So it was Mark de Vries fault Hume was ineffective

[BartonFox]

Strange thing is when Hume arrived he was no good with de Vries either and now MM and MA are talking about Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink and Derek Riodran to join de Vries and Campbell.

Testing times ahead for the Champion of the Happy Clappers.

[lookwhaticando]

But on the other hand, 'The Champion' was handed a new deal by the same management team.

Mixed messages from Martindaric.

[The Reverend]

Hume was pretty uneffective, but it was'nt MDV's fault. Tho it doesnt help him. Hume is a footballer, he likes the ball at his feet, hes not one to run on to flick ons, he can make things happen, hes not an out and out striker.

Gimme Hume and Campbell tho if im honest.

[Thracian]

Is this going to be the answer to all our problems?. Whatever the snag, buy someone else.

Yes we've got problems but I can see more coming through lack of continuity and the tension caused by the fear of being dropped.

And is the bad game thing going to apply to the manager as well?

Cos if it did - he'd be gone already.

The sooner we have our squad and the sooner MA can climb off the Transfer Carousel to concentrate on managing that squad, the better.

Anyone can buy people. The trick is turning them into an effective unit.

And it doesn't help any manager if the goalposts are constantly moving.

[Matt]

Fuk of Mark de Vries

Oh what can it mean....

Hume and Campbell please! Maybe that won't work but i'm more willing to be "patient" with that partnership!

I just can't understand the fact De Vries did very little in pre-season, Fryatt scored 3 yet De Vries is still higher up the pecking order?!

Fair play De Vries has got fitter, he's improved, and he's trying but he's still not good enough, thanks for trying De Vries but it's still not what we're looking for and what we need.

[Simi]

Hume and Campbell please! Maybe that won't work but i'm more willing to be "patient" with that partnership!

There we go.

That seems to be the main problem with De Vries. One game, that's enough, get him out.

[Matt]

There we go.

That seems to be the main problem with De Vries. One game, that's enough, get him out.

Thing is it's not as if he has come in as a new signing and people are slagging him off after one game is it? He has had this reputation when he played for us before he went on loan didn't he and as I keep saying he has improved (slightly) but no major improvement IMO.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Thing is it's not as if he has come in as a new signing and people are slagging him off after one game is it? He has had this reputation when he played for us before he went on loan didn't he and as I keep saying he has improved (slightly) but no major improvement IMO.

Just interested after a game where hit the woodwork twice and held the ball up fairly well all game, what would he have had to do for you not to slag him off?

He didn't play badly yesterday and still he gets a slagging on here from people who are just stubbornly refusing to give him a clean slate. I just wish that 25-yard effort in the first half had gone in - I'd have loved to have seen your reaction. An inch or two to the right and it would have been a contender for goal of the season.

[Matt]

Just interested after a game where hit the woodwork twice and held the ball up fairly well all game, what would he have had to do for you not to slag him off?

He didn't play badly yesterday and still he gets a slagging on here from people who are just stubbornly refusing to give him a clean slate. I just wish that 25-yard effort in the first half had gone in - I'd have loved to have seen your reaction. An inch or two to the right and it would have been a contender for goal of the season.

I'd love it just love it if he proves me wrong and plays well and has an awesome season. Do you really think I want the club I love to lose week in week out? Play badly?

I'm not saying De Vries makes us lose or play bad before you start jumping to those conclusion but we need all out players playing well scoring to being doing well.

Besides it's great we're making all these chances infront of goal but what's the point in making them when you've got no-one to score them, We made chances last season (Not as many as yesterday - which is good) and no-one scored them either.

[Milky]

Your bitter obsession with Hume is just as bad as others with MDV.

[Smudge]

Fuk of Mark de Vries

Oh what can it mean....

Hume and Campbell please! Maybe that won't work but i'm more willing to be "patient" with that partnership!

I just can't understand the fact De Vries did very little in pre-season, Fryatt scored 3 yet De Vries is still higher up the pecking order?!

Fair play De Vries has got fitter, he's improved, and he's trying but he's still not good enough, thanks for trying De Vries but it's still not what we're looking for and what we need.

