| Rangel 10:11 - Oct 21 with 5912 views | Boston |
Twice during the second half I observed extended periods of waving, gesticulation toward the bench, other players. Then with ten mins to go himself and Lumley appeared to engage in an animated shouting match. Anyone any idea what was going on with the man? |  |
| |  |
| Rangel on 20:30 - Oct 21 with 1535 views | CamberleyR |
| Rangel on 20:22 - Oct 21 by BazzaInTheLoft |
My point was there is more context to a selection than 'who is the best player'.
You need to consider outside pressures, form, injuries, personality, or long term benefits of picking players.
I like Rangel, but he's not going to be part of a 2022 push for promotion, but a experienced Kakay or Furlong might. |
I admire your faith and optimism Baz but honestly I see Kakay as a Michael Harriman Mk II. He'll probably have a decent lower league career but L1/L2 that's about his level. |  |
| |
| Rangel on 22:19 - Oct 21 with 1394 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Rangel on 20:30 - Oct 21 by CamberleyR |
I admire your faith and optimism Baz but honestly I see Kakay as a Michael Harriman Mk II. He'll probably have a decent lower league career but L1/L2 that's about his level. |
That's fair enough, but if we want a David Bardsley to spring from our set up at, then we need to show precedent.
Rangel on his own doesn't unravel that on his own, but signing Cameron, Hemed, Wells, and loaning out Manning does.
Being skint and average and likely to finish between 7th and 21st for the next couple of seasons has a silver lining, it's a good time to blood young'uns without anything at stake.
It's a difficult point to make when we just won a game, granted. |  | | |
| Rangel on 23:28 - Oct 21 with 1320 views | traininvain |
| Rangel on 22:19 - Oct 21 by BazzaInTheLoft |
That's fair enough, but if we want a David Bardsley to spring from our set up at, then we need to show precedent.
Rangel on his own doesn't unravel that on his own, but signing Cameron, Hemed, Wells, and loaning out Manning does.
Being skint and average and likely to finish between 7th and 21st for the next couple of seasons has a silver lining, it's a good time to blood young'uns without anything at stake.
It's a difficult point to make when we just won a game, granted. |
Not sure how you persuade a manager to take that view. It’s a results business and careers are on the line.
Anyway, we have two youth players starting on a regular basis which seems to be largely ignored in the haste to criticise the manager for not playing other youngsters.
Manning was on the bench for Rotherham yesterday btw. |  | | |
| Rangel on 08:16 - Oct 22 with 1185 views | Northernr |
There will be a money element to this. Even allowing for his age and free agency he won't be on small wages. Nor will Cameron, Wells and Hemed have come cheap. Hoos will know where we have to be to stay within the rules and if five months of Rangel is all we can afford within that then five months of Rangel is all we shall have, unless they think they're going to sell somebody in January. Ideal world he stays to the end of the season, seems like a good egg and steady player. But Furlong should be first choice, not because he's a kid coming through and that's what we're meant to be doing but simply because he's very good in that position and would improve the team. |  | | |
| Rangel (n/t) on 10:16 - Oct 22 with 1088 views | stevec |
| Rangel on 08:16 - Oct 22 by Northernr |
There will be a money element to this. Even allowing for his age and free agency he won't be on small wages. Nor will Cameron, Wells and Hemed have come cheap. Hoos will know where we have to be to stay within the rules and if five months of Rangel is all we can afford within that then five months of Rangel is all we shall have, unless they think they're going to sell somebody in January. Ideal world he stays to the end of the season, seems like a good egg and steady player. But Furlong should be first choice, not because he's a kid coming through and that's what we're meant to be doing but simply because he's very good in that position and would improve the team. |
|  | | |
| Rangel on 12:57 - Oct 22 with 959 views | rsonist |
| Rangel on 08:16 - Oct 22 by Northernr |
There will be a money element to this. Even allowing for his age and free agency he won't be on small wages. Nor will Cameron, Wells and Hemed have come cheap. Hoos will know where we have to be to stay within the rules and if five months of Rangel is all we can afford within that then five months of Rangel is all we shall have, unless they think they're going to sell somebody in January. Ideal world he stays to the end of the season, seems like a good egg and steady player. But Furlong should be first choice, not because he's a kid coming through and that's what we're meant to be doing but simply because he's very good in that position and would improve the team. |
I love Furlong but to say he would automatically improve this side ahead of Rangel is laying it on a bit thick IMO.
