Paddy Davit gave a player rating of 5 for Crnac: "On the periphery again as he attempts to adapt to the speed, intensity and physicality of the English league. Attacking instincts saw him anticipate a Ben Chrisene cross but head wide. Tried a reverse ball for Sargent moments earlier but over hit his attempt. Hooked at half-time, along with Forson, and Thorup made it clear in both cases he was not happy with their performance levels. Learning curve, and the youngster may now benefit from two weeks on the training pitches at Colney after a whirlwind few days in his career." Let's hope so, because there's a good player in there. The contrast with Schwartau is stark: "You can see already the teenager looks the full package. The athleticism to get box-to-box but also the composure and comfort in possession. Screened his near post to good effect as Mason-Clarke burst into the area in the 74th minute."
Concern may or may not be justified. If someone keeps expressing concern when concern is unjustified -- e.g. saying Crnac is "a key player in a key position" when he isn't; or deliberately drawing parallels with our signing the likes of RVW when Crnac has been in the building for just ten days, and, through force of circumstance, selected to play in a series of testing matches almost before he's through the door; or ignores what those who brought Crnac to the club have said about why they've done so and where they see him as being right now - it signals more than just "concern". I have no issue with justified concern; I just don't see any reason for being concerned about Crnac or anything else to do with our club at the moment. Nor do I have any issue with criticism where criticism is justified. In the case of the Coventry game, neither Forson nor Crnac were performing to the levels we'd seen from them in previous games; they both looked off the pace, understandably in both cases IMO. So I have no quarrel with their being replaced (though I thought Thorup's public comments were ill-advised). Nor is it a surprise if a player who comfortably fits the role of AM or second striker (Schwartau) finds it easier to take a ball on the half turn and progress it than a player more used to receiving back to goal (Crnac). But what is there in any of that to warrant another repetition of "concern" about Crnac and the money spent on him. None. One more observation. Forson's pass to Sargent leading to a goal created a load of positivity for him. Srnac's pass across goal in the first few minutes of his first game was equally good, but Sainz got his feet in a muddle, failed to take the big chance created for him, and in doing so diverted the ball beyond Sargent's reach at the far post. Had either scored, Crnac would rightly have received the sort of acclaim that Forson enjoyed for his pass. But despite the fact that the quality of Crnac's play preceding it, and the quality of the cross, doesn't depend on his team mates putting the chance away, that excellent bit if play appears to be forgotten.
For crying out loud, Robbie, give it up. Rick has a right to express his opinion, and it's a valid one. If you have another opinion, great. Post it and move on. This is sounding personal on your part.
I won't respond to this line of discussion any further. There are plenty of other subjects about City to talk about.
I had no intention of continuing it CS. I would like to know what exactly you mean by "valid" though. But another time
