Scow Posted 28 May 2005 Posted 28 May 2005 He wasn't crap last season!!! Alright he didn't set the world on fire but he put in some pretty solid performances in an otherwise dire start to the campaign. I think peoples memories have been playing tricks on them.An expereinced player who doesn't mind being back up in one of our weakest positions for absaloutely peanuts. I can't see why people are complaining. 115672[/snapback] Solid performances? He contributed almost nothing down that left side. He was slow, lethargic, couldn't get past players and his crossing was generally dire. When he was played at left back, he was a liability as he's rarely played there. MA logic: He's played at left back for England once, so he must be good enough. Er, no. Maybe your memory has been playing tricks on you. 115927[/snapback] I think people should put the whole thing into perspective. If we were building a squad for next year on good performances from this season, we'd have a completely new squad because absolutely no one impressed over a period of time. However, Wilcox is being demonised on the basis of his age as much as anything but as was proved with Dion and Les, some old dogs still have life in them. No one expects Wilcox to play a major part in the campaign next time round but you would hope that if he did, Levein would choose him on merit alone. Quite straight forward really, not performing=not playing. If he isn't playing, you would hope that Levein might just have spotted something in his professional approach to the game (look how hard the bloke worked to get back from a serious injury) that might just rub off on some of the others. Bearing in mind he played in a left side that included the boy genius Stewart and the wandering Tiatto, even Ashley Cole would have looked limited. For me, his performance against Sheff Utd was one of the highlights of the season and for that alone he should be given the freedom of the City, a holiday for two in Majorca and two weeks free membership at a Living Well Health Club. 115943[/snapback] That's not strictly true - Wilcox has had a number of serious injury problems over the last 5 years, Dublin and Ferdinand haven't experienced that. I admire the way he's worked his way back from yet another serious injury, but there shouldn't be any sentiment involved when offering him a new contract. Although, I don't expect that to be the case here... 115952[/snapback] If you believe that Levein has used sentiment I think you are well off the mark though if he has he should go. Dublin has had a broken leg and a broken neck and Les' knees were that knackered he couldn't play a full 90 minutes. 116213[/snapback] If you read what I put, I didn't soley suggest that was the reason why Wilcox was given a new deal. I admire the way he's worked his way back from yet another serious injury, but there shouldn't be any sentiment involved when offering him a new contract. Although, I don't expect that to be the case here... As for Dublin and Ferdinand - What they have incurred injury wise isn't really a patch on Wilcox. 116578[/snapback] Never said it was suggested that it was the sole reason but any hint of sentiment is completely wrong. Furthermore, a quick poll in the Hullfox household says that people would much rather suffer cruciate knee damage twice as opposed to breaking their neck ever. 116599[/snapback] How many games has Dublin played compared to Wilcox in the last 5 years? 116669[/snapback] Including sub appearances, Dublin 214, Wilcox 141. Why? 116712[/snapback] You make your own conclusions from that, Mr Hully... [Good bit of research by the way, as I cannae be arsed.]
Scow Posted 29 May 2005 Posted 29 May 2005 Actually, I found myself in the mood to do some research, and you're very wrong, Hully. Nice attempt at guessing though. Wilcox - 61 starts/33 sub = 94 games Dublin - 141 starts/41 sub = 182 games
Hullfox Posted 30 May 2005 Posted 30 May 2005 Actually, I found myself in the mood to do some research, and you're very wrong, Hully. Nice attempt at guessing though.Wilcox - 61 starts/33 sub = 94 games Dublin - 141 starts/41 sub = 182 games 117005[/snapback] No guesswork involved young Jedi. (Not sure how you can be very wrong either, surely it's just wrong or right). We've just looked at a different amount of seasons. I have as instructed made my own conclusions and have decided that you are very wrong!
Scow Posted 30 May 2005 Posted 30 May 2005 Actually, I found myself in the mood to do some research, and you're very wrong, Hully. Nice attempt at guessing though.Wilcox - 61 starts/33 sub = 94 games Dublin - 141 starts/41 sub = 182 games 117005[/snapback] No guesswork involved young Jedi. (Not sure how you can be very wrong either, surely it's just wrong or right). We've just looked at a different amount of seasons. I have as instructed made my own conclusions and have decided that you are very wrong! 117244[/snapback] Even if you include the previous season stats (1999-2000) then Wilcox still would have only made 81 starts, and 36 sub apperances, which would still mean he's only played 115 games, compared to your figure of 141. Hmmm. And you can be 'very' wrong if the figure is way out.
Hullfox Posted 1 June 2005 Posted 1 June 2005 Actually, I found myself in the mood to do some research, and you're very wrong, Hully. Nice attempt at guessing though.Wilcox - 61 starts/33 sub = 94 games Dublin - 141 starts/41 sub = 182 games 117005[/snapback] No guesswork involved young Jedi. (Not sure how you can be very wrong either, surely it's just wrong or right). We've just looked at a different amount of seasons. I have as instructed made my own conclusions and have decided that you are very wrong! 117244[/snapback] Even if you include the previous season stats (1999-2000) then Wilcox still would have only made 81 starts, and 36 sub apperances, which would still mean he's only played 115 games, compared to your figure of 141. Hmmm. And you can be 'very' wrong if the figure is way out. 117382[/snapback] You have missed out the 20 appearances for Blackburn in 99-00. My total should be 131, not 141 granted 04-05 15 apps LCFC 03-04 7 apps LUFC 02-03 33 apps LUFC 01-02 17 apps LUFC 00-01 23 apps LUFC 99-00 26 apps LUFC 99-00 20 apps BRFC If anything, one of his strongest seasons was after his last cruciate ligament op.
Scow Posted 1 June 2005 Posted 1 June 2005 Actually, I found myself in the mood to do some research, and you're very wrong, Hully. Nice attempt at guessing though.Wilcox - 61 starts/33 sub = 94 games Dublin - 141 starts/41 sub = 182 games 117005[/snapback] No guesswork involved young Jedi. (Not sure how you can be very wrong either, surely it's just wrong or right). We've just looked at a different amount of seasons. I have as instructed made my own conclusions and have decided that you are very wrong! 117244[/snapback] Even if you include the previous season stats (1999-2000) then Wilcox still would have only made 81 starts, and 36 sub apperances, which would still mean he's only played 115 games, compared to your figure of 141. Hmmm. And you can be 'very' wrong if the figure is way out. 117382[/snapback] You have missed out the 20 appearances for Blackburn in 99-00. My total should be 131, not 141 granted 04-05 15 apps LCFC 03-04 7 apps LUFC 02-03 33 apps LUFC 01-02 17 apps LUFC 00-01 23 apps LUFC 99-00 26 apps LUFC 99-00 20 apps BRFC If anything, one of his strongest seasons was after his last cruciate ligament op. 118428[/snapback] Technically, as we're only referring to that last 5 years, he left Blackburn in 1999. So even if he had one his strongest seasons after his last cruciate ligament operation, it's not going to help him after having another one, and being a few more years older as well...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.