As I suggested, they offer different things - better or worse only depending on game and opposition. Certainly you could imagine that adding recovery pace to a slow backline and extra support on the flank for a still sometimes narrow set-up would be immediately beneficial, but it's also easy to overlook how Rangel's positional nous and general leadership and communication mitigates the outright need for speed defensively. (His passing is also superior but we're not always alive to retaining possession and constructing build-up the Swansea way).
Basically you're making it sound like Walker vs Orr when it's more like Walker vs Hill if they were both on the right. If that makes sense.
As far as the financials and what "Hoos will know", after reading Antti's absurd cosplay fantasy on here the other week about "Les will have wanted what Penrice will have wanted but then McClaren forced him to do bad things I don't like but now Les position will be stronger after losing but etc" complete with sock puppets and squeaky voices I'll give the speculation a miss and just accept what happens when and if it happens. I trust the management at the moment. Sorry if that's too boring and not "wacky QPR 100 best Ollie quotes" enough. |  | | |
| Rangel on 13:12 - Oct 22 with 943 views | stevec |
| Rangel on 12:57 - Oct 22 by rsonist |
I love Furlong but to say he would automatically improve this side ahead of Rangel is laying it on a bit thick IMO.
As I suggested, they offer different things - better or worse only depending on game and opposition. Certainly you could imagine that adding recovery pace to a slow backline and extra support on the flank for a still sometimes narrow set-up would be immediately beneficial, but it's also easy to overlook how Rangel's positional nous and general leadership and communication mitigates the outright need for speed defensively. (His passing is also superior but we're not always alive to retaining possession and constructing build-up the Swansea way).
Basically you're making it sound like Walker vs Orr when it's more like Walker vs Hill if they were both on the right. If that makes sense.
As far as the financials and what "Hoos will know", after reading Antti's absurd cosplay fantasy on here the other week about "Les will have wanted what Penrice will have wanted but then McClaren forced him to do bad things I don't like but now Les position will be stronger after losing but etc" complete with sock puppets and squeaky voices I'll give the speculation a miss and just accept what happens when and if it happens. I trust the management at the moment. Sorry if that's too boring and not "wacky QPR 100 best Ollie quotes" enough. |
Agree with you.
Has it been a figment of my imagination that prior to Rangel coming in we'd spent the past 3 seasons having the right back position bombarded by all and sundry?
You would have thought 23 professional football clubs can't all have had it wrong. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Rangel on 13:39 - Oct 22 with 906 views | Northernr |
| Rangel on 12:57 - Oct 22 by rsonist |
I love Furlong but to say he would automatically improve this side ahead of Rangel is laying it on a bit thick IMO.
As I suggested, they offer different things - better or worse only depending on game and opposition. Certainly you could imagine that adding recovery pace to a slow backline and extra support on the flank for a still sometimes narrow set-up would be immediately beneficial, but it's also easy to overlook how Rangel's positional nous and general leadership and communication mitigates the outright need for speed defensively. (His passing is also superior but we're not always alive to retaining possession and constructing build-up the Swansea way).
Basically you're making it sound like Walker vs Orr when it's more like Walker vs Hill if they were both on the right. If that makes sense.
As far as the financials and what "Hoos will know", after reading Antti's absurd cosplay fantasy on here the other week about "Les will have wanted what Penrice will have wanted but then McClaren forced him to do bad things I don't like but now Les position will be stronger after losing but etc" complete with sock puppets and squeaky voices I'll give the speculation a miss and just accept what happens when and if it happens. I trust the management at the moment. Sorry if that's too boring and not "wacky QPR 100 best Ollie quotes" enough. |
"Basically you're making it sound like Walker vs Orr when it's more like Walker vs Hill if they were both on the right. If that makes sense."
It does make sense, but that's not what I'm saying at all.
