GingerrrFox Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 Danns gets such a bad rep from our fans. He was our best midfielder season before last and before last season he was being touted in the captaincy debate with Wes.
Jimmy Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 Danns gets such a bad rep from our fans. He was our best midfielder season before last and before last season he was being touted in the captaincy debate with Wes. he's the anti-Waghorn, not matter how many chances he doesn't take people still want Waggy and Danns despite good performances when given a run isn't wanted
Guest Col city fan Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 Who actually rates him? Me... He started last season very very well. Then he went off the boil ( reason still unanswered) as did most of them. That don't make him a bad player, cos he ain't.
Guest Col city fan Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 Exactly what Chloe says here, Drinkwater was a stand out player for us last season! Coupled with the fact we only had 3 cm's and James/ king got injured and he ended up playing 90 mins 3 times a week some weeks. Think is managed correctly and with James and king both staying fully fit him and James will have a cracking season! Good post. It's so like this some on this forum to judge a player on his last series of games. Earlier on in the season, Drinkwater was the fulcrum of a midfield that was winning games for fun. Nobody was saying THEN that he was rubbish.
Leeds Fox Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 *first post alert* In my opinion, Drinkwater is a much better footballer than Danns. Playing Danns is a risk, one or two rash challenges, or being out of position after un-necessarily chasing the ball, rather than hold his position can cost us a goal. I don't see this in Drinky's game, he's steady. Maybe that's not what you want going for promotion, but he's definitely good enough. Whether he's willing to sit on the bench for his chance, which will come as King/James will enevitably pick up knocks or get fatigued.
GingerrrFox Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 I think Nigel might seriously be considering 3-5-2 this season and James and King are ahead of Drinkwater so he won't get much game time. With academy lads coming through for depth I reckon Nigel is thinking he can save the money for elsewhere.
GorlestonFox Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 *first post alert* In my opinion, Drinkwater is a much better footballer than Danns. Playing Danns is a risk, one or two rash challenges, or being out of position after un-necessarily chasing the ball, rather than hold his position can cost us a goal. I don't see this in Drinky's game, he's steady. Maybe that's not what you want going for promotion, but he's definitely good enough. Whether he's willing to sit on the bench for his chance, which will come as King/James will enevitably pick up knocks or get fatigued. Welcome!
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 Danns gets such a bad rep from our fans. He was our best midfielder season before last and before last season he was being touted in the captaincy debate with Wes. That's like saying he's your favourite member of Al-Qaeda. I think if I'd have slapped a pair of Puma Kings on I could've been our best midfielder that season, though I think your comment does a disservice to Ben Marshall, who after signing in January '12, did more in a few months than Danns did in 11/12's entirety. I've never, ever been one to scapegoat, I'm a glass half full chap and I'd love for him to prove me wrong - but I can't erase that 'performance' against Burton from my mind. The worst central midfield showing I've ever seen from a City player, made more embarrassing considering the wonga he's on and the opposition being faced. I've never seen such a bad touch from a professional footballer in my life. he's the anti-Waghorn, not matter how many chances he doesn't take people still want Waggy and Danns despite good performances when given a run isn't wanted ...Before that run comes to an abrupt holt when he flings himself recklessly into a tackle and gets either a) injured or b) sent off. He's not worth the wage and seems more interested in shameless self-promotion or selling phone apps than showing why he's worth what we're paying. I can only recall a period of three/four games (before he crippled himself against Hull at home in 11/12) where he looked like the player that was so well regarded before he signed for us. He's adequate, and unfortunately adequate isn't quite the return you want when you're shelling out extortionate amounts and you're gunning for promotion. James, King, and indeed Drinkwater - have all showed more facets to their game than Danns, and that's despite that diabolical run from February onwards.
Leicester_Numan Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 How exactly is he on the wind up? His opinion is as valid as anyone else's.Or just as equally invalid
Fox92 Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 *first post alert* In my opinion, Drinkwater is a much better footballer than Danns. Playing Danns is a risk, one or two rash challenges, or being out of position after un-necessarily chasing the ball, rather than hold his position can cost us a goal. I don't see this in Drinky's game, he's steady. Maybe that's not what you want going for promotion, but he's definitely good enough. Whether he's willing to sit on the bench for his chance, which will come as King/James will enevitably pick up knocks or get fatigued. Good first post, I agree with that.
