Mark de Vries

[Master Fox]

Big Mark is gonna tear up the Championship next season!!!!!

Just you wait and see. He’ll bang in 20 goals next season

[sdb]

de vries is the player that it has took me the single most time to make my mind up about & i still don,t bleedin know he,s fat enough & ive seen good form from him in scotland but dunno if that says much?

termiate his contract, he's a fat, slow elvis hammond!

[Geo V]

He`ll end up at somewhere like Darlington. Good Luck to the lad who despite his failings, gave me much happiness when he netted in the win over the Yids of Spurs. I was one of only two Leicester fans in the pub in North London cheering and it made my day as some of the locals wanted to do something but didnt have the bottle .

Leicester, Leicester, Leicester, Leicester, Leicester, Leicester,

[teblin]

I would rather have him than Hammond. but still dont want him here next season. we've got Hume, give Fryatt another season and get two more strikers in.

agreed!!!

Scored more goals then elvis has.

[MBK]

agreed!!!

Scored more goals then elvis has.

Don't be mediocre in your aspirations.

[teblin]

Don't be mediocre in your aspirations.

Good point well made!!!

[FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife]

Just you wait and see. He’ll bang in 20 goals next season

I know, that's why I said he would tear the league up!

[Wils]

The Freezzzer.

Hopefully hell fcuk off somewhere with Elvis.

[Thracian]

agreed!!!

Scored more goals then elvis has.

And so he would because Elvis is not really a striker. Pace and strength are Hammond's assets. They are useful for disrupting solid defences especially last half-hour when people are tired.

MDV was a striker/target man who never really fitted into the place from what I saw. His goals tally was acceptable enough - Fryatt might well have been elevated to God-status if he'd scored em - but I don't get the impression he's got any faster or fitter since his departure, quite the contrary.

All in all he's not what we need...speed, fitness, skill, stamina, teen-to-29-ish, determined, consistent, highly motivated and in some way a specialist mostly fits the bill fo me.

[Manwell Pablo]

And so he would because Elvis is not really a striker. Pace and strength are Hammond's assets. They are useful for disrupting solid defences especially last half-hour when people are tired.

MDV was a striker/target man who never really fitted into the place from what I saw. His goals tally was acceptable enough - Fryatt might well have been elevated to God-status if he'd scored em - but I don't get the impression he's got any faster or fitter since his departure, quite the contrary.

All in all he's not what we need...speed, fitness, skill, stamina, teen-to-29-ish, determined, consistent, highly motivated and in some way a specialist mostly fits the bill fo me.

Erm, yes he is thats where he has played all of his career.

It doesn't matter who old they players are, it's whether or not they are good enough.

[Thracian]

Erm, yes he is thats where he has played all of his career.

It doesn't matter who old they players are, it's whether or not they are good enough.

That's what the anti-ageist lobby says too - and officially too as football clubs have been told in no uncertain terms.

But the theorists don't have to pay wages out for nothing in return when people fail to put in a full stint because of injury - people like Kenton, Tiatto, Johnson and Williams

It is a medical fact that older bodies fail to heal as quick as young ones so, while I agree the principle wholeheartedly, as you would see if anyone any good ever came here from the seniors ranks, far to often for clubs with our finances, experienced journeymen represent wasted money.

Out of 10 in terms of value for money as players, I would rate our older signings as follows this season:

Douglas: 0

MDV: 0

Maybury 4

Kenton 3

Williams 2

Low 1

Horsfield 3

Johnson 2

Tiatto 6

Newton 6 (not enough games)

Nils 7

Jarrett 5

Caders 5 (not enough games)

That's an average mark of around 3.6 which is diabolical.

Only Nils truly earned his keep. Tiatto and Newton might take honourable mentions.

