I don't want to be too critical but even allowing for the fact that he was brought on as a sub, I did think he looked a little lost and out of his depth or maybe as we were 3 up it really didn't matter that he showed more as most of the team had switched off by then knowing that the result wasn't in doubt. He certainly has the physique, but does he have the natural skills to improve the squad?
Looks good off the ball, but not so good on it imo. Early days though. No point making a decision on him until end of the season
Think he's looked OK both times I've seen him. Too early to judge really but fresh blood was needed and some younger legs to hold the midfield and offer some protection to our, often beleaguered back four.
My memory is failing me tonight, who was the young guy we had on loan from Man City, not saying he is similar to Ince. Just remembered that was Fofana, what happened to him?
Fofana is on loan to SC Bastia
58 minutes, that's right 58 minutes we have seen of him. No one can make a call based on that.
Good against qpr. Certainly no lemon.
Quote from: MJG on February 15, 2016, 10:28:12 AM
58 minutes, that's right 58 minutes we have seen of him. No one can make a call based on that.
Agree, he hasn't looked out of place though. Not like that student that pretended to be George weah's cousin and got on for Southampton a fair few years ago.
He's got all the right atributes and a good footballing family, just needs to settle. I believe he will come good.
How can anyone make an assessment like this, as MJG says, he has played less than an hour for us and yet, we already have people jumping in, for goodness sake, give the lad a chance.
Give davew some leeway. Last week he gave his forthright opinion based on Gentleman Jim's commentary alone. This week he has at least based it on viewing 12 minutes of Ince on Sky.
(LOL), "based on GJ's commentary alone" not true, but let's move on!
Quote from: MJG on February 15, 2016, 10:28:12 AM
58 minutes, that's right 58 minutes we have seen of him. No one can make a call based on that.
Absolutely correct. He was OK V Hull and coming on so late into a game like that is always a problem. By the time you start to get into the swing of it, the game is over. I think he will be a good signing but really need to see a bit more of him.
Quote from: davew on February 15, 2016, 02:35:14 PM
(LOL), "based on GJ's commentary alone" not true, but let's move on!
Exactly, I'm sure the champers and wine played a bearing on your assement
It's harsh to criticise or make judgement after literally 58 minutes. But if I'm playing devils advocate how long did Fotheringham get before he was judged? It couldn't have been more than 5 minutes on his debut. Not my opinion because he clearly was out of his depth but just thought I'd put it out there.
I thought he looked like an Etuhu. On the ball I felt he wasn't great but physically he is very useful could compliment a couple of better players with the right coaching.
Bit unfair to say that about the qpr game, Hyndman came on and didn't do much either. To be fair the standard set by the other 3 was so high that the others are going to have to work extra hard to push for their place. I'll predict he will become a decent squad player.
Better than Tunnicliffe? I doubt it but time will tell
As usual people judging after not even 2 full games!!!!
Quote from: fulhamben on February 15, 2016, 03:53:45 PM
Quote from: davew on February 15, 2016, 02:35:14 PM
(LOL), "based on GJ's commentary alone" not true, but let's move on!
Exactly, I'm sure the champers and wine played a bearing on your assement
No wonder others call us Tarquin and Rupert.
Quote from: hovewhite on February 15, 2016, 06:53:41 PM
As usual people judging after not even 2 full games!!!!
*person
Against Derby I was impressed - his physicality and energy disrupted Derby's play in the first half. I was surprised he was subbed off at the break to be honest but SJ has a better viewpoint than any of us.
Against QPR the game was won and he came on late so we cannot really make a valid judgment.
But he does offer something very different to our current squad - not least when we do not have the ball.
Bearing in mind we are at the wrong half of the table, and will have the battle for points against teams who will offer more than QPR did, I suspect we will be glad we have a player of his type and there will be a few asking if we can get him in on a transfer next season.
Ask a sensible question and get the same old response from the same old knockers to my comments, I can ride above those! First impressions of a new player are important and what most fans think about. boy on this forum some players are great 1 week and should be castrated the next week! If life was about consistency I would still be married to my first wife.
At least I can sleep well tonight knowing that nearly everybody who posted about my topic on the midfield selection agreed with me, what did the knockers have to say on that 1, absolutely nothing just silence! Are we all supporting the same team or just disagreeing with each other for the sake of it!
Quote from: hovewhite on February 15, 2016, 06:53:41 PM
As usual people judging after not even 2 full games!!!!
I have never judged 1 person after 6 games, just given an opinion and an open question, not a judgement!!
For me Ince is a decent player, was at Brighton and before that too. He is not a world beater but solid and does his job. Fully expect him to start tonight over Parker, as I cannot see Parker playing two game sin 3 days and still being ready for Saturday.
Quote from: Peabody on February 15, 2016, 07:09:12 PM
No wonder others call us Tarquin and Rupert.
And the problem there is what, exactly?
