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

Batth to Norwich ** confirmed **


Perryqhill said:
They haven't invested heavily though and we dont have five experienced centre backs- Seelt yes, Triantis was buttons. I can see the club wanting to put some faith into Seelt and given the clubs looking at him previously you can expect him to be one of four centre halves fighting for a start.

But he's played about 40 games over a couple of seasons for PSV reserves - coming to a country and the need for him being given time and protection to adapt shouldn't be underestimated.

As for Triantis he's a speculative punt having played about 25 senior games I Aus. Coming on from such a low level he'd likely be best going out on loan in January.

On paper we might have 4 centre backs, but the reality is we've seen last season how an injury or two can decimate what 'on paper' looks like. We have one senior centre back who is 24. Then a utility player who is there to aid our play from the back- the two others are both 20 in new countries and their senior experience is questionable.


Keeping Batth till January would have mitigated any injuries and given lads a chance to adapt.
Click to expand...
You need to make tough decisions at times to keep the club moving forward. Baath, for his part, will be quite happy with his pay day. You're honestly saying that Baath was a better bet in our system then O'Nien even though he's not half as good a ball player as him? Baffling. O'Nien's been doing a remarkable job in the circumstances,sticking largely to his defensive duties admirably, helping us out in midfield and with the odd upfield thrust, which Baath could never have been trusted to carry out. To my knowledge he's been partly responsible for one goal Apart from that, he provides us with energy, passion and dynamism which is clearly rubbing off on some of the less experieced members of the squad. His overall positivity and determination can surely only be good for the teamand the future development of the youngsters. The same could be said of the inexpugnable Pritchard.
 
Batth was a solid signing . So is Dan Ballard who seems to be reaching another level alongside 09.
"6ft 2.... eyes of blue. big Dan Ballards after you" " with a nick nack paddy wack , give the dog a bone. " Why dont Watford eff off home" .
Dan ballard new song ?
 
Medulla said:
It's a really curious one. There's a few theories of why he left. One is for game time, but he's played 1 minute this season for Norwich. Another is contract length but he had a guaranteed one year with them. The other theory was to be closer to where he's from, but he's not.

The only thing I can think is he feels that he's more likely to fight his way into the team there than here. I find it hard to believe we'd not give him a 12 month contract even at 33.
Click to expand...
My guess is the was on good money and they would prefer to get two younger players on less.
 
Nil desperandum said:
You need to make tough decisions at times to keep the club moving forward. Baath, for his part, will be quite happy with his pay day. You're honestly saying that Baath was a better bet in our system then O'Nien even though he's not half as good a ball player as him? Baffling. O'Nien's been doing a remarkable job in the circumstances,sticking largely to his defensive duties admirably, helping us out in midfield and with the odd upfield thrust, which Baath could never have been trusted to carry out. To my knowledge he's been partly responsible for one goal Apart from that, he provides us with energy, passion and dynamism which is clearly rubbing off on some of the less experieced members of the squad. His overall positivity and determination can surely only be good for the teamand the future development of the youngsters. The same could be said of the inexpugnable Pritchard.
Click to expand...
Top marks for being (probably) the first on the SMB to use the word 'inexpugnable'.
Slightly blemished by missing a space between 'team' and 'and'
 
Coeus said:
Have we got to the point where the majority have realised the outrage regarding last seasons player of the year not playing was silly yet?
Click to expand...
I still feel like our weakness is high balls into the box because we are missing that aerial ability that danny batth and ross stewart have to win anything in the air.

I also feel like with hume now playing that sweeping into DM role it would really mitigate this idea that danny batth can't pass more than two yards.

We've been exceptional this season of course and im very happy to see our form, but I don't think getting rid of danny batth has played some kind of revolutionary part in it
 
dcl0sc said:
It was silly getting rid of him. He was very experienced and formed a great partnership with Dan Ballard.
Click to expand...

I disagree, seemed logical to try and improve upon him, Gooch and Pritchard. Had we not let him go it would have been pointless buying Triantis and to a certain degree Seelt.
Twisted said:
I still feel like our weakness is high balls into the box because we are missing that aerial ability that danny batth and ross stewart have to win anything in the air.

I also feel like with hume now playing that sweeping into DM role it would really mitigate this idea that danny batth can't pass more than two yards.

We've been exceptional this season of course and im very happy to see our form, but I don't think getting rid of danny batth has played some kind of revolutionary part in it
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why anyone would suggest it would be Revolutionary to take him out of the team, he was good at what he did, that much is obvious. It was also restrictive to an extent. Given the context of age, attributes and ability ceiling we have attempted to move forward in increments and form so far suggest we have done that well. Id like to think that once Seelt gets upto speed that will happen again.

