casabian Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 is it just me or is this bloke crap. Mattock is much better player .ive seen clapham play all of his games he has been woeful in all of them . does anyone agree?
lildave3 Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 is it just me or is this bloke crap.Mattock is much better player .ive seen clapham play all of his games he has been woeful in all of them . does anyone agree? Well I don't.
Guest Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 I think he's been pretty steady to be honest. Not out of this world brilliant but definitely doing a job
Simi Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 is it just me or is this bloke crap.Mattock is much better player .ive seen clapham play all of his games he has been woeful in all of them . does anyone agree? I certainly don't. I think he's done a fairly solid job since he's been here. At the end of the day, he's was brought in to provide more experience and give us better defensive options than Mattock. No doubt he's a better defender than Mattock. Maybe not the best going forward, but I think he's the better choice at the moment.
Zingari Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 his head is too long , it's somehow the wrong shape for a head altogether , he should get it looked at
Father Ted Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 is it just me or is this bloke crap.Mattock is much better player .ive seen clapham play all of his games he has been woeful in all of them . does anyone agree? Well, i've been saying this aswell, he backs off too much and allows the opposition to get crosses in the box.
casabian Posted 28 February 2008 Author Posted 28 February 2008 for me Mattock is much better player he wasnt good enought at wolves or when he was on loan at leeds so why is he good enough for us
Legend_in_blue Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 I certainly don't. I think he's done a fairly solid job since he's been here. At the end of the day, he's was brought in to provide more experience and give us better defensive options than Mattock. No doubt he's a better defender than Mattock. Maybe not the best going forward, but I think he's the better choice at the moment. I haven't noticed Clapham to be honest - which says to me he's doing a solid job. Mattock on the other hand I've noticed a lot - doing bugger all at Blackpool when the first went in springs to mind.
Simi Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 I haven't noticed Clapham to be honest - which says to me he's doing a solid job. Mattock on the other hand I've noticed a lot - doing bugger all at Blackpool when the first went in springs to mind. You're right. Mattock has been exposed a lot this year, defensively. Which is why Clapham was signed. You will still get these errors when they're so young, like Mattock is. Holloway seemed to give the impression Mattock would be playing ahead of Clapham anyway, so we'll see.
Jimmy Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 I've been impressed with Clapham, I'd certainly give him another year next season, good experience back up to Mattock, can help him with his mental approach too
Bert Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 I've been impressed with Clapham, I'd certainly give him another year next season, good experience back up to Mattock, can help him with his mental approach too Blatant football manager quote.
Jimmy Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 think what you like bert, I believe I Ollie said as much when he signed him, weather FM says that or not, its still true
sdb Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 for me Mattock is much better player he wasnt good enought at wolves or when he was on loan at leeds so why is he good enough for us cause we're crap and have no fit/experienced/proven left backs
Joe. Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 Dear me. Sometimes I wonder if people actually watch Leicester City play. What's Clapham possible done wrong since he's been here? He's been very steady for me, what we needed really. And he's much more reassured than Mattock who was just too inexperienced. Clapham offers us experience and generally solid play.
Guest shearfox Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 Clapham is not crap he has been pretty solid in every game he has played, i can't think why anyone will say otherwise
MikeyT Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 is it just me or is this bloke crap.Mattock is much better player .ive seen clapham play all of his games he has been woeful in all of them . does anyone agree? I dont agree with you one bit. I think he's been very decent since he's been here and if he continues to play how he has been, i dont see how Ollie can't offer him at least a 1 year contract at the end of this season. Yes i think Mattock is a good player, but he's not even close to becoming the finished article yet, but in time he will be a very good player, he's still only 17 . I just dont think he's quite ready yet to be playing all the time, he's very lightweight and to me gets knocked of the ball far to easy. I think Clapham will definitely help bring him on! Clapham is not crap he has been pretty solid in every game he has played, i can't think why anyone will say otherwise
Chromophobia Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 he's good for a team that has no ambition and is happy to just be a mediocre champ team, makes you wonder why holloway signed him really..
Guest Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 he's good for a team that has no ambition and is happy to just be a mediocre champ team, makes you wonder why holloway signed him really.. He's only signed til the end of the season and he was signed to do a provide some experience at the left back role whilst Joe Mattock continues to develop
danny. Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 I think he's been really solid, only seen the home games but can't fault him at all.
MikeyT Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 he's good for a team that has no ambition and is happy to just be a mediocre champ team, makes you wonder why holloway signed him really.. So in your eyes has Clapham actually done anything wrong then up to this point in his career with us? As far as i can tell he's done a very decent job for us...cant understand why SOME people are getting on his back!
Chromophobia Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 It was an uninspiring signing for such a supposedly ambitious team I thought. Regardless of how psollyd he's been.
Joe. Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 Who else are we expected to get? Roberto Carlos?
MPH Posted 28 February 2008 Posted 28 February 2008 It was an uninspiring signing for such a supposedly ambitious team I thought. Regardless of how psollyd he's been. i think considering the position in the table we are in and who he needs to cover for then it seems to me to be as good a signing as we could get. If we couldnt get Scott sinclair becayse we are ' not good enough' then i would be suprised if there were other players our ambition would of wanted us to get that our league position wouldnt alow us to get. Better defender than Mattock and experienced so Mattock can only learn from players like him and be better equipped for next season!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.