I saw the Hume/Campbell partnership against Kilmarnock, it wasn't a pretty sight. They were totally dominated by taller, stronger center backs. They were easily bundled off the ball and were unable to control receipt of the long ball. Having said that we need a striker or two and MA knows that; like left backs, good ones are scarcer that rocking horse sh1t.

[breadandcheese]

Unfortunately I couldn't get to the game yesterday but am looking forward to a trip to Selhurst park next week. From the reports, it sounded like De Vries played well so I'm not really sure why he's coming in for so much stick. Obviously, the only question is whether a Hume-De Vries partnership can be effective. That's for the manager to decide and it mught be worth playing De-Vries with Campbell, as well as other combinations until we can find the right partnership.

It shouldn't be all doom and gloom though. With the chances we had, it was just one of those games where the ball wouldn't go in the net. On another day, it could have been 3 maybe 4 nil. I'll only start to worry if 5 games in, we're still struggling to score goals or defend.

[Fez of Mahrez]

I saw the Hume/Campbell partnership against Kilmarnock, it wasn't a pretty sight. They were totally dominated by taller, stronger center backs. They were easily bundled off the ball and were unable to control receipt of the long ball. Having said that we need a striker or two and MA knows that; like left backs, good ones are scarcer that rocking horse sh1t.

That's the thing though, we shouldn't be having to play the long ball, we should be playing with a couple of midfielders who link the midfield and attack - not three defensive midfield players including one on the wing.

Hume and Hammond was our most effective partnership last year and Fryatt and Hume worked well together at the backend of the season before that. You don't need a big man up front but you do need to keep the ball on the floor and more pace in midfield than we had yesterday in order for a partnership like Campbell and Hume to work. I still think they could be really good together. Campbell is far more of an out-and-out striker than Hume is and I hope we get to see them up front together as a pair with Campbell on the shoulder of the last man and Hume dropping deep.

[Smudge]

That's the thing though, we shouldn't be having to play the long ball, we should be playing with a couple of midfielders who link the midfield and attack - not three defensive midfield players including one on the wing.

Hume and Hammond was our most effective partnership last year and Fryatt and Hume worked well together at the backend of the season before that. You don't need a big man up front but you do need to keep the ball on the floor and more pace in midfield than we had yesterday in order for a partnership like Campbell and Hume to work. I still think they could be really good together. Campbell is far more of an out-and-out striker than Hume is and I hope we get to see them up front together as a pair with Campbell on the shoulder of the last man and Hume dropping deep.

Spot on, I thought after I posted that I should have said the same thing

[Finnegan]

Your bitter obsession with Hume is just as bad as others with MDV.

Barton's just mad he chose Canada.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Spot on, I thought after I posted that I should have said the same thing

Sadly while we have Stearman, McAuley and/or Kisnorbo in the side, we may need to select a targetman because they just refuse to play the ball out of defence (the options are there because there was no hoofing from Chambers or N'Gotty yesterday).

[Webbo]

For me the balance of the team is wrong, without a creative midfielder we need to play the ball to wingers to feed the strikers, but without a big man up front most of the crosses would be wasted. DeVries should be the answer but we all know he can't jump. Carl Cort would be ideal but he's always injured. If JFH has still got the legs he could be the answer.

[Dames]

Fuk of Mark de Vries

Oh what can it mean....

Hume and Campbell please! Maybe that won't work but i'm more willing to be "patient" with that partnership!

I just can't understand the fact De Vries did very little in pre-season, Fryatt scored 3 yet De Vries is still higher up the pecking order?!

Fair play De Vries has got fitter, he's improved, and he's trying but he's still not good enough, thanks for trying De Vries but it's still not what we're looking for and what we need.

Your a f**king moron.

Fed up of arguing with you and the other morons.

I see no-ones countered my arguement a few threads down so it shows half of the people who slag off de vries for no reason can't come up with a constructive point to why hes so 'shit'

[Blue Fox]

Sadly while we have Stearman, McAuley and/or Kisnorbo in the side, we may need to select a targetman because they just refuse to play the ball out of defence (the options are there because there was no hoofing from Chambers or N'Gotty yesterday).

More than plenty from Henderson who seems extremely reluctant to pass it out to anyone and much prefers to hoooooooooooooooof it as far as he can.

