The return of Matt Smith!?

[ChesterTheTabby]

I posted this to the Viva El Fulham forum and thought I'd get your opinions as well:

Just read the Manager's Reaction on the Fulham FC website. The very last paragraph had some interesting foreshadowing...

"It was more precautionary in that if he got a kick, he would be in trouble so he has a good chance of being available for Tuesday. Cauley did very well, and Matt Smith will be back so there is no guarantees for anyone. This is what we want. We want competition for places and we want to be playing people that are in form."

Thoughts?

[alfie]

I posted this to the Viva El Fulham forum and thought I'd get your opinions as well:

Just read the Manager's Reaction on the Fulham FC website. The very last paragraph had some interesting foreshadowing...

"It was more precautionary in that if he got a kick, he would be in trouble so he has a good chance of being available for Tuesday. Cauley did very well, and Matt Smith will be back so there is no guarantees for anyone. This is what we want. We want competition for places and we want to be playing people that are in form."

Thoughts?

my thoughts are don't change anything from the starting 11 today, having Smith on the bench would be a start, but it would not surprise me to see him not in the matchday squad, he has not had any time with the team yet.

[MJG]

I posted this to the Viva El Fulham forum and thought I'd get your opinions as well:

Just read the Manager's Reaction on the Fulham FC website. The very last paragraph had some interesting foreshadowing...

"It was more precautionary in that if he got a kick, he would be in trouble so he has a good chance of being available for Tuesday. Cauley did very well, and Matt Smith will be back so there is no guarantees for anyone. This is what we want. We want competition for places and we want to be playing people that are in form."

Thoughts?

If you want competition why extend his loan twice?

[MikeW]

On the bench Tuesday - don't consider Rodallega - play Woodrow from the start.

That's my view

[fulhamben]

I posted this to the Viva El Fulham forum and thought I'd get your opinions as well:

Just read the Manager's Reaction on the Fulham FC website. The very last paragraph had some interesting foreshadowing...

"It was more precautionary in that if he got a kick, he would be in trouble so he has a good chance of being available for Tuesday. Cauley did very well, and Matt Smith will be back so there is no guarantees for anyone. This is what we want. We want competition for places and we want to be playing people that are in form."

Thoughts?

If you want competition why extend his loan twice?

and the wanting to play players inform doesnt really wash when it took an injury for an out of form player to be dropped. anyhow wasnt it you that said you'd heard that him and ross dont get on?

[Lighthouse]

If Rodders is fit I would have him on the bench instead of Dembele. Smith as well. But I don't rate Smith  until I have seen him for Fulham.

But Woodrow has played before this season and not looked great. But it sounds as if he did well today. So keep the same team. LVC however will be injured so the big question is how did Kavangh play.

[MJG]

I posted this to the Viva El Fulham forum and thought I'd get your opinions as well:

Just read the Manager's Reaction on the Fulham FC website. The very last paragraph had some interesting foreshadowing...

"It was more precautionary in that if he got a kick, he would be in trouble so he has a good chance of being available for Tuesday. Cauley did very well, and Matt Smith will be back so there is no guarantees for anyone. This is what we want. We want competition for places and we want to be playing people that are in form."

Thoughts?

If you want competition why extend his loan twice?

and the wanting to play players inform doesnt really wash when it took an injury for an out of form player to be dropped. anyhow wasnt it you that said you'd heard that him and ross dont get on?

Yes,  from Leeds mate.  Of the little I've seen of Smith I'm not keen him.
I'm not convinced Symons is either.. Watch the video interview and the little comment about 'he scored goals early in his loan'  seemed very loaded.

[fulhamben]

I posted this to the Viva El Fulham forum and thought I'd get your opinions as well:

Just read the Manager's Reaction on the Fulham FC website. The very last paragraph had some interesting foreshadowing...

"It was more precautionary in that if he got a kick, he would be in trouble so he has a good chance of being available for Tuesday. Cauley did very well, and Matt Smith will be back so there is no guarantees for anyone. This is what we want. We want competition for places and we want to be playing people that are in form."

Thoughts?

If you want competition why extend his loan twice?

and the wanting to play players inform doesnt really wash when it took an injury for an out of form player to be dropped. anyhow wasnt it you that said you'd heard that him and ross dont get on?

Yes,  from Leeds mate.  Of the little I've seen of Smith I'm not keen him.
I'm not convinced Symons is either.. Watch the video interview and the little comment about 'he scored goals early in his loan'  seemed very loaded.

something has definitely gone on behind the scenes, because like you im not overly keen on his style but with the form of some of our strikers of late, it made no sense to extend his loan esp with the form he was in.

[fulhamben]

If Rodders is fit I would have him on the bench instead of Dembele. Smith as well. But I don't rate Smith  until I have seen him for Fulham.

But Woodrow has played before this season and not looked great. But it sounds as if he did well today. So keep the same team. LVC however will be injured so the big question is how did Kavangh play.

kav (from my stream) played as he always does. which is well. would i pick him over lvc, probably not, but he is def worth a start if lvc is injured. and id still have dembele over hugo, as he adds pace and an ability to take on defenders, which is what they hate when they are tired.

