According to David Burns City are in for these two. Rose seems a decent left back. People's thoughts?
I like Dawson. Him, Chester and Davies would give us very solid back 2/3 options but I'm not keen on Rose, he seems very erratic and I've seen him have some awful games, borderline Figgy.
Both are good players and would be a step in the right direction for us. but as previously stated would cost a few quid!
Dawson is definitely underrated, he's a solid defender. Rose would certainly be a step up from Figueroa too. I'm not sure how realistic these two are though.
Rose is a million miles better than Fig. The difference is that when we sign players they clearly get coached to get the best out of them and thy are played to their optimum potential such as Davies, Huddlestone and Livermore. I believe the se could happen with rose. The problem is with the big teams is that they have enough money to throw around so they just throw a player in the team with little attention payed to them and they either sink or swim. If they fail then that's it for them and they will buy someone else. If we sign them and Liv then we are going to look like a spurs B side.
With the odd exception I am not very keen on signing players over the age of 30. Players that are prone to injuries and whose legs have likely gone. Have no sell in value and cover a bigger issue of signing someone like Chester who has youth, potential and sell on vAlue .
It's no coincidence that Tottenham spend around 100 million on a load of players throw them all in squad and hope they all work. Truth is the majority have been flops. Their solution will most likely be to buy again. On the other hand you have players like Livermore and Huddlestone who are quality players but can't get a look in. They come to Us and are played to their best and they start to reach their potential and play the best football of their life.
The big clubs are big because they're the top clubs. They're the top clubs because they get the best out of their best players. They get the best out of their best players because they have the best coaches. Players flop for all kinds of reasons, pressure for playing for a big team, pressure to live up to a price tag, failure to adapt to a new country, not getting a birthday cake, failure to fit in to a new changing room, unhappy with life at a different end of the country away from family etc. etc. Clubs like ours have to cherry pick players that will fit as we can't afford to have failures. Bigger clubs have the financial power to take the risk on a player hence why they generally have a fair few flops. But to think they just throw them in a squad and expect them to work with no coaching is ludicrous. They may have cash to burn but even Man City wouldn't just buy players willy nilly and cast them off for new faces if the old ones don't quite fit.
Not entirely true. Big clubs feel the incredible pressure to succeed and need to do so ASAP. Big clubs take big hits on expensive flops all of the time. A lot of these players would most probably come good in the end if they we're treat the same way Huddlestone and Livermore were but the big clubs are usually quite impatient and want results immediately and thus buy their way out of a situation. Examples would be. When Man City first got bought out and bought a random collection of players like Giovanni because they could and then shipped them out a season later. Man City with the likes of Sinclair, Rodwell and Richards whose careers have stalled or regressed. Because they didn't succeed at first and thus it was much easier to just buy other players. Questions over Baldini's signings at Tottenham. Man Utd Bebe Arsenal have a long list of flops that have gone on to do much better else where such as Gerviniho Big clubs have so much money to throw at players. Sink or swim and if you don't cut it almost immediately then they will just replace you. We get players like Livermore and Huddlestone and build a team around them and play to their strengths and get the best out of them. Tottenham give them a bit part role In a system that doesn't suit them and expect them to succeed. When they don't they replace them with expensive foreign flops and offload them to other clubs. Then in hindsight think why didn't we do that with them. Tottenham didn't get the best out of them two and we are doing. And you have to put questions marks over their coaching and man management. Liv and Hudd always had that potential but Spurs clearly didn't know how to extract it. Clearly they have great coaches because you only have look at Bale but they have so many players that don't reach their full potential because if of the sheer number of player turn over they have. I don't suggest that they don't have decent coaching or no coaching at all but I do suggest that the coaching they do provide isn't one size fits all.
Not if it means Livermore going back? Not that impressed by Rose, though probably not seen enough of him.
I know what you mean about Rose, but I think that he's a player who's career gone off the rail's a bit, the sort of player Steve Bruce like to get. Puts them on the pitch and tell them to prove all they critic's wrong.
Getting both would be worthy of a semi on at least. Both would definitely improve the starting 11, just depends what it'll cost as to whether it'll be a good deal.
