Dale Stephens Summer 2016 shenanigans (Merged Thread)

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

It's very strange as we missed him massively in the first half, and Sidwell was annonomous

 

[LamieRobertson]

some random brighton fan tweeted that stephens is refusing to play for next match. Teams news appears and no stephens - coincidence ?

We play awful away to reading and miss him.

Hughton says he needs extra training and that why he was dropped. I'm not convinced by that or others.

Next game comes along and it's a big one and everyone expected stephens to be in the starting line up after a poor performance at reading.

No stephens again and our midfield is over run again. He didn't even come on but norwood did.

If people still want to believe what hughton says then they are fooling themselves. He will be sold in the next couple of days. Fact

opinion

 

[neilbard]

Can someone explain why he was on the bench?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Can someone explain why he was on the bench?

Last resort midfielder it seems.

 

[chaileyjem]

It's quite clear he is refusing to play.

He's not very good at refusing to play given he was on the bench.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

He's not very good at refusing to play given he was on the bench.

That's as may be, but he wasn't one of the three options. My nap is on him not being a Brighton player come Thursday.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

He'd better go after all this fuss, because he is costing us points 'not being ready' at the moment. Point is that Kayal and Stephens have more as individuals than Norwood or Sidwell. Not playing Kayal and Stephens together means we are weaker in midfield than last season, whatever other combo.

 

[chaileyjem]

That's as may be, but he wasn't one of the three options. My nap is on him not being a Brighton player come Thursday.

Whether he is or he isn't then the assumption that we're selling him based on the hokey cokey of his appearances over the last 6 weeks (he's gone, he's back, he's off, he's back, he's on the bench, he's gone, FACT) are a complete red herring.

He'll go or he won't. There's nothing about yesterday that indicates it either way.
Its all down to him, the offers we get or not over the next few days and money.

He could have played all 90 minutes yesterday or spent the day at home in Sussex. It wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[BensGrandad]

Whether he is or he isn't then the assumption that we're selling him based on the hokey cokey of his appearances over the last 6 weeks (he's gone, he's back, he's off, he's back, he's on the bench, he's gone, FACT) are a complete red herring.

He'll go or he won't. There's nothing about yesterday that indicates it either way.
Its all down to him, the offers we get or not over the next few days and money.

He could have played all 90 minutes yesterday or spent the day at home in Sussex. It wouldn't have made any difference.

Had he played we may have stopped Shelvey controlling the game as it appears that NONE of the other midfielders that we have are anywhere near him in ability or able to play with Kayal in the dual central role.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

Probably already been said but this is my take. The club have set a minimum figure they will accept for Stephens but although close nobody has yet bid enough. That could happen as we near the end of the window so it makes sense not to play him. The cover story about his fitness is being used so that if nobody offers what we want then he can slip back into the team with the minimum of fuss and without either party being seen to blame. If the club were to be more open about the transfer dealings then it would be detrimental to both parties as well as showing our hand in any negotiations.

I don't see how else the club could handle this difficult situation.

 

[clippedgull]

Probably already been said but this is my take. The club have set a minimum figure they will accept for Stephens but although close nobody has yet bid enough. That could happen as we near the end of the window so it makes sense not to play him. The cover story about his fitness is being used so that if nobody offers what we want then he can slip back into the team with the minimum of fuss and without either party being seen to blame. If the club were to be more open about the transfer dealings then it would be detrimental to both parties as well as showing our hand in any negotiations.

I don't see how else the club could handle this difficult situation.

Obviously none of us know the what is going on with Stephens, but, it seems bizarre to take a player (seen by some as our best midfield player) on a 700 mile round trip if (A) His head is not in the right place possibly due to transfer speculation (B) He is not match fit and therefore not used as a substitution with Norwood being preferred over him.

 

[BensGrandad]

Obviously none of us know the what is going on with Stephens, but, it seems bizarre to take a player (seen by some as our best midfield player) on a 700 mile round trip if (A) His head is not in the right place possibly due to transfer speculation (B) He is not match fit and therefore not used as a substitution with Norwood being preferred over him.

Something gone wrong as I agree with you.

 

[crasher]

Obviously none of us know the what is going on with Stephens, but, it seems bizarre to take a player (seen by some as our best midfield player) on a 700 mile round trip if (A) His head is not in the right place possibly due to transfer speculation (B) He is not match fit and therefore not used as a substitution with Norwood being preferred over him.

Not necessarily I'd argue. It looks better for both club and Stephens if he travels with the team. Then, if he doesn't leave next week, it looks like less of a climb-down for all concerned and much easier to integrate him back into the side with his team-mates.

And if he does go, it won't leave quite the nasty taste that refusing to play does (as it did with Bridcutt).

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Whether he is or he isn't then the assumption that we're selling him based on the hokey cokey of his appearances over the last 6 weeks (he's gone, he's back, he's off, he's back, he's on the bench, he's gone, FACT) are a complete red herring.

He'll go or he won't. There's nothing about yesterday that indicates it either way.
Its all down to him, the offers we get or not over the next few days and money.

He could have played all 90 minutes yesterday or spent the day at home in Sussex. It wouldn't have made any difference.

But mate, we needed him yesterday and he wasn't used.

 

[phoenix]

But mate, we needed him yesterday and he wasn't used.

He wouldn't have come on, he would have felt a tweak whilst warming up on the touchline!

 

[BensGrandad]

Just my opinion but he should have been on after 20 mins as Shelvey was running the show.

 

[sir albion]

With the window slamming shut I hope it's not a case of sell and rush in another player at the last minute...If he's off and any chance then sell and move on ASAP

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Sick to death of hearing about him, or not hearing about him. Even if we as a club are destined to always be the bridesmaid, at least we can say we've had a first eleven down the years who've all played in the Premier League - Buckley, Bridcutt, Stephens, Ward, Ulloa, Wilson, Barnes, Kuszcsak, Cook, Elphick, Zamora, Sidwell etc.

 

[Binney on acid]

Sick to death of hearing about him, or not hearing about him. Even if we as a club are destined to always be the bridesmaid, at least we can say we've had a first eleven down the years who've all played in the Premier League - Buckley, Bridcutt, Stephens, Ward, Ulloa, Wilson, Barnes, Kuszcsak, Cook, Elphick, Zamora, Sidwell etc.

How many of them made an impact at that level and how many of them were not loanees? Bridcutt did score for Southampton though.

 

[chaileyjem]

But mate, we needed him yesterday and he wasn't used.

Stephens has off days. Who knows ?
Anyway i'm saying his appearance in the squad or not makes no difference, despite those 100% confident that its a signal he's staying or going (FACT!) etc etc.