If he’s not going to play couldn’t he just sit on the bench with subs?!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] will Baldock ever play for the club again ?
- Thread starter skintmanblues
- Start date
If he’s not going to play couldn’t he just sit on the bench with subs?!
- Jun 27, 2012
- 14,686
He could use SB if he wanted to but Hughton says has some difficult choices and currently plays 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 then not that unusual that Knockaert, Izquierdo, Murray, Gross have been ahead of him as choices from the bench.
Birdie Boy
Well-known member
- Jun 17, 2011
- 4,456
Lol. That is my opinion not fact. My opinion does have some weight to it though considering the results...
The_Viper
Well-known member
All of that is totally fair, we play a formation and a style right now that makes Baldock unplayable. So why is he sitting on the bench wasting a spot when his chances at getting on are at exactly 0? Why do YOU think Sam hasn't had a single minute of football in such a variety of games since being included on the bench? It's all well and good just telling everyone else they are wrong, stick your neck out and tell us why you think he's never getting an opportunity.
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Ignore the obvious if you decide to, that is up to you, however it appears that Chris Hughton and my opinions appear similar on this score, hence no game time as of yet. It would really need a change of mindset from CH to get Baldock a proper run in this current team.
Perhaps CH simply likes a target man in his 11, in a 4-5-1, as he knows othewise we'd be outclassed in PL games with the current deficiencies in our squad. Meaning that either Hemed or Murray always get picked at that striker.
Not a criticism of Baldock, but he cannot do that.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Baldrick is clearly on the naughty step
SIMMO SAYS
Well-known member
Manager does not fancy him.
Heard this from someone that had talked to Baldock at a pre Christmas party.
D
Deleted member 2719
Guest
He probably doesn't defend enough for Chris.
ewe2
Well-known member
We have been very lucky with injuries...!
Birdie Boy
Well-known member
- Jun 17, 2011
- 4,456
Why would you not leave Hemed or Murray on and bring Baldock on for gross/propper/kayal when you are chasing a game?
Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
he may think he is a liability in that he cant even go to the toilet now without getting an injury
No surprise there, Hughton's a happily married man.
Not too sure remarkably prescient are the right words.
The club were never going to sign 2 strikers, while most of us knew a long way off the club weren't even going to be able to sign one.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
Swap deal for Bobby Reid at Bristol City is my guesswork conspiracy speculation.
Seagulls1984
Well-known member
We would have not been promoted without baldock !! Pivotal to how we played last season .
At least three out of the four you named will not be on the bench, often all four of them, so you haven't really addressed the question. Nobody's asking about why CH starts with those players ahead of Baldock.
DavePage
Well-known member
I do hope so, I miss his goal celebrations
OzMike
Well-known member
I am not stating that I believe it, but if true it would be rediculous to let personal feelings get in the way of a management decision.
Quite a few times I have been in the position where I have had to get the right man to do a job even if I didn't personally think much of him.
It is ability that counts and getting results.
Quite a few times I have been in the position where I have had to get the right man to do a job even if I didn't personally think much of him.
It is ability that counts and getting results.