ian_marshall Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 According to Sky Sports KG has signed for the Posh on loan. Source: http://www.skysports.com/football/transfer...0,14896,00.html Shame really as I thought he would have been a good replacement for Neilson.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 For once Posh have signed a good player, he'll be the best defender in their squad. I dont think he could play for them today though which is a shame as I'm seeing them vs Derby this afternoon. EDIT: Just seen he can play today which is great news for them.
lildave3 Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 Not too surprised, if Pearson really wanted him I still think he could have got him in the summer.
Jimmy Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 no big loss, he never really impressed when on loan at this level in the past, he's no doubt improved and would be a better attacking option then Neilson but with Gradel's return imminent we might finally play with genuine width on that side
boo Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 no big loss, he never really impressed when on loan at this level in the past, he's no doubt improved and would be a better attacking option then Neilson but with Gradel's return imminent we might finally play with genuine width on that side No loss ? I did not know Gradel could play right back Neilson has been a disastrous signing, Gilbert is a mile better in every department. Which kinda prove's the lack of money thing I think MM is blustering about money being available and the Beckham comments, IMO he is simply trying to keep City fans "Sweet" and on his side, before his up coming court case, that's how I read it anyway.
Jimmy Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 where did I say he could? I said he'd provide natural width
MPH Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 we really do need a better option that nielsen at RB
jimmer Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 we really do need a better option that nielsen at RB I agree, he's had a few steady games but generally he's been way below the standard required for a promotion push. The jury time is starting to run out for me.
Stuliasz Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 I really don't understand the eagerness of most for Gilbert to return. He was average at best last season and one of the few players who constantly came in for criticism by City fans, not the least on here. A league higher, I fail to see how people could guarantee that he would be any better than the admittedly mediocre Neilson.
jimmer Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 I'm glad we have Morrison who has looked more than comfortable in the RB position. He really is my number one choice in that position at the mo.
boo Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 where did I say he could? I said he'd provide natural width You implied that the return of Gradel, will somehow imrove Neilson position in the team, THATS CRAP!!!!! and you know it. <_<
Finnegan Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 I really don't understand the eagerness of most for Gilbert to return. He was average at best last season and one of the few players who constantly came in for criticism by City fans, not the least on here. A league higher, I fail to see how people could guarantee that he would be any better than the admittedly mediocre Neilson. Spot on. He has pace but there's more than that to defending. Whether or not he has genuine potential is another matter but, while I'm sure I might get shot to pieces for this opinion, I'd have a little more faith in Neilson's experience and positioning in a defensive sense than Gilbert's. There's more to being a full back than attacking, much more. We only notice Neilson's obvious lack of ball skills because he's forced into using them so much by the utter absense of our supposed captain.
boo Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 Spot on. He has pace but there's more than that to defending.Whether or not he has genuine potential is another matter but, while I'm sure I might get shot to pieces for this opinion, I'd have a little more faith in Neilson's experience and positioning in a defensive sense than Gilbert's. There's more to being a full back than attacking, much more. We only notice Neilson's obvious lack of ball skills because he's forced into using them so much by the utter absense of our supposed captain. Yer and his lack of pace, distribution, crap throw in's and the rest, but you carn't blame him for this, has to be the captains fault... Why not the manager, he signed him ?
Cat Burger Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 You implied that the return of Gradel, will somehow imrove Neilson position in the team, THATS CRAP!!!!!and you know it. <_< Oakley tucks in and leaves more space down the right for opposition left backs to bomb on. Gradel would keep natural width and shape in the position leaving Neilson better protected. It's a point of view that has been expressed on here before, not as a way of championing Gradel's cause necessarily but addressing Oakley's weakness. Not crap.
Joe. Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 Not too surprised, if Pearson really wanted him I still think he could have got him in the summer. Exactly. He obviously didn't do enough to impress him in his time here, else he'd be in our squad right now. Everybody just needs to stop crying and admit that Robbie is king.
Matt Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 Gutted, was hoping we would turn to Gilbert to replace that sweaty sock! Gilbert > Neilson.
lcfcsnow Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 Gutted, was hoping we would turn to Gilbert to replace that sweaty sock!Gilbert > Neilson. Exodus Geohagon > Neilson.
Jimmy Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 You implied that the return of Gradel, will somehow imrove Neilson position in the team, THATS CRAP!!!!!and you know it. <_< how is it, Neilson struggles when you ask him to go forward, he also gets isolated by having Oakley vanish into central midfield so having a right winger in front helps in both defence and attack
boo Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 how is it, Neilson struggles when you ask him to go forward, he also gets isolated by having Oakley vanish into central midfield so having a right winger in front helps in both defence and attack NO!!! Neilson makes no attempt to pass to a fellow team mate ? just booms the ball aimlessly down the line, (Cos he's quality SH#TE) it's Oakleys fault neilson has no pace or quality ? I really hope we NEVER see Neilson in a City shirt again. But then again SH#TE floats.
Jimmy Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 seriously you twat open your eyes Neilson doesnt another player withing 20 yards of him most of the time so his ONLY option is to try a long ball, having a right winger, that actually stays wide, gives him a simple out ball, which he was more then capable of play on the rare occasion we actually had 1 this season
The Doctor Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 Yer and his lack of pace, distribution, crap throw in's and the rest, but you carn't blame him for this, has to be the captains fault clearly you don't understand what a defender is meant to do. A defender is meant to DEFEND his goal (the clue is in the name), win the ball and pass short to someone who can play. Now how is he meant to do that when oakley goes missing from the right wing leaving him two on one with no-one he can pass to.
boo Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 seriously you twat open your eyes Neilson doesnt another player withing 20 yards of him most of the time so his ONLY option is to try a long ball, having a right winger, that actually stays wide, gives him a simple out ball, which he was more then capable of play on the rare occasion we actually had 1 this season Oh so you know all about the tactics that we should be employing against teams??? "Mr Pearson Sir, it's Not Neilson's fault, its everybody else in the team" Listen take some advise, stop trying to be a tactical smart arse, (YOUR NOT) it won't matter cos hopefully the penny has already dropped with Pearson and you won't seeing your girlfriend Neilson, in a City shirt again.
boo Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 clearly you don't understand what a defender is meant to do. A defender is meant to DEFEND his goal (the clue is in the name), win the ball and pass short to someone who can play. Now how is he meant to do that when oakley goes missing from the right wing leaving him two on one with no-one he can pass to. Bet your an 18 stone fuk wit who has never even played the game... (Large Al ) about right I have, to a better standard than you pal!!!.. Where did I play ? Glad you asked (Right Back) yer (Right Back)
The Doctor Posted 16 January 2010 Posted 16 January 2010 Bet your an 18 stone fuk wit who has never even played the game... (Large Al ) about right I have, to a better standard than you pal!!!.. Where did I play ? Glad you asked (Right Back) yer (Right Back) way off. 13 stone and i play keeper every thursday afternoon (not in recent month due to frozen pitches but still). i didn't ask did i. But if you did play right back i'm guessing it was sunday league where you were so drunk from the night before that you could hardly move let alone remember how to play your position so re-remembered that position as a right winger rather than right back.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.