| Injuries 20:14 - Oct 10 with 38248 views | monners1969 |
2 questions
How many fit players do we have?
Do I need to bring my boots and deep heat on Wednesday ? |  | | |  |
| Injuries on 21:40 - Oct 22 with 440 views | StreathamRanger |
In terms of what would represent success and progress, we're on 17 points from 11 games. I'd like to think we could repeat that four times leaving us on 68 points from 44 games. Last season 70 got 6th place. I think therefore it's reasonable for us to think this team could make top 8 this year.
That being said, it's the championship and the wheels can come off very quickly. Serious failure would be relegation but I can't see that happening.
Just hoping we are in with a shout of top 8 going into the last few games. I've enjoyed the football so far this season. The injuries are definitely frustrating but I'm not going to lose my head just yet. Our squad runs deeper this year. |  | | |
| Injuries on 21:57 - Oct 22 with 363 views | terryb |
In reply to nix, I will list which clubs I think we should finish above. This is not based on money spent on transfers, but on the quality of the players at the club. Of course, our injuries might change the picture completely.
I'm sure many will disagree with my choices, but I won't be changing my opinion at present whatever arguments are given for or against them, but I'm certain that they will change as the season progresses :-
Preston, Blackburn, Burnley, Bolton, Stoke, Cardiff, Bristol City, Watford, Derby, Lincoln, Charlton, Portsmouth.
I then think we are in competition with Norwich, Millwall, West Bromwich, Sheffield United & Wrexham for the last two play off places.
The teams to finish above us are Southampton, West Ham, Middlesbrough, Swansea, Birmingham & Wolves.
As I say, I base this on what I think is the quality within the Championship squads, irrespective of transfer fees & wages. At present, it would be easy to swap Stoke & Norwich over (many would), but just as easy to include Wolves in our competition for the play offs. I think all of this fits in exactly with the expectations Hunter expressed. [Post edited 22 Oct 22:37]
| | | |
| Injuries on 22:51 - Oct 22 with 146 views | TK1 |
| Injuries on 19:09 - Oct 22 by nix |
It’s very frustrating with Burrell. Particularly as he doesn’t have a bad injury record as far as I know and looked so good for the first half of last season.
I’m not sure about Dieng as he hasn’t done very well after leaving us so maybe he had one good season? Dickie I heard fell out with someone in the club and wanted to go and had a terrible drop in form. Willock obviously was the hamstring injuries which was terribly unlucky just as he was starting to look like he’d be worth a lot of money.
It does seem harder for us to get big money for players than some other clubs manage. Edwards does look promising but then the sell on clause plus what we paid for him mean we’d have to get quite a lot before it looks like a decent profit. We’re cursed obviously. |
We signed Dieng for nothing, got 120 games out of him and then sold him for £2m. This was a decent development club success, but for QPR it was a monumental outlier.
He also had the absolute textbook development route of U21 team, then successful loans through non-league and the pyramid before becoming our number one for three seasons (as long as that fellow 'one season' wonder Smithies was number one).
We sold him for £2m pure profit at his peak, which his subsequent career suggests was the perfect time to sell. Let's see if we get that kind of a markup on any recent free U21 signings soon. For everything the current leadership describes as a "development club" model, Seny Dieng is the textbook example. Selling a few free signings for seven figures every other season is how we get this thing going. For every Eze, you need some Diengs and Kelmans too. We currently have neither in play. | | | |
| Injuries on 00:04 - Oct 23 with 3 views | DejR_vu |
| Injuries on 21:14 - Oct 22 by Hunterhoop |
Hold on. You’ve asked me two direct questions in posts quoting me, which makes it looks like you are asking me, and both of which I’ve answered. Who we should finish ahead of? I’ve answered that. You didn’t agree with me, but I answered it. And then whether finishing top 8 would be over achieving, which again, I answered and provided even further context. I don’t think you’re being fair to make out I have twisted your questions. I have answered both clearly and, yes, I did extend and evolve the answer to cover points I deem really important regards the collective narrative. I’m sorry if you don’t and those points bore you, but I’m entitled to post them.
I’ve also, very deliberately, been posting on here a hell of a lot less these past couple of months because you, more than anyone, have made it very clear you don’t want to read my posts. I only jumped in today because I thought that original narrative you were pushing was not accurate. I think it’s a bit of a snide comment to make out I want to discuss a topic too often. I’ve hardly posted for weeks.
And you haven’t answered my question though, not that you need to. But don’t make out I’m avoiding your questions. It’s disingenuous. [Post edited 22 Oct 21:30]
|
 | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.