Compare that with the younger players:

Kisnorbo 7.5 (Player of the season)

McAuley 7.5

Stearman 4

McCarthy 5

Hughes 6

Wesolowski 6 (not enough games)

Porter 6.5

Hume 7.5

Fryatt 4

Henderson 6

Elvis 5.5

Logan 6

Mattock 6 (not enough games)

That's an average mark of around 5.5 demonstrating the younger players as being about 2 points a man better than the older ones on average.

I have included Douglas and MDV because there's no way the club would want them, on their wages, without playing them whereas young players named in our squad but who haven't featured in League games are ignored because they are waiting their chance and their presence is therefore justified.

Even taking Douglas and MDV out the "seniors" mark is only 4.

Now you know some of the reason I prefer young, fit and hungry.

PS: Hammond might have been played as a striker for 20 years but that doesn't mean he'll ever be a striker in my eyes.

[Webbo]

<old bad/young good>

your statistics depend on how old you class as old, for instance McAuley is only a few weeks younger than Cadamarteri.

PS Hammond will never be a striker/footballer in anybodies eyes.

[eaststandtom]

http://home.skyspots.com

Look like Mark de Vries on his way back to Leiceter City.What do you guys make of this?

rather have him than elvis?

get rid of them both

[FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife]

That's what the anti-ageist lobby says too - and officially too as football clubs have been told in no uncertain terms.

But the theorists don't have to pay wages out for nothing in return when people fail to put in a full stint because of injury - people like Kenton, Tiatto, Johnson and Williams

It is a medical fact that older bodies fail to heal as quick as young ones so, while I agree the principle wholeheartedly, as you would see if anyone any good ever came here from the seniors ranks, far to often for clubs with our finances, experienced journeymen represent wasted money.

Out of 10 in terms of value for money as players, I would rate our older signings as follows this season:

Douglas: 0

MDV: 0

Maybury 4

Kenton 3

Williams 2

Low 1

Horsfield 3

Johnson 2

Tiatto 6

Newton 6 (not enough games)

Nils 7

Jarrett 5

Caders 5 (not enough games)

That's an average mark of around 3.6 which is diabolical.

Only Nils truly earned his keep. Tiatto and Newton might take honourable mentions.

Compare that with the younger players:

Kisnorbo 7.5 (Player of the season)

McAuley 7.5

Stearman 4

McCarthy 5

Hughes 6

Wesolowski 6 (not enough games)

Porter 6.5

Hume 7.5

Fryatt 4

Henderson 6

Elvis 5.5

Logan 6

Mattock 6 (not enough games)

That's an average mark of around 5.5 demonstrating the younger players as being about 2 points a man better than the older ones on average.

I have included Douglas and MDV because there's no way the club would want them, on their wages, without playing them whereas young players named in our squad but who haven't featured in League games are ignored because they are waiting their chance and their presence is therefore justified.

Even taking Douglas and MDV out the "seniors" mark is only 4.

Now you know some of the reason I prefer young, fit and hungry.

PS: Hammond might have been played as a striker for 20 years but that doesn't mean he'll ever be a striker in my eyes.

Wooooooo,

How can you class Williams as old? He is younger than Elvis?

Another case of manipulating stats to back up YOUR opinion!

[Lord Nibblington]

Wooooooo,

How can you class Williams as old? He is younger than Elvis?

Another case of manipulating stats to back up YOUR opinion!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

Williams is also younger than McAuley.

I mean, he's 25. He'll be 26 this year! How in the hell does that make him old?

[Lord Nibblington]

That's an average mark of around 5.5 demonstrating the younger players as being about 2 points a man better than the older ones on average.

It demonstrates nothing apart from the fact you prefer young players. Your completely subjective ratings do not show that they are actually better in any way, apart from in your opinion.

[act smiley]

Erm, yes he is thats where he has played all of his career.

It doesn't matter who old they players are, it's whether or not they are good enough.

For him to be a striker, it would mean that he's a footballer

[Thracian]

Wooooooo,

How can you class Williams as old? He is younger than Elvis?

Another case of manipulating stats to back up YOUR opinion!

