Speculation Tunchev Gone.

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just because Pearson has chosen to disregard these players doesn't mean they were awful signings. I suspect Sven would have used them all. Fernandes, in particular, looked a good player to me.

I'll grant that Johnson seems a waste in hindsight, but I had high hopes for him. Pantsil, for whatever reason, never got a sniff under Pearson. As for Mills....well....

How many games did Pantsil play under Sven? How many did Fernandes start?
 
How many games did Pantsil play under Sven? How many did Fernandes start?

Sven had a rotation policy, I suspect Pantsil would have played quite a bit this season and maybe Peltier wouldn't have looked so jaded as a result. And how we could have done with Fernandes at times this season.
 
Sven had a rotation policy, I suspect Pantsil would have played quite a bit this season and maybe Peltier wouldn't have looked so jaded as a result. And how we could have done with Fernandes at times this season.

That doesn't answer my questions.
 
That doesn't answer my questions.

To answer them:

Pantsil started 4 games of a possible 16 under Sven, so, his rotation policy being 1 in 4, would have meant he'd have started a further 8 games, hardly significant.

Gelson started 10 so I'll give you him, though he hardly looked impressive and made it clear he wanted to leave.
 
Paintsil was shite. I really doubt that having a different manager would have made a difference to his season, unless that manager was desperate for a quick pay off from being sacked for fielding shite players.
 
Has anyone seen any tweets about Laczkó leaving? I've not spotted any quotes, it's all gone quiet.
 
Has anyone seen any tweets about Laczkó leaving? I've not spotted any quotes, it's all gone quiet.

The whole situation is getting BORIng now......
 
Has anyone seen any tweets about Laczkó leaving? I've not spotted any quotes, it's all gone quiet.

I heard he has been out of the picture since an a-Zsolt on him by Pearson, he's training with the under 5s.
 
I heard he has been out of the picture since an a-Zsolt on him by Pearson, he's training with the under 5s.

I heard he upset Pearson by leaving the training ground unlocked all night after he let the latch-go.
 
Just because Pearson has chosen to disregard these players doesn't mean they were awful signings. I suspect Sven would have used them all. Fernandes, in particular, looked a good player to me.

I'll grant that Johnson seems a waste in hindsight, but I had high hopes for him. Pantsil, for whatever reason, never got a sniff under Pearson. As for Mills....well....

I think if Mills played every game of the season to the standard he has shown so far during his spell here, I would still think he was a poor signing. I had a lot of time for him when he first came here and I thought it would just take time for him to settle in, however it's become apparent that no amount of settling in will take away from the fact that he is a very mediocre player. He doesn't even do the basics well and he's too much of a liability with his rash challenges and red cards.

Pantsil didn't really get a sniff under Sven either, a very bizarre signing really. You would have expected a player like him to go straight into the side and play all season. When he did play he looked dreadful... not sure what happened there. People will say 'well he played every game in the ACON' - unfortunately the quality of football in that competition isn't particularly high. The tournament was won by Zambia. There might be a few talented African players, but by and large, that standard of football in that tournament is of very poor quality.

Johnson was a punt and it didn't pay off - he did have the potential to do well, but it didn't work out for whatever reason, even while Sven was here.

Fernandes was one I probably wouldn't have minded keeping - he didn't set the world alight while Sven was here, but he probably would have been a useful sqaud player. But after Sven left he didn't want to stay, so what could Pearson do? He was no great loss in my opinion - not the creative midfielder we were crying out for, not the tough-tackling ball winning midfielder we required either.
 
To answer them:

Pantsil started 4 games of a possible 16 under Sven, so, his rotation policy being 1 in 4, would have meant he'd have started a further 8 games, hardly significant.

Gelson started 10 so I'll give you him, though he hardly looked impressive and made it clear he wanted to leave.

Pantsil was out of form, Peltier was in it. As the season wore on Pantsil would have been brought back to the fold. Anyway, he's gone now so it's a pointless discussion.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to know how you can assume that.

Peltier was screaming out for a rest for the last few months and the two were signed to compete for the same position. Ergo, when one lost form or got tired he would be replaced with the other.

You don't think Pantsil would have played again under Sven?
 
Peltier was screaming out for a rest for the last few months and the two were signed to compete for the same position. Ergo, when one lost form or got tired he would be replaced with the other.

You don't think Pantsil would have played again under Sven?

The question is, if he was indeed capable and Peltier was so in need of a rest, why did he never even make a single squad under Pearson? This is a man who played Robbie Neilson at RB before and I'm pretty sure Pantsil is a better RB than him (**** it, I'm a better RB than Neilson) so it must have either been something to do with injuries or attitude.

Perhaps after Sven left, he did a Fernandes and decided he didn't want to play for the club any more?
 
Perhaps so. Point is we don't know if he was an "awful" player, just that he wasn't used in Pearsons squad.

I didn't say he was an awful player, I said he was an awful signing, which is a completely different thing really. The fact that he will have come in on fairly high wages and barely made any appearances for us before having his contract terminated makes him an awful signing in my opinion. Money down the drain.
 
He was pretty shit though....which to me suggests he was an awful player for us.
 
I saw him too, albeit not live. He looked to be struggling, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt based on his career.

Oh well, on we go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1128
2Manchester C  1123
3Chelsea1119
4Arsenal1119
5Nottm F1119
6Brighton1119
7Fulham1118
8Newcastle1118
9Aston Villa1118
10Tottenham 1116
11Brentford1116
12Bournemouth1115
13Manchester U1115
14West Ham1112
15Leicester1110
16Everton1110
17Ipswich118
18Palace117
19Wolves116
20Southampton114

Latest posts

Back
Top