comments on their merits.

This is the first comment I've ever made on the toxic bickering that goes on here, which I generally ignore; it will be my last on the subject.
Last edited by facaldaqui on 03 Nov 2009 20:19, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
facaldaqui
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1934
Joined: 17 Dec 2004 05:10

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by facaldaqui » 03 Nov 2009 20:14

I agree with you, Alan Partridge. Rodgers's signings are probably OK for a mid-table place, but we'll have to improve the squad further if we are to go for promotion next year. It would be nice to think that our recent improvement will lead to a successful run, but that doesn't seem likely to me.

This really is a worse forward line than any with which we've ever finished in the top half of this table. Rasiak depends on being fed by accurate wingplay, but if teams decide to focus on snuffing out our wingers, we'll be back in the same boat we were in the second half of last season. Bless Tabb's heart but he's not the long-term answer at right back: the Leicester goal shows what can result. It is also perilous having no cover for Bertrand, as the Leicester match also showed. Flaws like this will dog Rodgers. My money is on him not being able to keep this job for very long, even if he starts to pick the odd win up here and there.
Last edited by facaldaqui on 03 Nov 2009 20:20, edited 3 times in total.

PEARCEY
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5970
Joined: 29 Jun 2007 23:44

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by PEARCEY » 03 Nov 2009 20:15

Alan Partridge I'm not sure what's worse really, demanding a manager sacked after 5/6 games or this guff, claiming all his signings are brilliant because they've finally done what their paid to do in ONE match.

We are still massively in the relegation mixup and nowhere near the good scrap at the top of the league. Is that progression or the signs of a unified well run club? That we've gone from the 8th best team in the country to the 41st in just over 2 years?

Rodgers signings have been extremely hit and miss already, although i would say it's still early doors. Cummings has shown nothing to suggest he's as good as a frankly ordinary Rosenior, he's been so poor Rodgers would sooner pick Tabb, a left footed central midfielder to play there. Rasiak is one of those players that is going to split opinion. Some will hate him and think he's clumsy and useless and some will look straight at the stats. I am probably more towards the latter having seen him a few times. I think he's awkward, extremely average but he's one of those players that will end up with 10-15 goals. He just has a knack of being in good areas and I back him a million times more than any of the others to put a chance away.

McAnuff is your typical CHampionship winger, looks brilliant for 30minutes, then drifts off. He'll be up and down, although I prefer him to Kebe. I think there is a little more consistancy with him but he's not going to be any sort of superstar.

Howard I've only seen a couple of times and I was most hopeful for him than any of the other signings but I don't think he's particularly any better than what we've got. I don't think he's significantly better than Davies, Sigurdsson and especially Marek.

So I don't know really. But talk of corners turned and Rodgers is now some sort of genius is ridiculously premature. Massive game for him Saturday. After they won at Preston they blew it in the next games. Now the challenge is there for them again, lose Saturday and whatever slight confidence he's gained in the last week is totally gone again.

I personally don't think Rodgers will be here for a great deal longer. He's one bad run away from it being all over. Not a good position to be in.



Sums it all up nicely I think.

User avatar
winchester_royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11128
Joined: 28 Aug 2007 21:32
Location: How many Spaniards does it take to change a bulb? Just Juan.

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by winchester_royal » 03 Nov 2009 20:51

Alan Partridge I'm not sure what's worse really, demanding a manager sacked after 5/6 games or this guff, claiming all his signings are brilliant because they've finally done what their paid to do in ONE match.

We are still massively in the relegation mixup and nowhere near the good scrap at the top of the league. Is that progression or the signs of a unified well run club? That we've gone from the 8th best team in the country to the 41st in just over 2 years?

Rodgers signings have been extremely hit and miss already, although i would say it's still early doors. Cummings has shown nothing to suggest he's as good as a frankly ordinary Rosenior, he's been so poor Rodgers would sooner pick Tabb, a left footed central midfielder to play there. Rasiak is one of those players that is going to split opinion. Some will hate him and think he's clumsy and useless and some will look straight at the stats. I am probably more towards the latter having seen him a few times. I think he's awkward, extremely average but he's one of those players that will end up with 10-15 goals. He just has a knack of being in good areas and I back him a million times more than any of the others to put a chance away.

