Good question! So which would anyone sign or not let go?......Morgan was the least effective, Harold had worst personality and Gornell probably needed nurturing although made the most of average talent. Cruel? No just my perception. In our parlous state though would have either the ginger whinger or El Tel back for just a one year contract.
Harrold fouled too much but scored 'some' goals. Morgan 'troubled' defences but scored f all goals Gornell wasn't a 'stand out, notice me' player but probably best of bunch.
Don't get Harrold as having the worst personality? Morgan, despite not scoring goals, always threatened to do the unorthodox and would have had him back for another year. Probably fell out with GT somewhere along the line, as did Gornell.
Do you not remember Harold berating his colleagues for poor delivery? It went way beyond your normal prima donna striker, nothing he ever did was wrong always others. One match (Chesterfield?), he was an embarassment. BUT....he was a presence that achieved. Poor old Morgan was a handful for defences, always got fouled but we saw little for it. Excluding Richards' goals (where I can't remember a Morgan assist) our two best scorers got a total of 14.....and how many assists did Morgan give Taylor in his seven? I liked Morgan's attitude but feel he needs better supply in a lower division to flourish.
lets be honest..as strikers go, none of them were not much good, because they weren't doing what strikers are suppose to do.... SCORE BLOODY GOALS!!
Pity Dave Hibbert had knee problems etc....nice guy and a friend of a friend....when he retired I sent our wishes......he'd be good now. Don't let's think too far back to the golden days of striking but forward to the next crop of net-busters!!! It's interesting to see lots of other clubs picking up strikers, maybe the pool to pick from is getting smaller. Surely there must be someone in Scotland who wants to chance his arm in rural west midlands?????