Very similar to Etuhu, slightly more athletic, has all the attributes to be a very solid DM, now we just need a new Danny Murphy....
First impressions against Derby were good I think, he broke up play and did the simple things well - I was one of a fair few sitting around me that were surprised when he was taken off at half time and even more so when SJ advised later on that it was tactical. Didn't have enough time against QPR at the weekend to influence the game at all but early signs would suggest that he should be a good addition in a dimension that we have lacked for a while. Only time will tell though and as MJG said above, we cannot judge on 58 minutes worth of play.
Most importantly he looks like a step up on Matilla the Hun, young too with lots of potential
Quote from: Rupert on February 16, 2016, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: Peabody on February 15, 2016, 07:09:12 PM
No wonder others call us Tarquin and Rupert.
And the problem there is what, exactly?
Oops, sorry, I just forgot how to spell Periquin
Quote from: Peabody on February 16, 2016, 03:09:26 PM
Quote from: Rupert on February 16, 2016, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: Peabody on February 15, 2016, 07:09:12 PM
No wonder others call us Tarquin and Rupert.
And the problem there is what, exactly?
Oops, sorry, I just forgot how to spell Periquin
Just so you know, Tarquin is getting pretty miffed at these constant digs too. His name dates back to the kings of Rome and he says he is minded to give the next mickey-taker a damned good thrashing.
Quote from: Rupert on February 16, 2016, 03:34:10 PM
Quote from: Peabody on February 16, 2016, 03:09:26 PM
Quote from: Rupert on February 16, 2016, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: Peabody on February 15, 2016, 07:09:12 PM
No wonder others call us Tarquin and Rupert.
And the problem there is what, exactly?
Oops, sorry, I just forgot how to spell Periquin
Just so you know, Tarquin is getting pretty miffed at these constant digs too. His name dates back to the kings of Rome and he says he is minded to give the next mickey-taker a damned good thrashing.
So, have I got this right, it could have been Julius Tarquin rather than Ceasar then?
Quote from: nose on February 15, 2016, 03:30:34 PM
Quote from: MJG on February 15, 2016, 10:28:12 AM
58 minutes, that's right 58 minutes we have seen of him. No one can make a call based on that.
Absolutely correct. He was OK V Hull and coming on so late into a game like that is always a problem. By the time you start to get into the swing of it, the game is over. I think he will be a good signing but really need to see a bit more of him.
He hadn't yet signed for us when we played against Hull.
Quote from: Peabody on February 16, 2016, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: Rupert on February 16, 2016, 03:34:10 PM
Quote from: Peabody on February 16, 2016, 03:09:26 PM
Quote from: Rupert on February 16, 2016, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: Peabody on February 15, 2016, 07:09:12 PM
No wonder others call us Tarquin and Rupert.
And the problem there is what, exactly?
Oops, sorry, I just forgot how to spell Periquin
Just so you know, Tarquin is getting pretty miffed at these constant digs too. His name dates back to the kings of Rome and he says he is minded to give the next mickey-taker a damned good thrashing.
So, have I got this right, it could have been Julius Tarquin rather than Ceasar then?
No, no, no!
Please take this seriously, Tarquin is a major mover in the Kew Gardens circle and has, if I understand the parlance, a posse at his call if needed, and he says you are on your final warning.
The Kings of Rome pre-date the empire by several hundred years. After the last of the legendary kings (called Tarquin, naturally) the Romans tried a republic, before opting for an empire.
Julius got the chop because Brutus et al thought he was going to have himself crowned king.
Of course it is too early to say how good he will be for us but at least we can see that he has the physique.
He may have difficulty getting game time, we looked good on Saturday without a defensive midfielder and then Tunnicliffe may be back in contention soon.
Quote from: Rupert on February 16, 2016, 05:03:06 PM
Quote from: Peabody on February 16, 2016, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: Rupert on February 16, 2016, 03:34:10 PM
Quote from: Peabody on February 16, 2016, 03:09:26 PM
Quote from: Rupert on February 16, 2016, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: Peabody on February 15, 2016, 07:09:12 PM
No wonder others call us Tarquin and Rupert.
And the problem there is what, exactly?
Oops, sorry, I just forgot how to spell Periquin
Just so you know, Tarquin is getting pretty miffed at these constant digs too. His name dates back to the kings of Rome and he says he is minded to give the next mickey-taker a damned good thrashing.
So, have I got this right, it could have been Julius Tarquin rather than Ceasar then?
No, no, no!
Please take this seriously, Tarquin is a major mover in the Kew Gardens circle and has, if I understand the parlance, a posse at his call if needed, and he says you are on your final warning.
The Kings of Rome pre-date the empire by several hundred years. After the last of the legendary kings (called Tarquin, naturally) the Romans tried a republic, before opting for an empire.
Julius got the chop because Brutus et al thought he was going to have himself crowned king.
Will you please tell Tarquin that he should be confronting Wearetherangersboys concerning this abuse of his name and not have a vendetta against me.