Reece James leaving by all accounts.

Perryqhill said:
So you are actually just saying we dropped off when James was injured? Are you serious? James played up till 31st March.

The stat for the draws was simply pointing out how many draws we'd been involved in by that point and that he was playing up till April and we'd largely been even more turgid, but relying quite heavily on the likes of McGeady. Some of the draws James was involved in were against Accrington, Oxford, Scunthorpe, Blackpool, Walsall, Wycombe and some were at home.

The fact that McGeady was injured in the same period our form dropped off in early April and was withdrawn on 45 minutes of the Accrington game you mention, wasn't fit for the Rochdale you mention (the first one we got beat after James getting injured against Pompey) game three days later and not enough to start against Coventry or really have anymore impact last season, has that escaped your attention? Has it really not? Our form suddenly drops off massively from the Accrington game which we strolled when our best player gets injured and obviously it's down to one of the poorest left backs we've seen at SAFC not being available? Jesus f***ing wept.



Do you not see where the problem of 60k a week wages (or whatever he was on before the reduction) started then?

Not such a fall from grace when you look at his career path in England.
Click to expand...

His wages have nothing to do with his inability to stand out for us when playing in the third division of English football which is my point
 


samaistonsrightfoot said:
Yes, McGeady not playing was why the defence fell to pieces as soon as Oviedo started playing again.

James injury resulted in Oviedo getting back in the side.

Jesus f***ing wept.
Click to expand...

The team fell apart after playing a large amount of games in quick succession, which directly co-incided with McGeady's injury they were noticeably knackered against Coventry, it was pretty obvious to anyone. It did not directly co-incide with Oviedo coming back in.

We couldn't score goals as often and didn't have the same attacking outlet without McGeady. It led to us scoring less frequently and sitting back more as we couldn't get out as easily and didn't have enough to trouble the opposition often enough.

Oviedo came back into the side against Rochdale when it was 1-1 and we went onto win, he played a third of the game. Hume played in the game against Southend and we got beat there too conceding two without Oviedo, just as we'd conceded two in James last game.

Based on their last five games last season (given Hume barely played late on):

James conceded 5 goals
Hume conceded 6 goals
Oviedo conceded 3 goals

Based on Oviedo and James last ten games:

James: 10 goals conceded
Oviedo: 15 goals conceded

The Coventry game was a freak result. If you look back the entirely of last season we only conceded more than 1 goal with Oviedo in the side 7 times. With James it was 7 times also. In the games where we conceded more than one goal:

Oviedo: Peterborough, Burton, Walsall (subbed off 49mins), Barnsley (89th min sub), Coventry, Fleetwood, Charlton
James: Sheff Wed, Peterborough(70th min sub), Walsall, Barnsley, Accrington, Gillingham, Portsmouth

Again In terms of minutes on the pitch or quality of opposition there's nothing to back up what you say and seperate them statistically and defensively. Statistically at any point during the season what you're saying about the defence falling apart when Oviedo returned isn't backed up.

Putting our dodgy period down to James being out is pure madness, seriously.
 
Last edited:
Mackem00 said:
If McGeady and Maguire played in the same position and the vastly higher paid one wasn't really contributing then aye, id have a problem. Thankfully McGeady contributes a hell of a lot so that situation hasn't arisen.

Bizarre comparison tbh.

No one has said it's a simple mathematic equation either. Oviedo has been a disaster of a signing all things considered.
Click to expand...


You judge them on the pitch, not against their wages. Oviedo is superior to James, you're now having to back track to validate your comment on wages and suggest that Oviedo isn't contributing where before you were saying (which I disagreed with) there was little difference between them.
 
Perryqhill said:
You judge them on the pitch, not against their wages. Oviedo is superior to James, you're now having to back track to validate your comment on wages and suggest that Oviedo isn't contributing where before you were saying (which I disagreed with) there was little difference between them.
Click to expand...
rightly or worngly though-james would probably have been third choice going into this season?
 
kildaremackem said:
rightly or worngly though-james would probably have been third choice going into this season?
Click to expand...

