Rory donelly
- Thread starter pembs jack
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Rodgers signed Routledge ( under his watch ) and never used him . Then Laudrup came in , sold Sinclair for a bundle and made a gem shine with Routledge , bless Laudrup !!!
"the lad has done well for us since he has been here".
Really? Perhaps you could enlighten us all. What exactly has he done?
In his defence,he hasn't had too many opportunities.
This from a person who "dismisses" Michael Laudrup in almost every post he makes.
I'm not exactly sure which game it was. However,scoring a subsequently disallowed goal says little for overall performance.
He didn't help his case by returning from Coventry so promptly. As a result he has wasted several months of opportunity that could have ultimately benefited him. I'm sure some other youngsters would have jumped at the opportunity he spurned.
That youth prospect is older than both Amat and Shelvey. He is hardly a prospect now. He should if good enough be pushing for first team time. I have watched him numerous times and it is only my opinion, he will never be good enough for the PL. Some work some dont. He just didnt come off. Time to ship him on to a league 1 club. That is his level.
An interesting take on events. From my view, Rodgers signed Routledge and used him regularly from the bench, as Dyer and Sinclair were our main wingers after winning us promotion. Routledge put in some amazing performances, including an unbelievable show of skill away at Anfield where we drew 0-0 and got applauded off the pitch. Then Rodgers left and Sinclair decided to leave for more money at City, rather than Laudrup deciding to sell him. What I will say is that Routledge performed better under Laudrup, but Routledge benefited mostly from the first-team place that Sinclair vacated. If Rodgers had been here and Sinclair had left, Routledge would probably have had the same upward curve under Rodgers. However, Laudrup takes the plaudits for this one, and rightly so. But as with everything in life, it's all about being in the right place at the right time. Circumstances.
Why would a fact make me ill project , did Laudrup not sell Sinclair at a big profit and turn Routledge into a fabulous player . The people trying to paint Laudrup in the worst possible light are the sickos , pitiful really .Rory wasnt the only player Rodgers brought in that Brendan overlooked.
Have you've assumed that I think he's PL level without me ever saying it? I've asked in this thread why he wasn't given a chance because a) he had a great pre-season and b) Vasquez was crippled with low confidence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion (I happen to agree that at this moment, he probably needs League 1 football), but while a player is pulling on the Swansea City badge, at whatever level, he doesn't deserved to be called a headless chicken (or any other derogatory insult) by Swansea City supporters.
I think this a poke at me for having posted that I thought he ran around like a headless chicken in a Europa Cup game.
That was my opinion of his performance on the night.
So,he wasn't actually being called a headless chicken. It's just a phrase,nothing more,nothing less.
There are far worse things being posted on this Forum for you to get uptight about.
But you still think at 22 he is a youth prospect then. I havent assumed anything, what I am saying in my opinion he isnt Pl class and never will be. Maybe i should have deleted some of your quote. What I was trying to say is that he is not a youth prospect now at 22.
By the way I have not insulted him in any way.
No, it wasn't your comment. It was musty's where he said "let the headless chicken run riot preseason tour and see what he does".
There's a difference between your comment which is a common phrase, to musty's where he just straight up insults him using the same term. It may be the same term, but both posts have completely opposite effects.
Fair enough, I see your point. As he's 22, this means that he shouldn't really be playing in the Under-21 squad any more (anyone know how many over-21s we can field?). He's got to go out on loan now, surely.
He's got finishing skills, but he needs to improve his all-round game if he'll ever truly make it for us. He's only going to learn by going on loan to League 1, and then on loan to the Championship. Probably a year in each league. We signed him from a level probably equal to the League of Wales, so if he refuses to go out on loan, I would agree that we need probably need to cut ties with the lad.
Like some having a usual dig at Monk or the board you mean Bob?
Several players have come out and said things have been better under Monk, or are they too talking bollocks?
Because you are hung up on him, you can't let him go. I am sorry to say this but Laudrup is gone, it is time for you to seek closure. We are here to help you comes to terms with that if need be.
O.K. big,but I feel that my post may have inspired musty's comment,and I regret that.
I agree that he needs to go on loan. But he will have to knuckle down and get on with it and not just retuen to us if he doesnt like it. (If that was the reason he came back from Coventry).
Rory never got a chance under Laudrup in the prem, he kept picking that useless ****er Alvaro instead
