Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: mrfrostsdad on February 24, 2020, 12:37:31 pm
-
If Sadlier has no intentions of signing a new contract (and I have no idea if he has or not) would you play him until the end of the season?
Personally, if he has made it clear he's isn't going to sign, he wouldn't be anywhere near the match squad for me. Even as sub.
As has been mentioned on another thread, is this why DM isn't playing him? I don't know, but maybe it's a possibility. Can't think of any other reason.
This may be controversial, but hey ho. Let's see if anyone wants him when he's not played for 4 or 5 months
-
I'd be more than happy to play him for as long as he is a contracted DRFC player. He is still paid to do a job, and it's not like he's going to under-perform given that he'll be trying to secure something elsewhere.
The idea of not playing people who don't commit their future just doesn't hold any water for me...otherwise how do you justify loan players?
Also: "Let's see if anyone wants him when he's not played for 4 or 5 months"....surely that approach helps absolutely nobody. If nobody wanted him and he was forced to sign a new contract with us, he's hardly going to be motivated to perform well afterwards. If anything it's just a spiteful attitude to take without foundation. We should be getting the most out of our assets, whilst they are our assets.
-
MFD, if somebody wants him they will have already made contact with the player and his agent, I would not bet against Hull City myself.
-
I'd be more than happy to play him for as long as he is a contracted DRFC player. He is still paid to do a job, and it's not like he's going to under-perform given that he'll be trying to secure something elsewhere.
The idea of not playing people who don't commit their future just doesn't hold any water for me...otherwise how do you justify loan players?
Also: "Let's see if anyone wants him when he's not played for 4 or 5 months"....surely that approach helps absolutely nobody. If nobody wanted him and he was forced to sign a new contract with us, he's hardly going to be motivated to perform well afterwards. If anything it's just a spiteful attitude to take without foundation. We should be getting the most out of our assets, whilst they are our assets.
MFD, if somebody wants him they will have already made contact with the player and his agent, I would not bet against Hull City myself.
I would bet Hull as well if the snake hasn't been sacked before then.
Superspy, maybe there's just a chance he's not bothered about playing/won't give it 100% so he doesn't get injured and miss out on a big fat pay rise
-
Well in the matches that Sads has played since the contract issue became known about he has been one of our best players so the argument about him not being bothered about performing is a non starter.
I bet he is actually seriously peed off about being left out.
-
If you look at things like that. Maybe you should also think about all the loan players that won’t be with us next year unless we go up
Let’s be honest about it promotion now seems highly unlikely so let’s just play contracted players
I’m now advocating this I’m just throwing it in the mix
Sadlier is quality at this level and will be playing for a move unless one is already sorted
In which case he just won’t want to get injured. From what I read every week he doesn’t seem to under perform when he does play
-
I'd be more than happy to play him for as long as he is a contracted DRFC player. He is still paid to do a job, and it's not like he's going to under-perform given that he'll be trying to secure something elsewhere.
The idea of not playing people who don't commit their future just doesn't hold any water for me...otherwise how do you justify loan players?
Also: "Let's see if anyone wants him when he's not played for 4 or 5 months"....surely that approach helps absolutely nobody. If nobody wanted him and he was forced to sign a new contract with us, he's hardly going to be motivated to perform well afterwards. If anything it's just a spiteful attitude to take without foundation. We should be getting the most out of our assets, whilst they are our assets.
MFD, if somebody wants him they will have already made contact with the player and his agent, I would not bet against Hull City myself.
I would bet Hull as well if the snake hasn't been sacked before then.
Superspy, maybe there's just a chance he's not bothered about playing/won't give it 100% so he doesn't get injured and miss out on a big fat pay rise
Bet you don't win very much money with your bets lol!
-
I’d play him in every match and then he can show everybody how good he is and see if he can score 4/5 goals to help our cause.
-
The last 2 matches Sads played in, he was the best player on the pitch. DM then leaves him out, and we lose the next 2.
Utterly and totally unbelievable.
-
Let’s not get carried away he’s scored 2 goals against Southend in January. But as leading goal scorer he needs to play as others have not stepped up.
-
Let’s not get carried away he’s scored 2 goals against Southend in January. But as leading goal scorer he needs to play as others have not stepped up.
Don't think anyone is getting carried away here atall Steve but just sighting facts. January 28th, If he's not scoring then he has assisted or has been very much involved in all our attacking plays.
-
If Sadlier is our star player It says more about the quality of the team than the level of his quality, I'm afraid. We've lost better players in the past that were never considered as our star player.
-
BB, I don’t think that people are saying he is the star player, just that he is a very good one and leaving him out of the team is a strange move especially when we needed to win the last two just to keep pace with the top six.
