Danizen Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 It's bollocks to suggest there was a stipulation that we HAD to play Kane. Pearson is just very stubborn (we all know that). Look how long he persisted with Vardy. Pearson got it into his head that Kane was his supersub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerrrFox Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 Personally I would go with Wood, Waghorn, Vardy, Hopper and a new player next season. Get rid of Beckford, Nugent and Futacs. I don't believe that either Beckford or Nugent are worth the money they get each week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Horse's Mouth Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 It's bollocks to suggest there was a stipulation that we HAD to play Kane. Pearson is just very stubborn (we all know that). Look how long he persisted with Vardy. Pearson got it into his head that Kane was his supersub. Yeah true, when I went to the barbecue Pearson ordered a hot dog. Even though his face looked disgusted he was so stubborn he ate the mother****er anyway. What a trooper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob gregory Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 [ Spot on, quote name=Col city fan" post="2638420" timestamp="1371328069] As I said at the time mate IF this is true it shows extremely poor management and a BAD decision. It's stuff like this that the Pearsonites fail to appreciate or conveniently overlook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callabinho Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 I like Waggy, plus he can actually hold the ball up, pound for pound he's possibly one of the strongest attackers in the league, built like a brick house. I think it would be stupid to get rid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Fox Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 Waghorn cannot hit a barn door he has scored a paltry 22 goals in a over 113 championship league games , to suggest we get rid of Nugent is pure and utter stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 I like Waggy, plus he can actually hold the ball up, pound for pound he's possibly one of the strongest attackers in the league, built like a brick house. I think it would be stupid to get rid. £ for £ he's one of the least effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 Wouldn't be surprised if Waggy is actually on a fair wedge himself. Remember he was signed during a period of great exuberance and also sheer desperation. We paid up to £3m for him! One of the worst value for money signings ever. Any half-savvy agent would have took the club for a ride on salary negotiations. Wouldnt be at all surprised if he's on £20k+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog_4 Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 I hope its not another season of Konchesky at left back and Nugent being a first choice striker. They need to become the next danns and beckford and wielded out of the squad. Konchesky plays hoof ball and nugent goes missing for about 5 months out of 9! Not good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanf0x Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 I hope its not another season of Konchesky at left back and Nugent being a first choice striker. They need to become the next danns and beckford and wielded out of the squad. Konchesky plays hoof ball and nugent goes missing for about 5 months out of 9! Not good enough. why is this in the waghorn thread????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suffolk fox Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 It would have been written into Kanes contract when. He signed for us on loan and part of the deal agreed by both clubs that he would have to play x amount of games that would have included coming on as a sub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog_4 Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 because shit players being played ahead of players like Waghorn. Fair enough we've never had another left back to be first choice. But there's no excuses up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 I hope its not another season of Konchesky at left back and Nugent being a first choice striker. They need to become the next danns and beckford and wielded out of the squad. Konchesky plays hoof ball and nugent goes missing for about 5 months out of 9! Not good enough. I agree with Konchesky. Not with Nugent, though. He scored 15 (maybe more) goals again this season. I'd imagine it's quite hard to be a striker because you miss a chance, the fans (some fans) blame you. People fail to see that when we went through our bad spell, for example, we could have had Pele and Bergkamp up front and they won't have had any chances with the service from the midfield. Nugent's hardwork is also an attribute which creates a few chances for us. He isn't going to score goals every month. Look at Charlie Austin, for example. People say, yeah let's get him in instead of Nugent, well he went 'missing' for large parts of the season as well. Waghorn isn't better than Nugent, if that's what you're referring too in the post above this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bettsj2 Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 Typical Pearsonite response... Who cares if its true actually? The FACT is that Kane featured at some point in every game I believe? And he was pants. God knows why Pearson kept playing him. The only conclusion that can be reached is that he had to? If he didn't have to I'm even more perplexed at him featuring. Do try to be balanced and honest in your views. If not its not worth reading.. Didnt come on at home to Bolton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Year Of The Fox Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 He was absolutely brilliant for us before Christmas. The amount of people on here changing their minds about him after that spell of form proved this. Then he gets dropped for Wood and doesn't find a way back in. He should leave. Not because he's crap or any other negative lie about him. But because he is far too good a player in this league to be sat on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicesterisme Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 Waghorn cannot hit a barn door he has scored a paltry 22 goals in a over 113 championship league games , to suggest we get rid of Nugent is pure and utter stupidity. Such a ridiculous thing to say when a lot of them 113 games are 5 and 10 minute spells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PegguyArphexad Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 I genuinely believe, like others on here, that with a little faith and probably moving on Vardy Waghorn could become a very important cog in our strikers wheel. He was unplayable against Derby in that first half. It was an all action display but you can't expect a player who has had little game time to have the match sharpness and confidence to be able to put that performance in week in and out with only 5 minute cameos. He is a good player. You don't lose your natural talent. You do however lose your confidence and touch.I'd keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 I actually think he's better then Nugent. When he gets a run of games he seems to get man of the match. He can take corners,set pieces,hold the ball up and I've never seen Nugent put in the level of performance Waghorn did at home against Derby. Its ok saying a players not good enough when he's rusty and coming on for 5 mins or not at all. For me i'd save some cash and add attacking flair in midfield to help complement a partnership of Waghorn and Wood. what is this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 I cannot believe some people are suggesting we get rid of Nugent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 Where on Earth are you getting these stats from? He scored 3 goals last season (in 28 games and 25 shots), 2 in 11/12 and 4 in 10/11. He's a lovely lad who just isn't very good at football. Bit over the top. He's alright, he's clearly going to make a good career out of it. Be tidy at Champ / League One level, he's just not exactly league winning which is what we're after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Horse's Mouth Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 I cannot believe some people are suggesting we get rid of Nugent. Depends what kinda wage packet he's on. He lacks consistency but would be a big loss for us nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerrrFox Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 If you gave Waghorn a full season up front I think he'd score more goals than Nugent. Obviously I can't prove it but it's my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkyrobot Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 I agree.... I will NEVER get Pearson and the Kane thing. Unless he gets much much much better, it's one of the most perplexing managerial decisions I've seen a City manager take in recent years. For perplexing managerial decisions, Peter Taylor is your man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 If you gave Waghorn a full season up front I think he'd score more goals than Nugent. Obviously I can't prove it but it's my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 16 June 2013 Share Posted 16 June 2013 For perplexing managerial decisions, Peter Taylor is your man! To be fair mate I did say RECENT years... Though I can't argue with you.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.