"but there will be reasons why these players are not deemed good enough" You keep saying this, Superman, as if we should all follow mindlessly because they (the management team) must know more than us and we underlings should trust in their higher powers of judgement. But suppose the reason is that CH is incapable of managing a SQUAD because it is beyond his limited powers of creativity? Suppose the reason these players get frozen out (no one has even mentioned Butterworth) is because they don't have some perceived essential quality (height? built like a brick ****house?) and therefore CH hasn't got the foggiest what to do with them? Then others get to play week after week no matter how disappointing they are, until their form goes down and down and we get what happened last Saturday?
I agree with many of the posters on here that Fox and Surman (and Butterworth?) are not saviours in waiting. I just hate to see things getting repeated again and again until they become 'fact'. A good example of this is the idea that Bradley Johnson 'went down' in the QPR game when headbutted by Barton. He didn't, and the videos prove that. But people kept saying it and saying it until it has now become an accepted truth. I think 'Fox had his chances and he didn't take them' is in a similar category. It is an insult to a player who did very well for us, and a damn sight more than a lot of the new boys who we are supposed to cream ourselves over because, apparently, THEY somehow ARE premiership class (even though they've done nothing to prove it yet).
That makes sense for the players pre-Hughton, but can't be the case for Becchio or Butterworth because Hughton signed them. I honestly think this is being over thought and it's simple: 1) Becchio is an average player who thrives on direct play against weaker defenders in the Championship. He simply couldn't make the step up and didn't bring as much onto the pitch as Holt so there was no justification in swapping him in. Sometimes signings just aren't what you expected. 2) Butterworth gave very indication that he could be just the sort of class, two footed, creative ACM who was good at retaining possession high up the pitch that we have been looking for. Unfortunately, he didn't settle, causing his attitude to really suffer and consequently his performances. So also, sometimes you just have to say a signing doesn't work out, even though they're a good player. I've always felt that you can sign a good player and you can make a good signing and these are completely different things: Fer is both; Butterworth is the former but not the latter; I'd argue Bunn, for his work with Ruddy injured was the latter but not the former; and Becchio is neither.
i think rob has answered this perfectly well so i won't go through it again. and he's absolutely right to say that some people are trying to over-think these things. the manager knows better than us - he gets to see what these players are like all week. lambert rated bradley johnson as a more key player than the other two and so does hughton. i personally prefer surman and fox to johnson, but maybe that's why i'm not managing in the premier league and they both are
The issue with fox is he is a very good passer but little else. In that position we need a player who can win the ball, like Johnson or Tettey, more. However as we progress and spend more money on players we should be looking for more than one attribute, Fer is a great example of this. The player I would have liked us to sign in the summer was Huddlestone, who is an excellent passer but can also win the ball back and join attacks effectively.
yes, huddlestone would have been perfect. unfortunately his injury record is awful so it would have been a gamble and i remember it put a few people off when he was mentioned during the window, but the point you make is exactly right. to play fox in our current system, who would you leave out? you can't leave fer out - he's too good. i know he's not fit but tettey plays that holding role pretty well and his passing stats this season are above 90% (higher than fox ever managed by the way) and in cany case, fox couldn't play that role effectively on his own - he's not mobile enough, nor is he good enough at breaking up the play which means you'd then have to drop fer back alongside him, which means fer then wouldn't be able to get forward, while howson adds more going forward than fox ever could. had it been me i wouldn't have let surman go on loan (i said that at the time) because i think he offers something a little different but fox needed some game time somewhere and it was always going to be a struggle for him to get in our team. you can say 'we don't have the option' with him being away but honestly, how would anyone accommodate him?