No problem. I've taken Williams out of the stats. He must just have seemed old the way he'd been around for years, was forev er injured and rarely had any signficant effect.

It makes precious little difference to the conclusions though why you think I should want to deliberately manipulate the stats to make a point I don't know.

Do you seriously believe I'd rather have Leicester lose with a team of young players than win with a team of old ones simply to confirm some theory?.

My point is that far from being risky to lose young players, we're likely to get a better performance because we've not been able to afford the sort of senior players we need.

And signing senior players on long contracts is ridiculous. Maybury, Douglas, DeVries might have been justified for a season but it's been mostly money down the drain since, though I'm surprised about Maybury.

Others, like Kenton, Johnson and even Tiatto, haven't lasted the pace and of the older loan players drafted in to make our numbers up only Newton has been value. Horsfield and Jarrett have been disappointing.

Put simply you've either got to go for proven class when you sign experinced players or show faith in what is, just now, a crop of more than capable youngsters.

Worthington would seem to have recognised that pretty quickly.

[act smiley]

What defines an "old" and a "young" player in those. Leaving aside the fact that its your ratings rather than a third-party's, so its inevitably going to be slightly skewed towards your opinions, you've handily ignored the likes of Yeates and seem to have set the bar randomly. If it were that any player 25 or over were considered "old", you'd be looking at a very different picture as you'd have to move McAuley, Kisnorbo, Henderson, Hammond into the "old" column, which changes things dramatically.

Its just random bollocks with some numbers attatched to claim theres some point there.

[Manwell Pablo]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

Williams is also younger than McAuley.

I mean, he's 25. He'll be 26 this year! How in the hell does that make him old?

Theres a few glaring mistakes he's made, such as conviently missing out Glombard, Yeates, Hamill, Gerrbrand, who have all been on our books at some point this season. And Nils is younger than McAuley.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

No problem. I've taken Williams out of the stats. He must just have seemed old the way he'd been around for years, was forev er injured and rarely had any signficant effect.

It makes precious little difference to the conclusions though why you think I should want to deliberately manipulate the stats to make a point I don't know.

Do you seriously believe I'd rather have Leicester lose with a team of young players than win with a team of old ones simply to confirm some theory?.

My point is that far from being risky to lose young players, we're likely to get a better performance because we've not been able to afford the sort of senior players we need.

And signing senior players on long contracts is ridiculous. Maybury, Douglas, DeVries might have been justified for a season but it's been mostly money down the drain since, though I'm surprised about Maybury.

Others, like Kenton, Johnson and even Tiatto, haven't lasted the pace and of the older loan players drafted in to make our numbers up only Newton has been value. Horsfield and Jarrett have been disappointing.

Put simply you've either got to go for proven class when you sign experinced players or show faith in what is, just now, a crop of more than capable youngsters.

Worthington would seem to have recognised that pretty quickly.

keep digging son, you ain't getting out of this whole. You have made a massive error in your age post, what you should have done was divide them into good and bad!

[BigGibbo]

What defines an "old" and a "young" player in those. Leaving aside the fact that its your ratings rather than a third-party's, so its inevitably going to be slightly skewed towards your opinions, you've handily ignored the likes of Yeates and seem to have set the bar randomly. If it were that any player 25 or over were considered "old", you'd be looking at a very different picture as you'd have to move McAuley, Kisnorbo, Henderson, Hammond into the "old" column, which changes things dramatically.

Its just random bollocks with some numbers attatched to claim theres some point there.

i personally define an old player as a player who's already peaked who is doubtful to get alot better doesn't have to be old in years but then theres always old players like teddy ha ha

[Manwell Pablo]

keep digging son, you ain't getting out of this whole. You have made a massive error in your age post, what you should have done was divide them into good and bad!

Well there goes my vote for best avatar of the year.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

you have mine for signature of the year

elvis hammond, extra ordinary, just like a strawberry

[FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife]

Is that who I think it is?