in trading terms we made nothing on Long - we bought at market price and we sold at market price - simple truth is market prices had increased by around £5 to £6 million anyway - hence the prices we paid for Livermore, Snodgrass and of course Hernandez - I know it looks good on paper but in reality Long's replacement was a comparable purchase price - its only if and when you don't replace you make any gain
The market didn't increase by £6m in 6 months. The Long thing is simple really, we got a bloody good deal from Southampton but invested it poorly.
The main problem at City is we don't have enough players who feel confident enough in their own ability at this level. Too often our players seem to have an attitude of surviving games rather than dominating them and this effects everything they do. I sort of wish the Barmby style of passing play had been persevered with when Bruce took over, because our players at the time seemed much more confident with that system and expressed themselves more confidently. I know we didn't score many goals, but for me the best foundation for a team is to have players who are comfortable on the ball and create the time to use it properly.
Yes, I see your point Charon but again, it was the proverbial 'offer too good to refuse' so we had no option. On Hernandez, somebody dropped a bollock. He wasn't that prolific and wasn't up against the players he has come up against in the Premier League. Same with the German Donkey and Sagbo. Sometime these gambles can come off but we seem to be smitten with 'the strikers curse' in our purchases and surely Steve Bruce doesn't make these decisions on his own and has a team of advisers and scouts to assess the quality of potential signings.
..So you're agreeing with me? What else could he have done? Brought on proper full backs to provide some run and push forward - Rosey and Robertson were both sat on their asses on the bench - and brought on Hernandez in place of Aluko. Instead he pushed four strikers - or players playing at the top of the pitch if you want to be immature and giggle about that label for them - and congested the box with no one to link the team up.
of course there was a push in the market - that's why we ended up paying c£8 mill for Snodgrass and Livermore and that's why Fulham ended up paying £11 mill for McCormick - the tv money dictates transfer prices and they will continue to increase as long as the likes of Sky continue to pump so much money into the sport - having said that I fully agree the Hernandez money was poorly spent although not much of the money Bruce has spent has been well spent
It still amazes me how many posters think that they are so much wiser than Steve Bruce AFTER the event. If his tactics had seen us score three goals then your post would have been laughable, HOWEVER, it wasn't successful so everybody jumps on the bandwagon spouting about what THEY would have done.
That hardly applies in this instance, pretty much everyone said it was a **** team selection before a ball had been kicked.
Including me Madge, but my comment was on the subject of substitutes used which, after they proved to be unsuccessful, 'pretty much everybody' said that they would have done different.
I blame certain players as I said on this thread, what will be interesting to see though is if the likes of Ramirez feel like putting on a show when Liverpool/Arsenal and so on turn up, just like they did v Chelsea because it will prove that point. Big time charlies who play when they think people are looking.
I don't think there's a single poster on this board who'd have put Sagbo on, it's still not being wise after the event, it's being right.
No, Sagbo wasn't in the starting eleven, and, if it had been up to me, would have been 'assistant tea-lady' from now until the end of the season. Where are all those posters who told me that Sagbo just needed a chance, some game time or some patience? You could say that they were 'wiser after the event' but I told everybody well before the Sothampton game that he wasn't a strikers @rsehole.
Er, I'm commenting on the first half of the season, taking players like Jelavic off when we were winning, or throwing on striker after striker when we were losing. Doing so cost us points. I'm criticising that. If it was a one off then your statement would be relevant. You constantly think you're smarter than Steve Bruce in terms of what strikers you'd buy so this post is ridiculous.
I assume taking Jelavic off was accompanied by putting on a more defensive player? Can't see how that is the worst thing (necessarily) when winning, nor can I see how putting forwards on when losing (so looking for a goal is all that bad (as a rule) either!
Well except that it left us with no outlet at the top of the park and just invited pressure on us. It happened against Stoke, Newcastle, West Ham and other games which all resulted in dropped points. If Jelavic wasn't fit to run out a whole game back then I would be staggered.
Yeah if playing one way has given us the advantage in a game, then changing it might not be the most sensible thing.
How can you all remember games? Remember Maguire's debut. He hoofed it, but thinkn he has done well since, and was up against Bony (at least for a bit) so fair enough.
