Revell - the PROOF

[Da Man Clay]

He is a massive loss to our squad.

.

Thats just a blatant lie though, isn't it.

 

[chez]

Thats just a blatant lie though, isn't it.

Not at all. If you think not having Revell in our squad is not a loss then you seriously need your head examined.

Lets just cast our minds back to last Saturday. Would you rather have had Gary Hart up front or Alex Revell? Absolute no brainer.

 

[chez]

I f***ing love your posts. A very rare genuine 'laugh out loud'

I know you do.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Not at all. If you think not having Revell in our squad is not a loss then you seriously need your head examined.

Lets just cast our minds back to last Saturday. Would you rather have had Gary Hart up front or Alex Revell? Absolute no brainer.

Well I imagine that only reason we sold Revell was to get funds towards Murray, so I would say a better question is who would you rather have had up front last night, Murray or Revell?

Losing him ISN'T a loss to our squad as we got a player three times the player in Murray in his place.

 

[Braders]

DING DING - Chez vs CB , round one

seriously though , Knew certain people would love all that saga last night - and quite right he should've been sent off for that , absolutely no question about that


and nor can I disagree that Murray didn't have a great game (other then his home debut against Crewe and the Bristol Rovers away game , I reckon one of his best) as did all the rest of the lads to be fair

my main beef was with the motion that Revell is/was shit , that is/was never the case..

 

[chez]

Ok am i the only person who when we sold Revell and got Murray wondered,if we were a club moving fowards, why not have both and have decent competition for places. We would then have 3 strikers that are out and out league 1 players and wouldn't have to of played Hart against Bristol last week which i believe cost us 2 that we would have got if we had a player of Revells class on the bench.

I'm with you on that one. As usual though, if there is a player that is in competition with a "fans favourite" then they are automatically deemed as shit.

 

[chez]

Well I imagine that only reason we sold Revell was to get funds towards Murray, so I would say a better question is who would you rather have had up front last night, Murray or Revell?

Losing him ISN'T a loss to our squad as we got a player three times the player in Murray in his place.

Firstly, as yet I'm not sure who I'd prefer up front. Murray has shown glimpses of skill but for me Revell is much more consistent. For me it comes down to who plays better with Nicky Forster and I reckon that would be Murray.

As for your 2nd point. Eh? It doesn't make sense. Murray is a first team player so you cant compare Revell to him when it comes to squad improvement. You need to compare him to Robinson, Gatting, Gargan, Dixon or Hart - if you would rather have Revell as back up striker to all of them (and every fan in the world would) then quite obviously he would be a massive improvement to the squad.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Firstly, as yet I'm not sure who I'd prefer up front. Murray has shown glimpses of skill but for me Revell is much more consistent. For me it comes down to who plays better with Nicky Forster and I reckon that would be Murray.

As for your 2nd point. Eh? It doesn't make sense. Murray is a first team player so you cant compare Revell to him when it comes to squad improvement. You need to compare him to Robinson, Gatting, Gargan, Dixon or Hart - if you would rather have Revell as back up striker to all of them (and every fan in the world would) then quite obviously he would be a massive improvement to the squad.

Im only compaing him to Murray as I doubt we would have Murray if we hadn't sold Revell, I think Revell is over-rated on the basis that he can run around a bit.

That said if we could have brought Murray and kept Revell then you're quite right he is a better back-up than any of the rest. Robinson maybe on a par is he is techinally far superior to Revell, but doesn't run around as much or have the same physical presence.

 

[Braders]

Who COULD you be talking about?

in all fairness , and I hate to admit it , but it proofed alot of people right with such stupidty ... 'tis a shame

 

[Icy Gull]

It's a shame that people think that, when he had nothing but glowing remarks for you BHAFC fans in our local newspaper the other night. The feeling doesn't appear to be mutual between you and him.

He'll never score 20 goals per season, but he does bring a different element to our team. I thought he player well yesterday, was unlucky to score when he hit the post, and played very well for us at Millwall last weekend too.

He actually got a very warm reception when we were at Southend last season, even though we were losing when he came on as sub. An ott late lunge on Kuipers last night meant he was only going to get abuse for the rest of the game, not vaguely suprising. I liked his attitude when he was here but he is nowhere near as good a player as Murray. His 1st touch, from memory was fecking appalling most of the time he was here, although he wasn't bad in the air and scored some crucial goals when fit.

 

[chez]

I

That said if we could have brought Murray and kept Revell then you're quite right he is a better back-up than any of the rest. QUOTE]

That was my only point - just that we miss having him as back up, thus detracting from effectiveness of the squad.

 

[chez]

On one hand I agree with you, because yes, I don't think anyone would deny Revell is a better option to be sitting on our bench than anyone else we've got. But, on the other hand, I'd prefer to see someone better than Revell on the bench. I don't agree with keeping a player who isn't good enough just because he's better than some of your others. The club should invest a small amount of money in a striker happy to sit on our bench who is capable of offering something in limited game time.

*cough*

View attachment 7823

Oh yeah, I'm not saying that it was a bad decision to sell him. It was good business and we probably would not have been able to afford Murray had we not have sold him. I was just saying that the SQUAD is worse off without him.

 

[Screaming J]

I would always prefer Murray to Revell but if Forster had clattered in to their keeper like Revell did to Kuipers; I suspect our attitude to that challenge might have been rather different.

He always gave 100% for us so as far as I am concerned; good luck to him in the future.

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Yesterday proved, what a great abit of business we pulled off with Southend last January. I would take Murray over Revell anyday off the week.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It seems fairly clear to me that Alex Revell, having served his time at the Albion, had worked out that the FDM has a fairly short fuse and reacts to a bit of in-your-face aggression by losing his cool.

What better way to help the Southend cause than a bit of provocation?

The fact that both of them got away with yellow cards was probably down to Revell getting stuck in too early in the game. After 20 minutes, it might have worked and Kuipers might have had to walk.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

What did you actually think Michel did that was worthy of a yellow/red card?

I wasn't there. I have no idea.

It just seemed to me, listening to the radio comm, that Revell knew exactly what he was trying to achieve.

The fact that he failed is to be welcomed. The fact that he tried is reason enough to condemn him. My speculation is that he knew what he was doing, because he knows that Kuipers doesn't take shit.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Revell was an OK player - an average Tier Three striker - nothing more, nothing less. His record proves this. Certain degree of rose tinted glasses going on here. We replaced him with a far better striker who can do a job in the Championship - which Revell certainly would not.

I guess we sold him to raise funds for Glenn, so by definition, the squad is stronger in that position. However, if we had sold OGH and bought Murray, then yes, the squad would be better overall for having Revell still in it.

Nevertheless, I would hope that if we have ambitions for promotion then we'd be looking to have better cover for our quality striking duo than both Hart and Revell.