JW on Cardiff:
If I remember correctly, that is the exact opposite of what they were all saying at the start of the season. There were several appreciative comments from players about how much time they spent with the ball in training. So one has to ask why it changed. Would it be over-cynical to hypothesize that Thorup was fed up with players making elementary mistakes in positioning, failing time after time to anticipate danger until too late to do anything about it, standing off when they should challenge, etc. etc.? Maybe the best way of getting out on the training pitch with the ball would have been to cut out the mistakes, not repeat them game after game.
And the final sentence does not reflect well on Gunn's commitment to the Club. In fairness to Knapper, how long does it take to tell a player they are not in the plan, a replacement has been sorted out, your contract is not going to be renewed, thanks for your time here. good luck and goodbye.
I was wondering about the fitness levels and whether more time on the training pitch would have potentially been better for the overall fitness levels and perhaps prevented some injuries. We will never know!
Obviously Knapper and Gunns agent would have handled all these conversations. Gunn’s agent will have set a wage figure that they wouldn’t go below and it likely doesn’t fit with the clubs new wage structure. We don’t receive parachute payments any more and have to cut our cloth accordingly. Hence the move toward younger players with potential rather than ex-PL players on high wages.
All that could be true Suffolk, but the bit that hurt Gunn was being told in a 2 minute conversation with Knapper. He deserved more than that. The pressure is on Knapper now to come up with a keeper of similar or greater quality for less money. Not easy.
I’d love to have kept Gunn, personally I love having people that support the club playing for it. But if negotiations have broken down and wages are the sticking point, what else is there to say but “Thank you for your service to the club, we are sorry to see you go but we can’t meet your wage demands”.
Thorup made constant reference to the arduousness of the Championship schedule and the Saturday - Tuesday - Saturday routine. Had he been able to call consistently on anything like his full squad, it might have been different, but the series of injuries to senior players, exacerbated by needless suspensions and disciplinary lapses, plus the influx of physically more vulnerable teenage/early 20s players, undoubtedly handicapped him. Yet no allowance appears to have been made for any of this when it came to the decision to sack him.
Reyes at 21 is the same age as Gunn was when he played 46 games for us. Reyes is also supposed to be a talented GK - if he doesn't get his chance now when will he?
Sorry to correct you Rick but he never played for Man City. His first experience of first team football was when he came to us on loan aged 21.
Long is part of the problem here. I remember that when we signed him the Millwall supporters held street parties in the joy of getting rid of him. Why we decided to give him a lengthy contract joins the story of the Marie Celeste as one of the great mysteries of the world!! Do we really want him as a number 2 to Reyes in case, like all younger players, Reyes has a bad patch? The answer is obviously no but that cannot be a reason to hold Reyes back. I think we should take that risk especially if Reyes suffered a fairly serious injury we could do a short term loan deal for players like Ruddy or Krul to come in as emergency first choice.
We’ve not even seen Dan Barden this season either. He played several games for us in an emergency a couple of years ago and is still contracted to the club, surely he could have been given a go.
