**** me he's had a short spell of playing below his high standards after coming back from injury and some of you are acting like he's ****. He is a great player, we have nobody else with his attacking ability at the club and we wouldn't be able to replace him without spending a lot of money. You are overreacting massively to an interview in which he was frustrated about in effect being the current 4th choice attacker at the club. He is good mates with the lads and goes out with them/has banter etc. If you really think he isn't a good player your knowledge of football is very limited.
Hang on a minute, the player is returning from injury, we already have Brady who came back too quick and it has cost us the loss of his skills. Sone is not showing a return of form that justifies him saying that if he cannot start matches he may have to look elsewhere. Ambition is one thing but implying that you are ready to start games when the manager thinks different is another. One leads to getting the starts you want the other leads to starting every game.....playing for Bradford on loan.
I'm not saying he should be starting ahead of Long and Jela or anything based on current form, I'm saying that people are judging his ability on what he can do post-injury which is just ridiculous. All players should want to start games and whilst I disagree with him talking about other clubs I understand what he's saying. If you are off the pace through injury how are you going to get back into the game when you are thrown on at 60 minutes and expected to change things when the match already has a set direction. He should have been started in the semi and Bruce acknowledged that.
Bloody hell, Wilson. People are saying the same as you; he's a decent larker who is playing well below what we should expect, so, at the moment, he's not a decent larker. I think he finds the physicality, of playing with the ball at his feet, difficult to cope with in the PL. I think he needs to adapt, just a tad, to play more off his team-mates, as that would make him less predictable and give him more space. If, as you say, we have nobody else with his attacking ability, what do you think he should do to get himself out of the doldrums? He may regret his words, but they were his, just as his current form is.
I don't think that's right. It's the formation Bruce got wrong. I would rather have Boyd playing than Aluko.
Yes the formation was wrong but the conundrum Bruce had was how to fit Boyd -- who had just virtually won us a game single-handedly -- in the same team as Hudd, Livermore, Meyler and Elmo. I don't think the question of starting Aluko would have troubled him unduly because -- with the exception of Sunday -- Aluko's looked fairly non-descript post-injury. I think in hindsight it was wrong to start Boyd because it messed up the formation, but you can see why he tried it given the way Boyd had played in his previous game. Fryatt was more deserving of a start than Aluko, and arguably was more influential when he came on. Sagbo was more deserving of a start than Aluko, and justified it with his goal. The big plus point from Sunday was that even without Long and Jela, we have strong enough subs to change games.
The timing of the article is interesting, just made it through to the cup final, great time to be a city fan, just crossed my mind is this a poor attempt by the Sunderland loving Hdm sport reporter to try and upset the dressing room.
That's bollocks. Buckingham has never been anything but professional and anyone who has seen him at City games couldnt doubt that he now has a genuine affection for the club. And are you really suggesting he invented the direct quotes attributed to Aluko? He'd be sacked for that!
Aluko has skills but he has to show more determination to get ahead of the strikers and midfielders in front of him.
The simple fact is we've got a sizeable squad and people have to earn their place. He was entirely right not to drop Boyd after his performance against Swansea and now Aluko has to take the same approach. if anyone could m oan about not starting on Sunday it was Fryatt ratehr than Aluko.
I'm sure Brucie said in his after match interview he was wary of starting Aluko because of his injury, he didn't think he could last a full game and didn't want to risk it.
Just as a matter of interest ,at no point have I said that he made the article up, 100% believe it's true, my only problem is the timing of it, less than 48hour's after one of our greatest day's in the club's history(but that's maybe a load off bollocks as you say but we are all have our own view's on it)
