What would be nice and meet those criteria (which I agree with) would be if we played to win games by more than one goal at a time. If we can get two goal cushions we can bring him on as a sub to get more experience taking chances as gaps open up in the opposition defence. It's of little benefit to him to be brought on simply as a battering ram to save something. We used to be able to do that but that seems to have been sacrificed in favour of 'game management'
Match Day Thread QPR vs Blackburn
- Thread starter daverangers
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Sinclair is a prime example of our poor recruitment, by that I mean, he should be out on loan, playing week in week out. Unfortunately, our lack of depth along with a lack of enthusiasm from some of our players has meant him being thrown in. It's quite easy to become a scapegoat to a certain extent and he should definitely not be.
He actually is a coaches dream. He's got the natural pace and power. The correct development could result in a very good player indeed, worth a few quid.
I thought you were one of those who wanted to see him given a run of games as a starter, Bob?
Last edited:
You seem to have changed your mind, that's all. You're now bemoaning the fact that he was 'thrown in' and saying that he should be out on loan.
Where have I changed my mind? Try reading the posts properly fella. If we had good enough strikers, doing the business, which would mean our recruitment was going well, then Armstrong would most likely be out on loan. Due to us not having the above mentioned then yes I would start him as he's not going to develop sitting on the sidelines. Hope that clears it up for you
That's up to Ainsworth and whether he thinks Armstrong can give more to the team than Martin or Lowe
Your posts sound a bit sniping stroller. We only had dykes when I made the Armstrong comment and one that I stick by. We have since got Martin and Lowe, neither really doing that much. Lowe isn't our player and Martin is past it and on a short term contract so if Armstrong isn't to go out on loan then he should play.
I'm not sniping, Bob. Just trying to understand if your opinion of Armstrong had changed after seeing what he has to offer, and I'm still not sure.
For what it's worth, I think he should be out on loan because he's just not good enough yet to be a starter in the Championship.
Thats football for ya, all about opinions. Having seen what the majority of players offer then half the team should be out on loan and that's what I meant about a 'scapegoat' in my earlier post.
He's a striker, so rightly we expect him to score goals, even if that means in the 10 or so minutes appearance from the bench for some. Just as we expect Senny to save shots and not drop them.
We are judging a 19 year old kid on a handful of games, mainly sub appearances. There are plenty in our team who should be judged more rigorously for their performances over longer periods.
Even if I had changed my mind (which I've not), that's what football has taught me. When I started out on my coaching career due to injury, a wise old coach tutor told me the best coaches and managers in football are the flexible thinkers, those willing to change their minds and opinions.
I’m gonna do us a massive favour and not have my £30 treble on QPR/Man City and Liverpool….the ****er is bound to come in now
Scum to lose - win win bet
Lost a few quid today on Rugby League and Women’s cricket so gonna knock it on the head for a bit
Stoopid ****s like you never learn.....the bookies always win