McAnuff is your typical CHampionship winger, looks brilliant for 30minutes, then drifts off. He'll be up and down, although I prefer him to Kebe. I think there is a little more consistancy with him but he's not going to be any sort of superstar.

Howard I've only seen a couple of times and I was most hopeful for him than any of the other signings but I don't think he's particularly any better than what we've got. I don't think he's significantly better than Davies, Sigurdsson and especially Marek.

So I don't know really. But talk of corners turned and Rodgers is now some sort of genius is ridiculously premature. Massive game for him Saturday. After they won at Preston they blew it in the next games. Now the challenge is there for them again, lose Saturday and whatever slight confidence he's gained in the last week is totally gone again.

I personally don't think Rodgers will be here for a great deal longer. He's one bad run away from it being all over. Not a good position to be in.


Decent post, though I'm sure you can understand the reasons for the overly pro-Rogers posts ATM, given the ridiculously negative posts of a week ago.


sandman
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12454
Joined: 01 Oct 2008 18:25
Location: Slaughterhouse soaked in blood and betrayal

Re: FAO RL: Rodgers terrible signings

by sandman » 03 Nov 2009 23:21

winchester_royal Rasiak - Proven goalscorer at this level and decent target man.
McAnuff - Proven winger at this level who Rodgers clearly gets the best out of. Premiership class at best.
Howard - Once considered by some to be one of best midfielders outside the Prem. Lovely left foot, passionate, decent on the ball.
Bertrand - Chelsea hope to have him as the successor to Ashley Cole.

All excellent signings, and considerably better than SC's attempts towards the latter part of his reign.


Rasiak - Slow
McAnuff - Inconsistant. When he first started out he was touted as a potential Premier League player. Do you not think there are reasons why this potential has not been realised?
Howard - Overweight.Apart from a decent cup run with Barnsley has never been anything other than an average Championship midfielder. Which is why he failed at Sheffield United last year.
Bertrand - Has potential but did suffer a relegation last year while on loan at Norwich.

The hatred of Coppell from you and certain others is really becoming pathetic. He did make mistakes of course and but they have been nothing compared to some of the current manager.Tommy Smith anyone? (sorry to bring him up yet again everyone :roll: ).

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: FAO RL: Rodgers terrible signings

by Ian Royal » 03 Nov 2009 23:25

sandman
winchester_royal Rasiak - Proven goalscorer at this level and decent target man.
McAnuff - Proven winger at this level who Rodgers clearly gets the best out of. Premiership class at best.
Howard - Once considered by some to be one of best midfielders outside the Prem. Lovely left foot, passionate, decent on the ball.
Bertrand - Chelsea hope to have him as the successor to Ashley Cole.

All excellent signings, and considerably better than SC's attempts towards the latter part of his reign.


Rasiak - Slow
McAnuff - Inconsistant. When he first started out he was touted as a potential Premier League player. Do you not think there are reasons why this potential has not been realised?
Howard - Overweight.Apart from a decent cup run with Barnsley has never been anything other than an average Championship midfielder. Which is why he failed at Sheffield United last year.
Bertrand - Has potential but did suffer a relegation last year while on loan at Norwich.

The hatred of Coppell from you and certain others is really becoming pathetic. He did make mistakes of course and but they have been nothing compared to some of the current manager.Tommy Smith anyone.


Rasiak
Sheringham was slow didn't do him any harm. Closer to home Kitson was never quick. Didn't do him a lot of harm either. Being slow is no reason for a signing to be poor. Even if they're a winger. Afterall, Little coped ok too.

McAnuff
There's no point hoping for a Premier League player, we need a Championship player that's all. All wingers bar Convey and Little in one season are inconsistent.

Bertrand
I hardly think you can blame Bertrand for Norwich's relegation. I think a little of the responsibility may need to fall on other shoulders besides his. Plenty of players have played for relegated clubs and gone on to better things at the same leel or higher.

User avatar
Archie's penalty
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5772
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 19:35
Location: Process not oucome

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by Archie's penalty » 03 Nov 2009 23:33

Great post by my AP namesake.