Probably. TBH the way things have gone over the last season we'll let Oviedo go because of his wages if we can and we've been actively trying to shift him anyway.

It then speaks volumes we've let James go, despite him having signed a new deal, when there's still a good chance Oviedo will go.
 
sksk3021 said:
Would he? Even if true that assumes Oviedo stays.
Click to expand...
well yes that was obviously assuming oviedo stays-which he may not.
we dont need three-we just gave hume a new contract..did we do that for a kid to be third choice?

Perryqhill said:
Probably. TBH the way things have gone over the last season we'll let Oviedo go because of his wages if we can and we've been actively trying to shift him anyway.

It then speaks volumes we've let James go, despite him having signed a new deal, when there's still a good chance Oviedo will go.
Click to expand...
because hume is first choice and a reserve full bck is easy to come by?
 
Perryqhill said:
Probably. TBH the way things have gone over the last season we'll let Oviedo go because of his wages IF we can and we've been actively trying to shift him anyway.

It then speaks volumes we've let James go, despite him having signed a new deal, when there's still a good chance Oviedo will go.
Click to expand...
:lol: :lol:
 
kildaremackem said:
well yes that was obviously assuming oviedo stays-which he may not.
we dont need three-we just gave hume a new contract..did we do that for a kid to be third choice?


because hume is first choice and a reserve full bck is easy to come by?
Click to expand...
No idea, Hume has a history of injuries and tbh it’s at least doubtful he is good enough.
It’s another at least one maybe two signings required, we could end up needing to sign a lot of players again and the longer the takeover drags on the less time we have to do it.
 
Mackem00 said:
Oviedo offers very little more offensively and is poor defensively so would rather he goes if there was a choice. People seem to refer to the Oviedo of 4 years ago instead of the one we are stuck with today. Bit strange really.
Click to expand...

I agree. Him coming back into the team seemed to make us worse defensively.
I really hope we get shot of him this summer.
 
sksk3021 said:
No idea, Hume has a history of injuries and tbh it’s at least doubtful he is good enough.
It’s another at least one maybe two signings required, we could end up needing to sign a lot of players again and the longer the takeover drags on the less time we have to do it.
Click to expand...
if hume is injury prone and its cdoubtful he is good enough for league one-why was their clamour on here to get him signed to a new deal?
 
rapscallion said:
:lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Don't know what's funny. We were prepared to subsidise some of them to get him on loan at West Brom. Given he's now got a year left and because we're more or less paid up on his transfer fee we'd probably be willing to take a hit to get 40k a week off the wage bill, so a nominal fee going straight to B.O. as a loyalty bonus/signing on fee and reduced wages over a longer term as a result at his new club isn't out of the question. Unless he wants to sit it out and chance his arm on a bosman, where after another season he'd maybe not get the same security and as good a move.
 
Last edited:
Perryqhill said:
Don't know what's funny. We were prepared to subsidise some of them to get him on loan at West Brom. Given he's now got a year left and because we're more or less paid up on his transfer fee we'd probably be willing to take a hit to get 40k a week off the wage bill, so a nominal fee going straight to B.O. and reduced wages over a longer term as a result at his new club isn't out of the question. Unless he wants to sit it out and chance his arm on a bosman, where after another season he'd maybe not get the same security and as good a move.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you what's funny; except for yourself: B-O will not leave until his contract is annuled.
 
sksk3021 said:
I think it’s reasonable to want a young player on the verge of the first team to be given a contract.
Click to expand...
it is-if he is seen as competing for a first team place-ie if he is somehting more than third choice..but third choice full backs who are 2 1 years old and good enough to be third chocie in keague one are not going to be hard to come by..so i would want him better than that to get a contract-he may well be.
 

Back
Top