• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Jermaine Defoe - Poorest signing in recent memory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Morny said:
:lol: as I've said, I expect it'll always get bumped when he scores and that's fair play, I'd do the same if roles were reversed.

I'm aware that most people haven't read my rational, or don't understand it and again, fair enough.

I'll stand by my view at the time - he looked like a signing we had no idea how to fit in, on huge money, and making minimal impact.

Christ, until two matches ago, the above was still correct. If over the next month or so, we show we can consistently work with him in the team in that role, I'll concede I was wrong.

Until then, I'll take the shite (and it's worth remembering, I bumped it myself after the Villa match :lol:)
Click to expand...
What the fuck man ?!
 

Morny said:
The first one - no. It was ott, like the title. He's been a bad signing though and represents the lack of clear thinking and planning at the club. That we (might) have found a way to work with him now doesn't change that it was a signing made without any thought, which was what a director of football was meant to be all about.

The second - yes. His career goal record is alright, nothing particularly special and he's rarely had a truly special season (I think there's one standout for Tottenham, maybes 09/10). And he is past that best. A good couple of games doesn't change that. He's always been a player who hits streaks and scores in clusters.
Click to expand...

I agreed somewhat with you originally - thought it was a short-sighted signing that showed the club's complete lack of long-term planning.

In a sense, I still do think that. It just so happens that, for once, a gamble we've taken has paid off.

Think you're being a bit daft trying to downplay his record - it's top drawer. Think the fear was that we were signing a bloke who was winding down and wouldn't keep scoring goals as he previously had. A year on, he still has it. I'm happy to have been proven wrong on that front.
 
Morny said:
:lol: as I've said, I expect it'll always get bumped when he scores and that's fair play, I'd do the same if roles were reversed.

I'm aware that most people haven't read my rational, or don't understand it and again, fair enough.

I'll stand by my view at the time - he looked like a signing we had no idea how to fit in, on huge money, and making minimal impact.

Christ, until two matches ago, the above was still correct. If over the next month or so, we show we can consistently work with him in the team in that role, I'll concede I was wrong.

Until then, I'll take the shite (and it's worth remembering, I bumped it myself after the Villa match :lol:)
Click to expand...

Your main argument, as I understand it, is that there was no clear planning with regard to signing Defoe and it's a fluke that he now seems to have a manager who has adapted the system to fit him.

Am I to take it that you'd rather we sign shite strikers who fit the system than a proven goalscorer who scores goals regardless?

(Please, man, back down. When you're trying to convince people who've put up with more than their fair share of strikers who can't score that one who can is a BAD signing, you're on a hiding to nothing.)
 
The OP should be happy with weekly bumping. If I started a thread stating Sunderland were shit every week and it was bumped 38 times over the season I would be over the moon!

Long may the bumping continue!
 
Monty Pigeon said:
Your main argument, as I understand it, is that there was no clear planning with regard to signing Defoe and it's a fluke that he now seems to have a manager who has adapted the system to fit him.

Am I to take it that you'd rather we sign shite strikers who fit the system than a proven goalscorer who scores goals regardless?

(Please, man, back down. When you're trying to convince people who've put up with more than their fair share of strikers who can't score that one who can is a BAD signing, you're on a hiding to nothing.)
Click to expand...

In fairness, there wasn't. But fair play to Congerton/Poyet/whomever brokered it - he's been better than most of the signings where we did actually have a plan :lol:
 
Morny said:
Controversial view, but his signing has been a disaster.

Not so much as a player: despite being four years past his (pretty average) best, he's still our best goalscorer and an alright player.

But he turned Poyet's grinding, but solid, team into a complete shambles as Gus fannied about trying to find a way to accommodate him in the side. Convinced if he hadn't signed, we would have ground out a dull survival, Poyet would still be manager and we'd be moving on with a actual philosophy and at least trying to play good football.

Even after Poyet, Advocaat was at a complete loss how to us him, and now Allardyce his.

He's on unspeakable wages, until he's about 63, and three managers in a row have basically admitted there's no way to fit him into our side.

A genuinely, catastrophically awful signing, which we didn't need and didn't fit, which is the biggest shambles of the whole Congerton era of awfulness.
Click to expand...

Morny, you look so cool too. f***ing embarrassing.
 
Morny said:
Well it's not - if a signing disrupts the team, as he done, it's a poor signing. Until the new year, his impact has been negligible tbf; last two games he's been spot on and hopefully it means Allardyce has found a way to play, rather than hitting the kind of hot streak he always has in his career. If it lasts and we continue benefiting like so, then I'll hold my hands up and say he's turned out to be a good one.

Unlike many on here, I'm not going to change my whole opinion on the back of two games.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you didn't think he hasn't been good since he arrived but different strokes I guess. I've felt he's been spot on attitude-wise and turning in good performances since he arrived.

(I thought he'd be a bad signing as under Poyet I didn't think we weren't playing in a way that would work for him.)
 
Monty Pigeon said:
Could do with some Van Aanholt threads being revived. The shite the poor lad took at the start of the season wasn't exactly designed to fill the lad with confidence. Tonight he was our best player.
Click to expand...

I swear people on this board have short-term memory issues :lol:
 
5 goals in January. He's won us 6 points so far

But yeah. Shit signing, we should have stuck with Fat Dan and the rickshaw spitter
 
JimmyQuinn said:
I agreed somewhat with you originally - thought it was a short-sighted signing that showed the club's complete lack of long-term planning.

In a sense, I still do think that. It just so happens that, for once, a gamble we've taken has paid off.

Think you're being a bit daft trying to downplay his record - it's top drawer. Think the fear was that we were signing a bloke who was winding down and wouldn't keep scoring goals as he previously had. A year on, he still has it. I'm happy to have been proven wrong on that front.
Click to expand...

That's it. It showed no planning, and until the last couple of games the impact has been negligible. At the time of the thread, it was a very, very valid point (wrapped up in ott stuff from me).

He scored eight league goals in a year, which isn't a great deal considering were meant to be paying him an awful lot until he's 36, and we couldn't figure out how to get him in the team. If that's all changed, and it's somehow worked out and we can function with him in and scoring goals, then great, I'll hold my hands up. I'm just reserving judgement until I've seen it last a bit longer.

And I don't think his goal record is anything flash, if I'm honest and that's not just as part of my argument or whatever. He's definitely always been a streaky player (e.g. whereas Bent was very much one goal every game, Defoe is barren spell then big cluster of goals then barren spell) and I looked up his goal record months ago and there was one class act season, and the rest were decent but nothing really stand out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top