I've no idea what the last par is on about to start with but I also agree that you trust the management of the club, that's what I said - if Hoos says we can't afford him any more than five months that's what we'll do and we'll find that out in time. Presumably if we could afford him for a year, rather than literally just for a few months as cover for Furlong, that's what we'd have given him in the first place. But we'll see.
No idea what the last line is on about either.
Is everything alright? | | | |
| Rangel on 14:46 - Oct 22 with 834 views | rsonist |
| Rangel on 13:39 - Oct 22 by Northernr |
"Basically you're making it sound like Walker vs Orr when it's more like Walker vs Hill if they were both on the right. If that makes sense."
It does make sense, but that's not what I'm saying at all.
I've no idea what the last par is on about to start with but I also agree that you trust the management of the club, that's what I said - if Hoos says we can't afford him any more than five months that's what we'll do and we'll find that out in time. Presumably if we could afford him for a year, rather than literally just for a few months as cover for Furlong, that's what we'd have given him in the first place. But we'll see.
No idea what the last line is on about either.
Is everything alright? |
So what are you saying then? Re the statement "Furlong would improve the team" I mean.
The narky point I suppose I'm trying and failing to get across in the last par is about how the recent discourse on here around McClaren and relatively straightforward (and mundane by other club's standards) club strategy has become a distorted hall of mirrors proxy battleground for narrative, tribal self-image, and our relationship with the club as supporters. Post-Ollie identity politics, and as you yourself have brought up several times on here and the podcast, boredom and why that boredom exists.
It would seem to some on here for instance that extending Rangel's deal and letting him keep a shirt he's in my view earning every week is a profound betrayal of club values, another hysterical "bombing out", as though it were unthinkable to have both in competition/transition offering the different things they do. (Finances permitting obviously - if we're so hard up we simply can't afford Rangel then I agree go with Furlong). Likewise the Manning situation is not really even about Manning I would go so far as to say - it's the sort of decision every normal club makes about its young players with well-balanced pros and cons, not some cardinal indicator of Who We Are. (Never mind that while Manning gets the games he didn't under Ollie we're finally seeing enough of Cousins to make a proper judgement about him either way - instead of an actual true bombing-out simply because of past injury). Or the bloke saying Saturday was ruined, ruined because Bright didn't come on and nothing means anything any more. It's a relatively fcking normally run (and normally contentious) club right now so what is all this bonkers extremist stick about really?
Like I say I'm a little surprised I'm having to expand on it because it seemed like you've been getting there yourself of late. And to be clear, it's perfectly valid to be bored - I don't have a problem with subjectivity just the lack of acknowledgement of it where it becomes bias conscious or otherwise. | | | |
| Rangel on 14:55 - Oct 22 with 824 views | rsonist |
I mean Smyth's another one - again I love the little bugger, regret not seeing him, fear we'll waste/lose him but if you want him playing, and Wszolek, and Bright, and giving Cousins a fair shake, all while deciding 4-2-3-1 suits the squad best you may want to consider how the squad came to be built by tombola during the rose-tinted days of yore before you coat off McClaren and the board trying to make workable sense of it while the season's going week-to-week. | | | |
| Rangel on 14:59 - Oct 22 with 819 views | Northernr |
| Rangel on 14:46 - Oct 22 by rsonist |
So what are you saying then? Re the statement "Furlong would improve the team" I mean.
The narky point I suppose I'm trying and failing to get across in the last par is about how the recent discourse on here around McClaren and relatively straightforward (and mundane by other club's standards) club strategy has become a distorted hall of mirrors proxy battleground for narrative, tribal self-image, and our relationship with the club as supporters. Post-Ollie identity politics, and as you yourself have brought up several times on here and the podcast, boredom and why that boredom exists.
It would seem to some on here for instance that extending Rangel's deal and letting him keep a shirt he's in my view earning every week is a profound betrayal of club values, another hysterical "bombing out", as though it were unthinkable to have both in competition/transition offering the different things they do. (Finances permitting obviously - if we're so hard up we simply can't afford Rangel then I agree go with Furlong). Likewise the Manning situation is not really even about Manning I would go so far as to say - it's the sort of decision every normal club makes about its young players with well-balanced pros and cons, not some cardinal indicator of Who We Are. (Never mind that while Manning gets the games he didn't under Ollie we're finally seeing enough of Cousins to make a proper judgement about him either way - instead of an actual true bombing-out simply because of past injury). Or the bloke saying Saturday was ruined, ruined because Bright didn't come on and nothing means anything any more. It's a relatively fcking normally run (and normally contentious) club right now so what is all this bonkers extremist stick about really?
