The HDF are at it again, how can you refer to the recall of Tom as a gamble?????? Brucey see's him every week in training, knows how Blackburn were going to set up, and decided Tom was one for this game. With Tom's undoubted pedigree how can you say recalling him is a gamble? A considered decision, yes, and one which proved to be correct on the day. I guess it's also a fair reflection of the undoubted strength in depth we have in midfield that Tom has rarely started this season, something I'm sure would happen if he were at any of the 23 other teams in The Championship. Gamble, most definitely not, considered decision, yes. Well done to Brucey and Tom!
I think Tom was a great signing. 5m quids worth? Absolutely. I think some people's problem with him stems from the fact he's not as good as we thought he was going to be. That doesn't make him a poor player.
He's good against teams that give him space like Blackburn, but I'm not sure most teams will do that.
Of course it was a gamble, if he'd played as he did earlier in the season, Bruce would have got slaughtered for starting him.
Shock Newspaper writes a headline. Truth blurred. Facts exaggerated... Next we will have a thread on players shagging. Oh...
That comment could apply to many of the team - McGregor, Odjubajo, Robertson, Clucas (you have made derogatory comments about him earlier in the season), Hernandez, Diame, etc. As Cheshireles said, SB sees them every day in training so it was a good decision to play him and only a gamble to someone not in the know like yourself!
After Saturday, I'm not sure ANY team will give him that time and space between now and the end of the season!
Is there no ends to what people on here will take offense to. I just dont get why people get wound up by this.
For me the manager may only be 'gambling' if he's struggling with a player knock/injury wise and plays him; the rest is down to what the manager 'considers' to be the best line up and tactics
Players have good games and bad games, Clucas was a bit iffy in some of his early games and my comments at the time reflected that. He's been very good overall, as I've clearly stated in my posts since he's settled in and rightly became an integral part of our squad. Pretty much everyone wanted to see Huddlestone dropped and things improved for us when he was, bringing him back into the starting eleven was a gamble, if he hadn't played well Bruce would have got slaughtered on here and elsewhere. My comment was in no way a criticism of Bruce's decision to play him, it was a brave decision and it paid off, but to suggest there was no risk in making that decision is ridiculous. It looks like you misunderstood my post, not a rare occurrence, though at least you managed to not mention my anti-Allam obsession this time.
I don't think it was so much that he was given time and space but more that their back four were pushed up and that allowed Hernandez and one or two others to get in behind as Tom played the ball into space for them to run on to.
Gamble - To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit. That's exactly what Bruce did.
Did Bruce say in interviews that Huddlestone played because of the way Blackburn play? Somehow I think Tom will be starting against Brighton as well. For good or ill.
I accept that if he hadn't played well then Bruce would have been slaughtered - I suppose hindsight is a wonderful thing! As for the other - I didn't need to mention it 'cos you've done it for me!!
The team plays better usually when Huddlestone isn't involved so Bruce did take a gamble in a sense, we could have ended up with another flat away defeat but he got it right on this occasion. As has been discussed before it isn't necessarily Huddlestones fault that this is the case, it's just Bruces tactics and the way Huddlestone is used don't generally suit him, we have our best runs of form and consistency when he isn't involved.
Huddlestone doesn't suit playing teams that press the ball, as he then passes back and sideways. If he get's time and the ball then he usually flourish as he did Saturday.
If everyone was nailed to a three year contract, I wonder which team Bruce would pick? I have an inclination he may be trying to keep the squad happy and not let some players get too disillusioned... As if we go up we may need them.
Gamble is to take a HIGH risk in the hope of a desired return; as we all know from Bruceys tactics he just simply doesn't do HIGH RISK. He's conservative to the point of nauseating! Lets agree to disagree on this one