[cmg]

Throughout history managers' pronouncements have, with very few exceptions, been bland, non-committal and mostly entirely predictable. Symons is no exception here, and it is fun to see his utterances clinically dissected in an attempt to discover some hidden, sinister meaning.

Take this one as an example: "It was more precautionary in that if he got a kick, he would be in trouble so he has a good chance of being available for Tuesday. Cauley did very well, and Matt Smith will be back so there is no guarantees for anyone. This is what we want. We want competition for places and we want to be playing people that are in form."

What was he supposed to say? "I was glad Hugo got a kick because I've been trying to get shot of him but didn't have the nerve to drop him. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts to keep him in another county, Matt Smith is back but I won't be picking him because I hate his stupid accent and haircut. I don't like putting pressure on my players and having only one centre-forward makes selection a lot easier for me."?

Always best to take what is said at face value. Which isn't much.

[grandad]

Seems to me that Kit will put Hugo ahead of Woodrow,Smith & Dembele. Kit was saying that Smith scored goals early in his loan. Has he not noticed that Hugo has only scored twice in the last 17 games.

[Berserker]

Do you think there was any rumour in Hugo wanting away over the transfer window, there seemed to be talk of several clubs interested. I feel his form dipped from around that time.

[TheDon]

Throughout history managers' pronouncements have, with very few exceptions, been bland, non-committal and mostly entirely predictable. Symons is no exception here, and it is fun to see his utterances clinically dissected in an attempt to discover some hidden, sinister meaning.

Take this one as an example: "It was more precautionary in that if he got a kick, he would be in trouble so he has a good chance of being available for Tuesday. Cauley did very well, and Matt Smith will be back so there is no guarantees for anyone. This is what we want. We want competition for places and we want to be playing people that are in form."

What was he supposed to say? "I was glad Hugo got a kick because I've been trying to get shot of him but didn't have the nerve to drop him. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts to keep him in another county, Matt Smith is back but I won't be picking him because I hate his stupid accent and haircut. I don't like putting pressure on my players and having only one centre-forward makes selection a lot easier for me."?

Always best to take what is said at face value. Which isn't much.

:plus one:

[TheDon]

I posted this to the Viva El Fulham forum and thought I'd get your opinions as well:

Just read the Manager's Reaction on the Fulham FC website. The very last paragraph had some interesting foreshadowing...

"It was more precautionary in that if he got a kick, he would be in trouble so he has a good chance of being available for Tuesday. Cauley did very well, and Matt Smith will be back so there is no guarantees for anyone. This is what we want. We want competition for places and we want to be playing people that are in form."

Thoughts?

If you want competition why extend his loan twice?

and the wanting to play players inform doesnt really wash when it took an injury for an out of form player to be dropped. anyhow wasnt it you that said you'd heard that him and ross dont get on?

Yes,  from Leeds mate.  Of the little I've seen of Smith I'm not keen him.
I'm not convinced Symons is either.. Watch the video interview and the little comment about 'he scored goals early in his loan'  seemed very loaded.

I remember andy cole and teddy sheringham didnt get on, which never stoped fergie playing them together.If they get goals then play them.

[snarks]

He rarely played cole and sheringham together though, it was sheringham and solskear (sp) and cole and yorke

[Arthur]

I doubt that you would find a single person who was at yesterday's game who would favour dropping Woodrow for Hugo on Tuesday - except possibly the one person who has the power to make it so.

Tuesday's team selection could be a defining moment for Kit. If he does select Rodallega and he doesn't match Woodrow's efforts, Symons' action will surely be indefensible and those who claim that Kit doesn't possess the managerial abilities we require will have reason to feel that their view is fully justified.

[Chutney]

Dembele and Woodrow are both dramatically better players than smith, he will be back up at best.

[snarks]

Dembele and Woodrow are both dramatically better players than smith, he will be back up at best.

Burn the heretic, burn him now!!

[Mince n Tatties]

Dembele and Woodrow are both dramatically better players than smith, he will be back up at best.

And on what evidence do you base that...?

[HV71]

Right behind you on this one Mince & Tatties - some people on here claim the chap is not good enough to wear the shirt. It beggars belief that this is based upon the chap having less than 30minutes at Reading  before getting sent off.

Some even suggested that he might be a bad influence in the dressing room and that is why Kit didn't fancy him yet reports from Bristol City would seem to suggest otherwise.

Others claimed we would just boot the ball up to him   ( which was perplexing as we were continually hoofing it up field in the general direction of Hugo ) whilst this argument was disputed from a source that had actually watched Bristol play and claimed that was not the way they played.

If this wasn't enough others thought that we must just trust that Kit had got it totally right in not rating him ( the same Kit that persisted with a clearly out of form Hugo over the willing and mobile Cauley )

We bought Ross and we bought Smith they clearly had something that worked once upon a time. However this , unlike a lot of the stuff written on here, was not a fairy story but actually based on fact.

He may not be the saviour , he may not be that good, but like anyone who is trying to ply their trade in an honest way  - he deserves a chance even if only as a sub when we are in a tricky spot.

Please can we stop freezing someone out before they even get a proper chance . If he is no good after a run out over a period then , and only then should we condemn him.