[Matt]

Your a f**king moron.

Fed up of arguing with you and the other morons.

I see no-ones countered my arguement a few threads down so it shows half of the people who slag off de vries for no reason can't come up with a constructive point to why hes so 'shit'

Come up with something more original next time, Tell me something I ain't been told on here before!

Yes, I've had a beer and a think about it, I'm wrong, everything I think and say is wrong, De Vries is the best thing since sliced bread. Up there with the Henry's in the world.

De Vries for King!

[Smudge]

Come up with something more original next time, Tell me something I ain't been told on here before!

Yes, I've had a beer and a think about it, I'm wrong, everything I think and say is wrong, De Vries is the best thing since sliced bread. Up there with the Henry's in the world.

De Vries needs forKing!

That's not nice!

[Simi]

Come up with something more original next time, Tell me something I ain't been told on here before!

Yes, I've had a beer and a think about it, I'm wrong, everything I think and say is wrong, De Vries is the best thing since sliced bread. Up there with the Henry's in the world.

De Vries for King!

That's not the attitude to take is it?

So far in this thread you haven't explained why De Vries is "shit"

But you have admitted he has improved over pre-season.

[Dames]

Come up with something more original next time, Tell me something I ain't been told on here before!

Yes, I've had a beer and a think about it, I'm wrong, everything I think and say is wrong, De Vries is the best thing since sliced bread. Up there with the Henry's in the world.

De Vries for King!

Come back when you've got the brains to try it.

Your making yourself out to be a bigger twat then you already are.

[Matt]

Fuk of Mark de Vries

Oh what can it mean....

Hume and Campbell please! Maybe that won't work but i'm more willing to be "patient" with that partnership!

I just can't understand the fact De Vries did very little in pre-season, Fryatt scored 3 yet De Vries is still higher up the pecking order?!

Fair play De Vries has got fitter, he's improved, and he's trying but he's still not good enough, thanks for trying De Vries but it's still not what we're looking for and what we need.

Thing is it's not as if he has come in as a new signing and people are slagging him off after one game is it? He has had this reputation when he played for us before he went on loan didn't he and as I keep saying he has improved (slightly) but no major improvement IMO.

I'd love it just love it if he proves me wrong and plays well and has an awesome season. Do you really think I want the club I love to lose week in week out? Play badly?

I'm not saying De Vries makes us lose or play bad before you start jumping to those conclusion but we need all out players playing well scoring to being doing well.

Besides it's great we're making all these chances infront of goal but what's the point in making them when you've got no-one to score them, We made chances last season (Not as many as yesterday - which is good) and no-one scored them either.

Come up with something more original next time, Tell me something I ain't been told on here before!

Yes, I've had a beer and a think about it, I'm wrong, everything I think and say is wrong, De Vries is the best thing since sliced bread. Up there with the Henry's in the world.

De Vries for King!

That's not the attitude to take is it?

So far in this thread you haven't explained why De Vries is "shit"

But you have admitted he has improved over pre-season.

Where in this thread (And the other De Vries threads I think) have I called De Vries "shit"?! I'm almost certain in the other De Vries threads i've not called him "shit"

All I have said is he has improved (as I keep saying slightly) but he still isn't a player I believe should be in our plans, I can't see him doing too good for us and scoring many, you need goals in this league, I don't for one second think we will get promoted this season (Maybe not even next season) and I have never said we would get promoted this season, all I want from this season is improvement, and I believe trying De Vries again is a step backwards, but i'm not the manager if MA picks him, if MA beleives he has it in him then go for it, as I have said many times i'll be more than happy should De Vries prove me wrong.

[4ever and ever]

Is it just me, or is everyone complaining about the strike force when the main concern in yesterdays match was the sheer lack of any shape or control in midfield?

I for one was very excited when clemence signed but him and kishishev yesterday looked unfit and very ineffective.

The only bright spark from midfield was when Hayes came on and actually played like a winger.

This meant that we didn't have people playing out of position (weselowski on the wing) and actually gave us an option wide and allowed us to stretch the play.

I am not worried about the strike force it is the midfield that is the problem from what i saw yesterday?????!!!!!