-
If Sadlier is our star player It says more about the quality of the team than the level of his quality, I'm afraid. We've lost better players in the past that were never considered as our star player.
I think Hound's hit the nail on the head, BB. It's just about picking the best 11. At the moment, DM's hampered with the unavailability of Fej and James.
However, when those 2 are back, we all know who the best 11 are, and that certainly includes Sadlier.
-
Well, he wasn't 'left out' of the last game as such, he was brought on as a sub for 20 minutes. To be honest, I thought we were worse after both him and Taylor came on.
In my opinion, Sadlier, like Copps, has a tendency to be lightweight in certain games that are dictated by pitch/weather conditions.
-
and , unfortunately ,Taylor didn't seem to contribute anything at all
-
Well, he wasn't 'left out' of the last game as such, he was brought on as a sub for 20 minutes. To be honest, I thought we were worse after both him and Taylor came on.
In my opinion, Sadlier, like Copps, has a tendency to be lightweight in certain games that are dictated by pitch/weather conditions.
He didn't start in either of our last 2 games so he was "left out" of the starting line up which is exactly the same thing but you know that anyway. As for being worse when he and Taylor came on, I didn't make the game but am led to believe from the feedback I have had from a good few others that did attend the game, that that's the complete opposite to what everyone else thought!
As for not performing on poor pitches or in bad weather, all I can say is he was by far our best player up at Tranmere on the night on the worst pitch we have played on this season and ran his body into the ground, often seen deep in our own half defending and recovering the ball and starting attacks - I can only assume you didn't go to that game then BB?
-
We were better in terms of creating chances and getting through the attacking third once Sadlier and Taylor came on. That was down as much to a change in shape as it was personnel though, the switch to 4-2-3-1 gave us better width leading to more incisive wing play and space opening up in the middle for Ramsey and Whiteman to exploit.
I should say this is against Shrewsbury I'm referring to.
-
Well, he wasn't 'left out' of the last game as such, he was brought on as a sub for 20 minutes. To be honest, I thought we were worse after both him and Taylor came on.
In my opinion, Sadlier, like Copps, has a tendency to be lightweight in certain games that are dictated by pitch/weather conditions.
He didn't start in either of our last 2 games so he was "left out" of the starting line up which is exactly the same thing but you know that anyway. As for being worse when he and Taylor came on, I didn't make the game but am led to believe from the feedback I have had from a good few others that did attend the game, that that's the complete opposite to what everyone else thought!
As for not performing on poor pitches or in bad weather, all I can say is he was by far our best player up at Tranmere on the night on the worst pitch we have played on this season and ran his body into the ground, often seen deep in our own half defending and recovering the ball and starting attacks - I can only assume you didn't go to that game then BB?
He wasn't 'left out' of either of the games, he featured in both! I did see the Tranmere game and Sadlier played well considering the conditions. He wasn't the best player though, Ramsey clearly was. I did say Sadlier has a tendency to be lightweight in certain conditions, that doesn't mean there is no exception to the rule. He wasn't bad at Tranmere, but the hosts were pretty garbage.
-
Maybe he is carrying a injury. He maybe able to play 15-20 mins if needed. Maybe people are looking for somthing that is not there.
-
Well, he wasn't 'left out' of the last game as such, he was brought on as a sub for 20 minutes. To be honest, I thought we were worse after both him and Taylor came on.
In my opinion, Sadlier, like Copps, has a tendency to be lightweight in certain games that are dictated by pitch/weather conditions.
He didn't start in either of our last 2 games so he was "left out" of the starting line up which is exactly the same thing but you know that anyway. As for being worse when he and Taylor came on, I didn't make the game but am led to believe from the feedback I have had from a good few others that did attend the game, that that's the complete opposite to what everyone else thought!
As for not performing on poor pitches or in bad weather, all I can say is he was by far our best player up at Tranmere on the night on the worst pitch we have played on this season and ran his body into the ground, often seen deep in our own half defending and recovering the ball and starting attacks - I can only assume you didn't go to that game then BB?
He wasn't 'left out' of either of the games, he featured in both! I did see the Tranmere game and Sadlier played well considering the conditions. He wasn't the best player though, Ramsey clearly was. I did say Sadlier has a tendency to be lightweight in certain conditions, that doesn't mean there is no exception to the rule. He wasn't bad at Tranmere, but the hosts were pretty garbage.
BB your splitting hairs to try and make a point here but failing miserably! Myself and everyone else would refer to a player not starting as having been "left out'" everyone I know refers to it that way, apart from you it would appear.
Ramsay scored two goals against Tranmere and played well but Sadlier was our stand out best player.
