brighton rock
New member
looks like Molango was a gamble that never payed off?
brighton rock said:looks like Molango was a gamble that never payed off?
Lord Bracknell said:He's young, he's talented, he's promising, and I heard he's not expensive.
As McGhee said, when he signed him, 'One for the future'.
I find this very heartening - McGhee is looking to the long-term, not just at instant success. Which says something about McGhee's commitment to the Club.
Not as expensive as the several periods of nineteen seconds that our defence has spent flatfooted this season.perseus said:A nineteen seconds wonder. At that rate he is expensive.
perseus said:A nineteen seconds wonder. At that rate he is expensive.
Black Country Seagull said:It suprises me that no one has considered the possibility that Molango and MM have had a bust up, since wigan where the the service was poor, we have hardly seen this player for the future.
As for Knight, is it possible the player has turned bad, or just a coincedence that once MM took charge last season and changed the style of play the goals dryed up. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying play to knights strength, but if you don't, then should he be in the squad?
As pointed out in a report from saturdays game, points make prizes and goals make points! Which leads me to my next point, surely an unexperienced striker is better than an unfit make shift Piercy. An if Piercy is fitter than Malango, then surely he can't be one for the future!
Superseagull said:Reading Mark Mcghees comments on the official site it sounds like we won't be seeing Molango this season in the first team. He just does not seem to think he is capable of playing first team football.
Ok fair enough to take him on as one for the long term future of the club, but is the club really in the financial position to do this?
fatboy said:Molango is a player for the future, hence signing him on a three year deal.
Judge him at the end of that.
Does a young player have to be year since the age of 11 for him to be considered an investment for the future?
Lammy said:Totally agree with that. There is no reason why Molango should not be fit. To play an unfit player ahead of a fully fit player is madness. He should have at LEAST been on the bench. To me McGhee has made a mistake. He either made a mistake by not at least giving him a chance against Crewe or he made a mistake in signing him in the first place. He has said on the official web site that he stands by his decision not to include him on saturday which leads me to conclude that he made a mistake in signing him.
Black Country Seagull said:I think our weak pre-season arrangements don't really help who ever is in charge, surely playing all the usual non league teams can not help when trying to judge a player.
Yes Molanga scored freely against them, but no disrespect to there back fours, but there is a massive golf of over three league tiers. My big concern, is that even when virgo is fit, we still don't look like scoring. Without Currie distribution we would be in extreme problems and even Curries superb vision is let down by no one from midfield bursting through oppositions defensive ranks. When was the last time you can remember a midfielder running on to a through ball like sidwell did so well?
Lammy said:When we have no money and the future of the club depends on a stadium rather than any player then YES!
fatboy said:Molango is a player for the future, hence signing him on a three year deal.
Judge him at the end of that.
Does a young player have to be year since the age of 11 for him to be considered an investment for the future?