Think the signings have been fine. Betrand is a gem.

sandman
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12454
Joined: 01 Oct 2008 18:25
Location: Slaughterhouse soaked in blood and betrayal

Re: FAO RL: Rodgers terrible signings

by sandman » 03 Nov 2009 23:46

Ian Royal
sandman
Rasiak - Slow
McAnuff - Inconsistant. When he first started out he was touted as a potential Premier League player. Do you not think there are reasons why this potential has not been realised?
Howard - Overweight.Apart from a decent cup run with Barnsley has never been anything other than an average Championship midfielder. Which is why he failed at Sheffield United last year.
Bertrand - Has potential but did suffer a relegation last year while on loan at Norwich.

The hatred of Coppell from you and certain others is really becoming pathetic. He did make mistakes of course and but they have been nothing compared to some of the current manager.Tommy Smith anyone.


Rasiak
Sheringham was slow didn't do him any harm. Closer to home Kitson was never quick. Didn't do him a lot of harm either. Being slow is no reason for a signing to be poor. Even if they're a winger. Afterall, Little coped ok too.

McAnuff
There's no point hoping for a Premier League player, we need a Championship player that's all. All wingers bar Convey and Little in one season are inconsistent.

Bertrand
I hardly think you can blame Bertrand for Norwich's relegation. I think a little of the responsibility may need to fall on other shoulders besides his. Plenty of players have played for relegated clubs and gone on to better things at the same leel or higher.


Rasiak
The former Reading players you mentioned each had something unique about them Little could trick his way out of any awkward situation and Kits link up play was second to none. Sheringham won 51 Caps for England and scored 289 league goals so I hardly think comparing him with Rasiak is fair on either player.

McAnuff
I was merely pointing out that he has had potential for years but has failed to deliver when it counts. And apart from Saturday he has only made an impact for us in bursts.

Bertrand
I'm not blaming Bertrand for their relegation I was just trying to back up the point that he's still very young. He has been one of our better players this year but could still dip in form. Especially as with Armstrong out he doesn't really have any competition for his place.


User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by Ian Royal » 04 Nov 2009 12:33

Your stated gripes with those players are pretty tenuous at best. I'm not saying there aren't reasons to be concerned about them, but slow, not Premier League quality and last club got relegated are pretty poor efforts.

Sun Tzu
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3996
Joined: 08 Oct 2008 10:00

Re: FAO RL: Rodgers terrible signings

by Sun Tzu » 04 Nov 2009 13:41

sandman
The hatred of Coppell from you and certain others is really becoming pathetic. He did make mistakes of course and but they have been nothing compared to some of the current manager.Tommy Smith anyone? (sorry to bring him up yet again everyone :roll: ).


Not sure what point you are making re Smith. We had him signed, sealed and all but delivered but he got a late chance of premiership football and took it.
it happens. Coppell also didn't sign a number of players you know !

User avatar
brendywendy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12059
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 15:29
Location: coming straight outa crowthorne

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by brendywendy » 04 Nov 2009 13:54

he didnt sign millions of them

drogba, and pele are just two of those

coppell out



oh

User avatar
Royal Lady
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 13751
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:17
Location: Don't mess with "my sort". Cheers then.

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by Royal Lady » 04 Nov 2009 13:55

I suspect, as you well know, that he is alluding to the fact that we dithered over his cost.


User avatar
winchester_royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11128
Joined: 28 Aug 2007 21:32
Location: How many Spaniards does it take to change a bulb? Just Juan.

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by winchester_royal » 04 Nov 2009 14:23

LOL @ assigning the blame of Smith saga to Rodgers.

wolsey
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1601
Joined: 21 Oct 2005 15:22
Location: Wishing I was young enough and crass enough to care

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by wolsey » 04 Nov 2009 14:27

winchester_royal LOL @ assigning the blame of Smith saga to Rodgers.


No, Russo was always going to sell his best player to someone who had (in his eyes at least) walked out on his Club, and then starts spouting off to all and sundry "I've spoken to Tommy and he wants to play for me" (or words to that effect).

Not a good starting point for our negotiating team.

Royalee
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6470
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:58
Location: Reading, hazar

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by Royalee » 04 Nov 2009 14:32

wolsey
winchester_royal LOL @ assigning the blame of Smith saga to Rodgers.