So now that you have had to acknowledge he played well on a poor pitch, you now want to extend the criteria beyond the weather and playing surface (as per your previous post) to the opposition now as well. I always take the approach that the opposition are there to be beaten irrespective of what we believe their quality to be.
Okay I get it, your not a Sadlier fan, thats fine, you are entitled to think what you want but you need to get your facts straight.
-
All I have to say is the Bolton left back is in therapy after the 1st half against Sadlierk
-
You stick with everyone else then, owd lad!
There's a difference between being left out of the starting line-up, and being left out. Copps used to start games and was invariably taken off at some point under Ferguson and McCann. It was argued on here that it would provide more benefit the other way round, with him not starting but being brought on later. Either way, Copps would not have been left out!
Football is now a game that involves tactical changes. It is a squad game and players brought on as subs are not 'left out!'
-
All I have to say is the Bolton left back is in therapy after the 1st half against Sadlierk
Sadlier played very well against the Bolton full-back. What's that got to do with anything?
-
Probably as much as your argument about one of our better regular starting player being on the subs bench but not "left out"of the starting XI
I think the term for a player being left out completely is dropped
Have you an empty room you could go to and start an argument in there?
-
What are you on about? Sadlier WAS left out of the starting X1! He wasn't left out of the game though, he appeared!
-
Probably as much as your argument about one of our better regular starting player being on the subs bench but not "left out"of the starting XI
I think the term for a player being left out completely is dropped
Have you an empty room you could go to and start an argument in there?
Exactly my point, spot on RR.
-
if he is fit play him all day long as on Saturday we lacked width and creativity until him and Taylor came on
-
I can't see him being left out on Saturday, he'll be on the bench at the very least.
-
BB, in the history of football, a player not starting the game has been referred to as being left out.
-
Historically he was, but modern-day football is a squad game where subs are used to make tactical changes.
-
Historically he was, but modern-day football is a squad game where subs are used to make tactical changes.
But subs have been used for many years and the “left out” phrase has always been used to describe a player not in the starting line up.
-
They are referred to as on the bench, and have been for years! They might be left out of the starting line up, but they are there to play a part in the game if required.
-
They are referred to as on the bench, and have been for years! They might be left out of the starting line up, but they are there to play a part in the game if required.
Give it up BB, you are in the minority of one on this and also been found wanting on your observations of sadlier as well, move on man.
-
They are referred to as on the bench, and have been for years! They might be left out of the starting line up, but they are there to play a part in the game if required.
Yes, obviously they are there to be brought on if required.....but you have confirmed what everyone else has been saying.....that they have been left out of the starting line up.
-
Hound. I've never disputed that! Sometimes players are more effective coming off the bench. In fact, they are a special bunch who get called 'super-subs'. Jermain Defoe, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Kevin Phillips, David Fairclough to name just a few.
Maybe Darren Moore thought Sadlier would benefit the team by coming on and performing as a super-sub? It's easy in hindsight to say on here that he was wrong!
-
Hound. I've never disputed that! Sometimes players are more effective coming off the bench. In fact, they are a special bunch who get called 'super-subs'. Jermain Defoe, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Kevin Phillips, David Fairclough to name just a few.
Maybe Darren Moore thought Sadlier would benefit the team by coming on and performing as a super-sub? It's easy in hindsight to say on here that he was wrong!
That does not even make sense BB. Why would any manager start benching a player who's your current top goals scorer and assist maker when in DM's words "has been excellent this last three games" with MotM performances in at least two of those games just to utilise him as a "super sub" - thats just ridiculous.
-
BB, and I have never disputed that players can’t be used from the bench, no one has.
The whole debate has hinged around the word “left out”, meaning left out of the starting line up.
-
You'll have to ask Darren Moore that. Other than that we can only speculate. I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt. I only know what I know, and that is Sadlier has been left out of the starting line-up.
-
Agreed. Yay.
-
Hound, I never said he hadn't been left out of the starting line-up, he had! I merely, and correctly said he wasn't left out as such because he featured in the game.
-
What are you on about? Sadlier WAS left out of the starting X1! He wasn't left out of the game though, he appeared!
Wriggling a bit there BB, looks like you are on your own on this one
-
Ravenrover. Show me ANYWHERE where I've changed my stance on this topic. Let's see who's the wriggler, eh?
-
Ravenrover. Show me ANYWHERE where I've changed my stance on this topic. Let's see who's the wriggler, eh?
Not so much of wriggling but moving the goal posts I would say lol BB
-
Where have I moved the goalposts?
-
So, if a player is on the bench he isn't left out? Then he doesn't get put on as a sub, is he still not left out or is he left out after the fact?