The need to hang on to players who have done well for us while understandable only results in standing still or going backwards in the case of players like Batth and co, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Coeus said:
I disagree, seemed logical to try and improve upon him, Gooch and Pritchard. Had we not let him go it would have been pointless buying Triantis and to a certain degree Seelt.


I'm not sure why anyone would suggest it would be Revolutionary to take him out of the team, he was good at what he did, that much is obvious. It was also restrictive to an extent. Given the context of age, attributes and ability ceiling we have attempted to move forward in increments and form so far suggest we have done that well. Id like to think that once Seelt gets upto speed that will happen again.

The need to hang on to players who have done well for us while understandable only results in standing still or going backwards in the case of players like Batth and co, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
TM would have kept him in a heartbeat. If Luke O'Nein gets injured we start seeing issue again. The higher echelons wanted him out.
 
dcl0sc said:
TM would have kept him in a heartbeat. If Luke O'Nein gets injured we start seeing issue again. The higher echelons wanted him out.
Click to expand...

Well im not sure where that has come from, but to be honest, I'm more than happy for the higher echelons to be handling transfers rather than TM.

If L09 gets injured, we'll have to play the lad I imagine the higher echelons want playing. We have plenty of cover at CB.
 
Coeus said:
Well im not sure where that has come from, but to be honest, I'm more than happy for the higher echelons to be handling transfers rather than TM.

If L09 gets injured, we'll have to play the lad I imagine the higher echelons want playing. We have plenty of cover at CB.
Click to expand...
It came from horses mouth, the two new recruits at CB are not ready yet (Seelt probs less so than Triantis), but if he starts playing the inexperienced players and we start losing games it's his head on the block, not the higher echelons. I'm all for the transfer policy but it seems they are not interested in any form of experience. It's a dangerous game.

Hey ho, we are doing OK at the moment and long may it be the case... 😎
 
dcl0sc said:
TM would have kept him in a heartbeat. If Luke O'Nein gets injured we start seeing issue again. The higher echelons wanted him out.
Click to expand...
I’m sure any manager would like to have massive depth.

So far Danny Batth wouldn’t have played a game based on what we’ve seen. I’m not sure he would have made it off the bench.

He’s picked his pairing for this season. Batth wasn’t going to play many games. I would imagine all parties were happy with a move and factored in for SAFC and the player

Game time
Age
Wages
Skill set to play the role
New club with better wages
Contract length
 
dcl0sc said:
It came from horses mouth, the two new recruits at CB are not ready yet (Seelt probs less so than Triantis), but if he starts playing the inexperienced players and we start losing games it's his head on the block, not the higher echelons. I'm all for the transfer policy but it seems they are not interested in any form of experience. It's a dangerous game.

Hey ho, we are doing OK at the moment and long may it be the case... 😎
Click to expand...

Fair enough, which is why in my opinion you shouldn't allow coaches control of transfers or squad composition, financial and long-term decisions shouldn't be made on the basis of their own (a short-term employee) heads being on the block as it naturally leans towards ultra short term however unfair that may seem.
 
Coeus said:
The need to hang on to players who have done well for us while understandable only results in standing still or going backwards in the case of players like Batth and co, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
We just don't agree, i don't think we'd stand still or go backwards by playing batth ahead of 09, i think we'd have a more solid defence and i don't think it would impact on us going forward either.

Basically it's a gamble of short come vs income, similar to selling stewart. We've sold two good players and bought five replacements, hoping that we'll be better off in the long run. IMO we'd unquestionably be better off now with batth and Stewart but we've swapped that to be somewhat worse off now but better in a season or two.

With Stewart im totally onboard, his contract situation and the fee we got for him was topper. Batth i don't agree it was necessary - but as ive said above, we're playing well enough to cover the deficiency
 
dcl0sc said:
It came from horses mouth, the two new recruits at CB are not ready yet (Seelt probs less so than Triantis), but if he starts playing the inexperienced players and we start losing games it's his head on the block, not the higher echelons. I'm all for the transfer policy but it seems they are not interested in any form of experience. It's a dangerous game.

Hey ho, we are doing OK at the moment and long may it be the case... 😎
Click to expand...
in the KLD reign we’ve signed

Winchester
Evans
Pritchard
Batth
Defoe
Dack

You could even argue Roberts was experienced at 24 years old. We also have O’Nien.

To say “we are not interested in any form of experience” is just wrong
 
Last edited:
Blyth said:
I’m sure any manager would like to have massive depth.

So far Danny Batth wouldn’t have played a game based on what we’ve seen. I’m not sure he would have made it off the bench.

He’s picked his pairing for this season. Batth wasn’t going to play many games. I would imagine all parties were happy with a move and factored in for SAFC and the player

Game time
Age
Wages
Skill set to play the role
New club with better wages
Contract length
Click to expand...
I agree with this, i just disagree with the decision that batth shouldn't be a starter. Based on what you say, yes letting him go was the right move for the player
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top