No, Russo was always going to sell his best player to someone who had (in his eyes at least) walked out on his Club, and then starts spouting off to all and sundry "I've spoken to Tommy and he wants to play for me" (or words to that effect).

Not a good starting point for our negotiating team.


Watford were always going to try to screw us regardless and the only reason they did their talking in the press was to try and generate interest for Smith. They accepted our offer after they thought they'd run out of time but very fortunately for them Pompey came in last minute. To blame Rodgers for that is rather silly.

User avatar
winchester_royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11128
Joined: 28 Aug 2007 21:32
Location: How many Spaniards does it take to change a bulb? Just Juan.

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by winchester_royal » 04 Nov 2009 14:56

wolsey
winchester_royal LOL @ assigning the blame of Smith saga to Rodgers.


No, Russo was always going to sell his best player to someone who had (in his eyes at least) walked out on his Club, and then starts spouting off to all and sundry "I've spoken to Tommy and he wants to play for me" (or words to that effect).

Not a good starting point for our negotiating team.


They had an acceptable value. Hammond was fcuking about for 2 months trying to get them to come down, he failed, we eventually offered the money but we were gazumped by Pompey.

If we'd just offered the bloody money in the first place he'd be here. Russo wouldn't have given 2 shits about what Rodgers said. Money does all the talking these days.

wolsey
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1601
Joined: 21 Oct 2005 15:22
Location: Wishing I was young enough and crass enough to care

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by wolsey » 04 Nov 2009 15:06

winchester_royal
wolsey
winchester_royal LOL @ assigning the blame of Smith saga to Rodgers.


No, Russo was always going to sell his best player to someone who had (in his eyes at least) walked out on his Club, and then starts spouting off to all and sundry "I've spoken to Tommy and he wants to play for me" (or words to that effect).

Not a good starting point for our negotiating team.


They had an acceptable value. Hammond was fcuking about for 2 months trying to get them to come down, he failed, we eventually offered the money but we were gazumped by Pompey.

If we'd just offered the bloody money in the first place he'd be here. Russo wouldn't have given 2 shits about what Rodgers said. Money does all the talking these days.


I'm surprised Hammond has so much influence - I thought that he was just the "facilitator", there to do the manager's and SJM's bidding.

Also, if we still had expensive assets to be got rid off, and appeared to have gone some way to committing ourselves to Mills' purchases - would he have had the resources to match Jimmy ("I wouldn't sell Reading a virus) Russo's valuation of the player?

User avatar
facaldaqui
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1934
Joined: 17 Dec 2004 05:10

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by facaldaqui » 04 Nov 2009 15:20

I fully support Reading's unwillingness to pay more for Smith than they thought he was worth. The mistake was not having an equivalent alternative in mind. Portsmouth is run by an unstable bunch of chancers who haven't a clue what they're doing financially. I see that since last week they have been banned from transfers because they haven't been paying their fees for players. So if Russo's not being paid for Smith as agreed then serve him right for accepting a bid from an unstable source. Of the three parties, only Reading seem to have been appropriately cautious.

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: FAO Doom n' Gloomers: Rodgers terrible signings

by Ian Royal » 04 Nov 2009 20:08

winchester_royal
wolsey
winchester_royal LOL @ assigning the blame of Smith saga to Rodgers.


No, Russo was always going to sell his best player to someone who had (in his eyes at least) walked out on his Club, and then starts spouting off to all and sundry "I've spoken to Tommy and he wants to play for me" (or words to that effect).

Not a good starting point for our negotiating team.


They had an acceptable value. Hammond was fcuking about for 2 months trying to get them to come down, he failed, we eventually offered the money but we were gazumped by Pompey.

If we'd just offered the bloody money in the first place he'd be here. Russo wouldn't have given 2 shits about what Rodgers said. Money does all the talking these days.


Dirk has told us many times that we enquired about his price and then left it until we'd sold the players we needed to, to raise the cash. Watford raised the price, we met it again. Then got gazzumped by Pompey at the eleventh hour.

Personally I'd take his version of events over yours, simply because he does at least have soome verified connections to the club, whereas you have squat and are trying to assign blame.

127 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SouthDownsRoyal and 140 guests

It is currently 27 Sep 2020 21:39