SeagullTim
Boomer Sooner
It would be good to have a player like Revell, but to turn down a 150k bid for him would have been ludicrous.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
We should have hung on to Revell or Elder
- Thread starter goldstone
- Start date
Mendoza
NSC's Most Stalked
Fair comments
I was attempting to think about the Revell & Elder exits & how they might still have a bearing on the club at the mo'. I can't say I was especially sorry to see either of them go at the time - but the thread question has reinforced my feeling that we've been short of good cover up front for a while now. OGH ain't the answer on Saturday's evidence & Dixon doesn't look like he's got what's required either, unfortunately. I'm really suprised Micky hasn't got anybody else in. Perhaps he really is somewhat stuck in his past glories down here (like many of us poor fools!)??
Time to bring on the next Zamora then mate - & soon!!
I agree we have a shortage of goal scoring back, I even started a thread about it last week.
With Gatting, Gargan and Kane out on loan, that rules out 3 strikers (maybe they wouldnt cut the grade anyway)
Robinson hardly set the world alight upfront, I didnt see the game to judge Hart, but I get the impression, he is like Virgo, all heart and determination, but not a striker - although Virgo has the knack of scoring goals.
I dont know why, but I think Loft is the closest thing we have to a back up striker to Murray and Forster, which clearly shows we need to get in a 10/15 goal man. But whether we can find one that is happy to bench warm for a large chunk of the season, is another question altogether.
I cant think of anyone that springs to mind, Kuffour could have been worth a punt, but instead he will be playing against us on Friday. Noel-Williams wouldnt have been too bad a signing? but he went to Azerbijan or somewhere stupid
- Thread starter
- #23
Probably correct .... but on the other hand we have no back-up striker when Murray/Forster are not available and as obvious from Saturday's display still a lack of goal scoring talent against a half-decent team.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,269
Does anyone doubt that Revell was always likely to score goals? Southend aren't a bad side, he's not a bad player and the £150K fee reflects that.
This thread is second-guessing and judging after the event. The money helped us to wheel and deal, things have moved on and Micky is now assembling a decent squad. The problem when, like all good managers, you build from the back is that strikers are the last consideration. I feel sure the matter will be resolved in time.
This thread is second-guessing and judging after the event. The money helped us to wheel and deal, things have moved on and Micky is now assembling a decent squad. The problem when, like all good managers, you build from the back is that strikers are the last consideration. I feel sure the matter will be resolved in time.
The Large One
Who's Next?
I hereby wish to associate myself with those sage comments.
Well you appear to of gone on the logic that they scored so if we had had them then they would have scored for us which is stupid anyway, not to mention the fact that Elders was against a poor League 2 side. You also said "Getting rid of Revell in particular was really stupid" although its most probably the case that a lot of that 150k went towards the 300k signing of Murray. I'm sure you would prefer to have Murray over Revell?
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,269
I think it's been so long since we've had a bit of money that some fans are forgetting the general nuances of transfer dealing, i.e. the better the player the higher the fee.
Even Man Utd and Arsenal have to sell good players in order to be able to buy good players.
Even Man Utd and Arsenal have to sell good players in order to be able to buy good players.
- Jan 7, 2006
- 15,304
I knew about Gatting and Gargan, but where has Louis gone ?
- Jan 7, 2006
- 15,304
No they didn't
Revell did - only because it was Southend and because of their manager.
Who knows about Elder, he wasn't getting much first team football.
saltash seagull
New member
yes they did..elder wasn't getting the chances and revell because it was southend
- Jan 7, 2006
- 15,304
Nathan Elder did not want to leave the club, he was happy here and got on with everyone, it was the fact that HE WAS TOLD we didn't require him no more.
Mendoza
NSC's Most Stalked
Burgess Hill i think
- Jan 7, 2006
- 15,304
Do you know if Royce, Wills or Pearson have gone anywhere
andybaha
Active member
It's crazy to keep going over what we should or shoudn't have done six months ago. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Bas Savage.
All those players are history. Adams has had the whole summer to sign players but we have two exceptional strikers in Murray and Forster and anyone we do sign will be signing to sit on the bench for the vast majority of the season. Not an easy sell is it.
All those players are history. Adams has had the whole summer to sign players but we have two exceptional strikers in Murray and Forster and anyone we do sign will be signing to sit on the bench for the vast majority of the season. Not an easy sell is it.
bright1064
New member
We made very good money on Revell especially, so that was the obvious reason for selling him. Elder was never given a chance here, but from what I've heard he has been playing really well at Brentford.
Now we seriously have to look at backup upfront, even if it's just a decent loan signing. Either that or actually use one of our BETTER players upfront like Jakey instead of OGH.
Now we seriously have to look at backup upfront, even if it's just a decent loan signing. Either that or actually use one of our BETTER players upfront like Jakey instead of OGH.
steward 433
Back and better
Jake would have been far too lightweight Saturday.
OGH is the best person in the squad for the task Micky wanted doing!!
The player we really missed was McCleod whipping the crosses in as Coxy seemed to have an off day
bright1064
New member
I agree we missed McLeod, we also missed Murray's height and ability to hold the ball up.
OGH didn't look too sharp on Saturday, I think Robinson would have been an improvement on what I saw. I'm OGH's biggest fan, don't get me wrong! But he didn't look right in that attacking role. I just don't think that is the position for him anymore.
steward 433
Back and better
NO CHANCE Jake would have been kicked off the pitch within 15mins. Maybe playing Richards LB and Jake LM would have been better overlapping and maybe getting more crosses in
bright1064
New member
That was also an option available. Playing Jake on the right and switching Coxy to the left would have been more effective.
I still don't understand why OGH would have been better than Jake upfront? OGH was at least a yard off the pace for the entire time he was on the pitch. Jake would have been a yard ahead of it!