NLondonTree
Vital Squad Member
Just scored a hat trick in the Olympics. Is this the same guy who turned out for us ???? Surely not
It's not a cautionary tale at all in my opinion.Atlético Madrid are after him as well. I think it’s a cautionary tale about strikers and Forest - we don’t tend to get them enough of the ball for them to showcase their talents. Even very good strikers miss their fair share of good chances - we as fans tend to scrutinise their every miss without asking whether their talents are being utilised to their fullest.
Grabban and Taylor have both been victims of this - neither player has had the optimal structure behind them that would give them the best chance of success. Grabban is an average finisher with great positional sense, but we’ve limited him to playing with his back to goal.
Grabban is an average finisher with great positional sense, but we’ve limited him to playing with his back to goal.
He barely started any games for us.Unfortunately players are labelled as "sh*t" too easily/quickly in my opinion. The days of players getting time to prove themselves rarely exists nowadays. Many Rangers fans were not over impressed with Worral but fortunately we have seen how he has developed into a very good defender.It's not a cautionary tale at all in my opinion.
He was shit and didn't do what we needed him for- score goals. He rarely looked like he ever would, and he offered little or nothing to compensate for that lack.
He wasn't our player anyway, so we were suffering that lack of effectiveness for the benefit of Wolves.
If there are any recriminations about how he is doing now, it is on them; he was their player.
He's a young loan player. The arrangement is entirely transactional; we develop him and give him game time because he gives us something performative in return.He barely started any games for us.Unfortunately players are labelled as "sh*t" too easily/quickly in my opinion. The days of players getting time to prove themselves rarely exists nowadays. Many Rangers fans were not over impressed with Worral but fortunately we have seen how he has developed into a very good defender.
It's small margins though rather than being "s h*t".He played ok initially but missed a couple of chances which if they had gone in would have been labelled differently.By the way,I never said we had to play him but simply stated he is not sh*t just because he failed to score us ... in my opinion.He's a young loan player. The arrangement is entirely transactional; we develop him and give him game time because he gives us something performative in return.
If he's our youngster then we perhaps have some obligation to give him game time to develop even if he isn't really contributing to that.
He wasn't our youngster. We don't need to sit through poor performances or lack of end product to aid his development. Why should we? He's not our player
Mir would have got plenty of minutes if he had performed well or contributed well in the minutes he had. He didn't. Given that, we owed him nothing
I'm not saying he is shit. I'm saying he was shit. Because we needed him to score goals, or to help others to do so more effectively, and he didn't.It's small margins though rather than being "s h*t".He played ok initially but missed a couple of chances which if they had gone in would have been labelled differently.By the way,I never said we had to play him but simply stated he is not sh*t just because he failed to score us ... in my opinion.
He's a young loan player. The arrangement is entirely transactional; we develop him and give him game time because he gives us something performative in return.
If he's our youngster then we perhaps have some obligation to give him game time to develop even if he isn't really contributing to that.
He wasn't our youngster. We don't need to sit through poor performances or lack of end product to aid his development. Why should we? He's not our player
Mir would have got plenty of minutes if he had performed well or contributed well in the minutes he had. He didn't. Given that, we owed him nothing
You haven't understood what transactional means in this context at allyou said no thanks to doig if he was to go to Burnley ot Watford and then be loaned to us. Thats very transactional so why against that move?
He's a young loan player. The arrangement is entirely transactional; we develop him and give him game time because he gives us something performative in return.
If he's our youngster then we perhaps have some obligation to give him game time to develop even if he isn't really contributing to that.
He wasn't our youngster. We don't need to sit through poor performances or lack of end product to aid his development. Why should we? He's not our player
Mir would have got plenty of minutes if he had performed well or contributed well in the minutes he had. He didn't. Given that, we owed him nothing