-
So, if a player is on the bench he isn't left out? Then he doesn't get put on as a sub, is he still not left out or is he left out after the fact?
oh don't start him off again, please!!!!!
You moved the "goal posts" when you described Sadlier as being a fair weather player that didn't like playing on poor surfaces, till I pointed out he had performed very well at Tranmere only very recently on what is probably the worst pitch anyone has seen for a good few years, to which you then extended the criteria to include that Tranmere were a poor side which was not what you had originally stated - that in my book is one example on here of you moving the goal posts.
You also stated that sadlier had reduced our effectiveness when he came on on Saturday which is in complete contracts with everyones else's views, but by then you were in full swing anti Sadlier mode so if the mud sticks sling it lol.
-
So, if a player is on the bench he isn't left out? Then he doesn't get put on as a sub, is he still not left out or is he left out after the fact?
He's left out of the starting line up! If he features in the game he's not left out of the game! If he doesn't feature in the game he is left on the bench.
-
So, if a player is on the bench he isn't left out? Then he doesn't get put on as a sub, is he still not left out or is he left out after the fact?
oh don't start him off again, please!!!!!
You moved the "goal posts" when you described Sadlier as being a fair weather player that didn't like playing on poor surfaces, till I pointed out he had performed very well at Tranmere only very recently on what is probably the worst pitch anyone has seen for a good few years anywhere to which you then extended the criteria to the fact that Tranmere were a poor side which was not what you had originally stated - that in my book is one example on here of you moving the goal posts.
You also stated that sadlier has reduced our effectiveness when he came on on Saturday which is in complete contracts with everyones else's views, but by then you were in full swing anti Sadlier mode so if the mud sticks sling it lol.
Sadlier is, like Copps, a flair player who (in my opinion) performs better in good playing conditions. That doesn't mean they never play well in bad conditions.
As for Sadlier being 'by far our best player' at Tranmere, that is obviously your opinion that isn't shared by everyone. He was only third choice MOM on this forum! I haven't changed the goalposts by declaring Tranmere were shite. I was merely pointing out that they were hardly a great example to judge performance against.
-
I’m with BB on this one :boxing:
-
Just wasted a good 5 minutes of my life reading this ridiculous thread. From the downright stupid opening post to the nonsensical arguing that a player that’s been left out hasn’t been left out.
He should be starting games. Simple as that. He’s proved that in the games that he’s played, and the results from the last two games that he was left out of compound the argument.
-
It's like a Mickey Flannaghan sketch.
I've been left out but not out out.😳
-
Funnily enough, the OP says that Moore hasn’t been playing Sadlier. :chair:
-
The fact that Sadlier has not been in the starting line-up might have suggested there was some problem other than football between him and Moore, had it not been for him featuring in those games. The fact that he has featured suggests to me that it is purely a football decision to not start him.
-
It won’t matter next season, as he won’t be here!
-
It does matter this season though Alan because we are still clinging on to the slim chance of getting a play off place.
With that in mind we should be starting games with Sadlier in the team.
-
Let’s just say what is factual.
He has been left out of the starting 11 but not left out of the match day squad (18 )
Why, is the question we are all asking. Very very strange and i can’t make any sense out of it as he is fit and raring to go as he showed in the last 15 mins on Saturday.
We looked much better with both Sadlier and Taylor on the pitch with more width and with the right pass/cross from the left wing on two occasions could very easily have won that game.
-
It's hardly just saying 'what is factual' when giving what is only an opinion that we looked much better when Sadlier and Taylor came on. I thought Tayor was running into a brick wall down the wing, and what is a fact is we conceded a goal 3 minutes after Sadlier came on. I'm not saying that was Sadlier's fault, but it hardly suggests we were better after he and Taylor came on. To suggest we were better is just a matter of opinion.
-
It's hardly just saying 'what is factual' when giving what is only an opinion that we looked much better when Sadlier and Taylor came on. I thought Tayor was running into a brick wall down the wing, and what is a fact is we conceded a goal 3 minutes after Sadlier came on. I'm not saying that was Sadlier's fault, but it hardly suggests we were better after he and Taylor came on. To suggest we were better is just a matter of opinion.
My opinion BB that’s all. What’s the problem. That’s what we all post isn’t it, opinions.
-
Absolutely no problem with your opinions, CR.
-
Taylor never really got going but Sadlier definitely improved us & looked a threat when he came on.
-
Absolutely no problem with your opinions, CR.
The factual bit was just the part about Sadlier being left out. The 2nd part of the post was my opinion and was not factual.
Hope that’s cleared that one up. ;) :) :) :)