Fox42 Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 Two words..... Pearson's son Danny's the experimental type
kingfox Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 What if we keep him, and James and King do get injured, and he comes in, and our form dips, with him in the team. People will then moan. Either one of him or Danns has to go, and wages wise it has to be Danns. I would only keep Drinkwater as back up, but if he plays I wouldn't be confident unless he starts to show his form from early last season. I've said it many times, he is too negative and inconsistent for my liking, and lacks that bit of toughness, that King and James had been showing in the last two months of last season.
GingerrrFox Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 What if we keep him, and James and King do get injured, and he comes in, and our form dips, with him in the team. People will then moan. Either one of him or Danns has to go, and wages wise it has to be Danns. I would only keep Drinkwater as back up, but if he plays I wouldn't be confident unless he starts to show his form from early last season. I've said it many times, he is too negative and inconsistent for my liking, and lacks that bit of toughness, that King and James had been showing in the last two months of last season. Hear what you are saying but personally I would keep Danns as he offers something different to what we already have. James/Drinkwater are too similar for me and you could even say King too.
Grewks Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 If we did play a 3-5-2 then Drinky could play a key role in the engine room. He isn't that effective in a 4-4-2 but i am sure he would be much better in a 3/5 man midfield.
LCFC FOX Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 first half of last season Drinkwater was better than James and we were on fire and even reached top. Second half of the season James was better than Drinkwater but we started a terrible run and even went out of the playoffs. Drinkwater was more key for us last season than James IMO
The Year Of The Fox Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 I don't dislike Drinkwater at all, he can be quality when he's on his game. But if fit it's King and James everytime for me. I don't dislike Danns either. If Danns can replicate his form against Derby away 2 seasons ago as it was now then he's absolutely quality. My point being if Danns is on his game I'd probably have him over Drinkwater.
Bert Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 Dunno why people are moaning about a 3-5-2, we had our most successful years using that formation.
nlukka Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 I'm surprised that Drinkwater has fallen out of favour so suddenly. His form did suffer in the last third of the season, but he wasn't alone in that. For the majority of last year he played well and was a key part of our team. We only had 3 CM's that were ever in contention last season and given that Matty James was injured for large parts of the season, Drinkwater ended up playing almost every game. I think it was probably too much football for him. But I still don't understand why that means he should be surplus to requirements. He can't be on massive wages, he's still young and can undoubtedly improve. It begs the question as to whether he has a bad attitude or something along those lines because I can't see why else he'd be told that he can leave.
Fox42 Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 In all seriousness now, surely we shouldn't offload Drinkwater without having a replacement ready? We only have 20 or so players and, frankly, he's a key one.
5waller5 Posted 13 July 2013 Posted 13 July 2013 Danns gets such a bad rep from our fans. He was our best midfielder season before last and before last season he was being touted in the captaincy debate with Wes. This. he's the anti-Waghorn, not matter how many chances he doesn't take people still want Waggy and Danns despite good performances when given a run isn't wanted This.
Dickov22 Posted 14 July 2013 Posted 14 July 2013 He was quality last season up until we turned terrible. Aug-Feb I'd say Drinkwater, Wes and De Laet were my top 3 players. Don't believe for a second he's available for transfer. Young player, who will get better
Happy Fox Posted 14 July 2013 Posted 14 July 2013 He was quality last season up until we turned terrible. Aug-Feb I'd say Drinkwater, Wes and De Laet were my top 3 players. Don't believe for a second he's available for transfer. Young player, who will get better Then why wasn't he playing at Leamington alongside Wellens? He isn't injured as far as I am aware.
Grewks Posted 14 July 2013 Posted 14 July 2013 Then why wasn't he playing at Leamington alongside Wellens? He isn't injured as far as I am aware. a - maybe he is injured.... b - maybe he returned late due to personal reasons.... c - maybe his fitness levels are not yet up to scratch..... There could be many more reasons....
Babylon Posted 14 July 2013 Posted 14 July 2013 What if we keep him, and James and King do get injured, and he comes in, and our form dips, with him in the team. Right so that's a reason to get rid? You may not have noticed but we've been utter gash in the team with King playing in the centre many many a time. If you want to blot out from your memory that he actually played rather well for a fairly big chunk of the season that's up to you. But to keep grasping at a couple of games towards the end of the season when King actually turned up, when he's was inconsistent as Drinkwater for the most part it's a bit hypocritical.
LCFC1991 Posted 14 July 2013 Posted 14 July 2013 Drink water is a good squad member, in a rotational midfield of king James DD and maybe danns I think he will play a lot more consistent, given he won't be playing every game for the full 90. Hopefully stays.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.