The tackling doesn't bother me that much. He's never going to be a great tackler. It's the lack of tracking back I struggle with. Seems happy to let players run past him and let other players deal with it.Easily fixed if he wants to.
Have to say that is a pathetic statement, the guy is the chairman of the club, our club and he does what he feels is right for the club. How come you are saying this on the strength of ML sacking. Were you not happy when he employed ML,BR, RM. When he sanctioned the signings of the quality players we have here now. That man has done wonders as chairman at our club.
Never said he won't or doesn't tackle. Besides, there's a lot you can do without tackling. Push a player wide, block a shot or pass etc.
I.H.W.T. In Huw We Trust ......unless you ask him what the sunday board meeting was about! apparently it was to discuss the Digestive biscuit emergency!.....
Does that mean you were in fact talking rubbish when you claimed the team were unhappy with Laudrup? As lets get this right, JDG is saying we needed a change, and your using that to further your arguement. Yet lets look at the full quote. "Everyone is happy, we were happy under Laudrup but we needed a change. It was a shock for me but we have to move on." He said they were happy. So therefore, you must have been talking crap about them being unhappy.
If he was happy, why did he think there was a need for change? Either everything is okay or there is a need for change.
So maybe he doesn't think there was need for change, and was genuinely happy, and just saying it to please the current regime, after all they are the ones who decide whether he plays or not See how it can also be twisted to suit that arguement
Or maybe he was saying he was happy hoping Laudrup takes him to another club. Either way, he's just talking crap and would have been better advised to keep his trap shut. Then again maybe he's saying change was needed because they are playing better under Monk
they would not be banging on the chairman's door complaining about laudrup if the were happy ...It just goes to show that the manager was unapproachable that players felt they had to turn to the chairman for help....Thank god he has gone..
Oh my goodness, don't tell me he's staying??????..................................... Seems every thread I go to has this bloody debate on the rights and wrongs of Laudrups sacking?................ WHEN IS IT GOING TO END GIRLS!!............. please log in to view this image
Yes. Having spoken to the man personally, many times, 100%. And considering what was leaked in the press by people at the club in regards to ML, we'd had been better off if Peter Schimichael had took over. If worst comes to the worst happens, it was going to happen anyway. And in regards to JDG he either needs to step up his performance from now until the end of the season or I hope he leaves, but like I said he's looked better recently under new management so let's see what the new leader can do with the lad.
He does look good playing for monk i must admit, but saying that some have been too critical of him in the past when its not warranted. Fans on here like to jump on a players back as an excuse for us not winning. I have seen Dyer,monk,bony vorm tremms, tate, trundle williams,rangel and most of the others at some point get the swans treatment.. They are all guilty including the manager if we lose badly. nobodies perfect in any team or in any game. The officials can contribute as well to a bad game...Its not easy to become a professional footballer and the majority who get a chance at a club fail to make the grade as some on here can testify having gone through it, so those who do make it must have something about them or they would not play at such a high level....
Jenkins will give Monk his walking papers no later than 10 or so days after seasons end . Jenkins needs somebody to rebuild and attract new players and Monk , well, we will have a new manager
So then Dai are you telling me that JDG was lying? If so why have you then used his other comment about needing change in the same sentence as a way to prove your point All I am doing is showing you how your manipulating quotes to serve a purpose, yet completely disregard the same quote because it doesn't suit your purpose. So in your mind, everything in bold was a lie because it doesn't suit, where as everything not bold is perfectly honest because it does suit your purpose. "Everyone is happy, we were happy under Laudrup but we needed a change. It was a shock for me but we have to move on."