Like I say I'm a little surprised I'm having to expand on it because it seemed like you've been getting there yourself of late. And to be clear, it's perfectly valid to be bored - I don't have a problem with subjectivity just the lack of acknowledgement of it where it becomes bias conscious or otherwise. |
Well on the first point I think Rangel is better positionally, and obviously has experience on his side. Furlong was still getting caught out positionally before his injury, particularly on his inside left shoulder where you often see opponents run through and receive a pass in space between him and the right centre back in a way that just isn't happening with Rangel, because he's been around the block and he knows where to stand.
But I think Furlong is quicker, in a defence that's chronically slow and therefore way too deep. I think he's better in the air, which is obviously good defensively but also a real weapon from attacking set pieces. It also offers us an out ball to the right side from Lumley or the centre backs that we were using a lot in pre-season whenever the passing at the back failed - whereas now we just turf it down the field which is less effective particularly when Wells is the one up front. I think he's more athletic and can get up and down the line more to provide an extra attacking threat. And I don't think he's bad defensively, in fact he's pretty good, and getting better, so overall I think he'd improve the team. But not to the extent that trophy laden Kyle Walker the £53m England international right back did when he replaced Bradley Orr, that's a bit bloody extreme.
Plus we own him, want to develop him and want to sell him eventually, which is the only way this club survives once the parachute payments are over so even if he was slightly worse than Rangel IMO you have to bite the bullet and do it anyway. Which I think is what that weird bit in the middle is about, although I'm not sure. It's a bit OTT whatever it's about. | | | |
| Rangel on 16:14 - Oct 22 with 742 views | rsonist |
| Rangel on 14:59 - Oct 22 by Northernr |
Well on the first point I think Rangel is better positionally, and obviously has experience on his side. Furlong was still getting caught out positionally before his injury, particularly on his inside left shoulder where you often see opponents run through and receive a pass in space between him and the right centre back in a way that just isn't happening with Rangel, because he's been around the block and he knows where to stand.
But I think Furlong is quicker, in a defence that's chronically slow and therefore way too deep. I think he's better in the air, which is obviously good defensively but also a real weapon from attacking set pieces. It also offers us an out ball to the right side from Lumley or the centre backs that we were using a lot in pre-season whenever the passing at the back failed - whereas now we just turf it down the field which is less effective particularly when Wells is the one up front. I think he's more athletic and can get up and down the line more to provide an extra attacking threat. And I don't think he's bad defensively, in fact he's pretty good, and getting better, so overall I think he'd improve the team. But not to the extent that trophy laden Kyle Walker the £53m England international right back did when he replaced Bradley Orr, that's a bit bloody extreme.
Plus we own him, want to develop him and want to sell him eventually, which is the only way this club survives once the parachute payments are over so even if he was slightly worse than Rangel IMO you have to bite the bullet and do it anyway. Which I think is what that weird bit in the middle is about, although I'm not sure. It's a bit OTT whatever it's about. |
Think it's been established we concur on the financials.
I still reckon you're underplaying Rangel's intangibles (oo-er) in terms of getting us solid in double quick time, but potentially yeah Furs could offer us more in various situations. It wouldn't surprise me if we suffered for it though (at least to begin with) which is why I found it curious you would initially state Furs "should be first choice and would improve the team" so flatly when it has its fairly tight pros and cons same as most decisions about the club recently. Dead weird I know. | | | |
| Rangel on 17:32 - Oct 22 with 701 views | terryb |
IMO we would be improved if Furlong is in the side once he is ready to return,
Would that rule out Rangel? Perhaps not. Both are better players than Bidwell & Rangel looks comfortable on the left. A bit like Ian Watson moving to left back to allow a young Dave Clements to play at right back.
Having said that, Jake Bidwell's covering on Saturday was far better than I've seen from him previously. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
