No I don't. I don't think you've grasped what that meant even when I explained it. If Seri has just returned from AFCON he would not be ready to start and in a perfect world we wouldn't use him at all. We would only use him in the case of an emergency.
If we win the next two (which we should do) and be back in the play offs (probably)...would people have taken 6 points out the 9....or 9 out the 12 (including milwall) or 12 out of 15 (including sunderland). Just asking???
To me it's also about the manner of the performance. We need to see an improvement in our all-round play.
I thought 9 minimum for the four games starting with Millwall. Allowing for a loss somewhere. We've had the defeat.
Need to beat Rotherham because, as always, we'll get thumped at Huddersfield, probably with a similar performance to yesterday, and Wednesday, and QPR...
Fair enough, think that's a harsh grading. Since that Blackburn game, in the league, we've had the crap red against Sheff Weds (granted it was a poor performance before that) the Norwich game where Connolly was taken out but I thought we were good prior to that, and then this recent run where first we were undermanned against Sunderland and then getting up to speed with new personnel against Millwall and Swansea.
Probably so. Then, as much as I'm happy to have Carvahlo here (based on his reputation, not my indepth knowledge of him), was he really a priority signing? Tufan is very good and is ours. We then also already have Traore. As you say, Omur can play there (acknowledging that he's primarily likely a smart replacement for one of our loanes when they go back ... but too good to sit on the bench for the next 3 months or so). That's already 3 quality options and 'big' signings we've made for that position. And others can give extra cover if things got really really bad (Slater, Doc, ...). I'd have rather we had brought in 1 or 2 different types of player that add what we are so clearly missing, not more of the same, as good as they might be individually (which doesn't make an effective team). I think that's the point (or at least it's mine).
What suggested he was a priority signing? He was available and we were happy to let Twine go back. Omur seems the longer term replacement but we're giving him the next six months to bed in, similar with Pandur. If we'd brought in a range of different players then you're expecting us to drastically change our style or come up with new ways for bedding players in in a short space of time. What you're suggesting is far more likely in the Summer window when you have the benefit of a pre-season to adjust gamestyle and get players used to different approached, not January in the run-in.
Just wondering why Tufan didn't score with his header in the 6yd box. He looked as if he assumed he was offside, seemed to be looking around for a flag at the same time as he was heading the ball.
Correct, looked around as he thought he was offside then produced a tame header straight at the keeper. Too much time I suspect and I don't think Tufan is the most natural header of the ball.
The fact that we signed him in preference to addressing other issues perhaps !?! I'm not talking about "a range of different players" or "drastically changing our style" or "different approach". The obvious comparators, Man City aren't 'lightweight' right across the park, neither are Brighton. And the ability of our defense is over-rated imo. 1 or 2 signings with those shortcomings in mind could have made a big difference, compared to continuing to flood us with similar lightweight 'AM' players when we've already got quality there.
