since rodwell might be signing, i see him a direct replacement to colback, but with his trasnfer fee and increased risk of injury, take all into account would you rather we kept colback, than get rodwell, and be say 8-10 mil better off?
If we were in Europe then Colback due to the homegrown status however Rodwell as a player I believe when fit has the better ability
i thought so but seen something on the smb and someone probs a mag saying why we spending 10mil on rodwell when we had colback who in stats has been similar over the last 3 seasons in pl wondering if anyone shared the view as can see merits as spend 10mil on somewhere else but i feel rodwell just makes the whole team a hell of a lot better
Stats can be useful in certain contexts when judging players but they are in no way the be all and end all. As a player colback is no where near rodwell.
We offered Colback a new contract, and he turned it down to go to the mags - so it wasnt down to use choosing not to keep him If you want to know who I think is the better player ? Rodwell anyday The advantage Colback has is that he makes a bloody good makeshift LB, but Rodwell is the better midfielder
If he stays fit and can rekindle his form that got him the move to Man City then Rodwell is by far the better player. Has he not had injury issues though? Regardless, it is a good signing anyway.
basing my vote on the two of them over last season i think rodwell is a better player long term but we need to hit the ground running and colback is 7/10 everytime and that helps the better players play
Rodwell is better but if I had the choice of Colback and £10m or Rodwell then I'd choose Colback and the money
