Patrick Bamford

[blues.bridge 343]

6 minutes ago, DANILA said:

if he couldn't break into a role at CP, why do you guys expect him to play well at cfc?

because teams where players go on loan, them prefer to give more time at your player that give an opportunity to players on loan since isn't a them player!

[DANILA 290]

3 minutes ago, blues.bridge said:

because teams where players go on loan, them prefer to give more time at your player that give an opportunity to players on loan since isn't a them player!

english pls? or russian lol

[The Skipper 20,609]

2 hours ago, DANILA said:

english pls? or russian lol

Let's not take the piss out of someone who isn't as fluent in English as others please. It's easy to understand what he's trying to get at. 

[DANILA 290]

1 minute ago, The Skipper said:

Let's not take the piss out of someone who isn't as fluent in English as others please. It's easy to understand what he's trying to get at. 

Sorry - I saw he/she is from USA so I assumed his/her english should be fine.

[Tomo 21,751]

13 hours ago, Jason said:

Sometimes, all a player need is the chance to prove himself (or herself). You only have to look at Harry Kane as an example. Didn't shine during his time out on loan and early in his Spurs career. But when he was given the chance to show what he can do around end of 2014, he took it and has never looked back since.

Kane is the exception rather than the rule, using Kane as an example as to why we should give player chances is akin to using Fergie as evidence of why managers should be given time.

[Muzchap 8,966]

10 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Kane is the exception rather than the rule, using Kane as an example as to why we should give player chances is akin to using Fergie as evidence of why managers should be given time.

This!!! How many non-Kane stories are there? Very few. 

This season Kane has struggled a bit more - injuries etc. in my mind he still needs to do this over a few more seasons

but sad to say, Poch is a decent manager and has a pretty good young squad full of energy and running - it makes our team look really ridiculous

 

[Tomo 21,751]

13 hours ago, blues.bridge said:

because teams where players go on loan, them prefer to give more time at your player that give an opportunity to players on loan since isn't a them player!

So If we sent a 21 year old Sturridge to Palace would he have been benched because Palace don't own him?

Palace strikers scored one goal (from a penalty) between them all season and Bamford didn't get a look in, that speaks volumes.

Eventually instead ofbashing the club we have to accept players aren't good for enough, before anyone quotes me saying how do you know if they won't get a chance? If that's how you think then how about we start Marco Amelia on Sunday against Arsenal?

[OhForAGreavsie 6,060]

4 minutes ago, Tomo said:

So If we sent a 21 year old Sturridge to Palace would he have been benched because Palace don't own him?

Palace strikers scored one goal (from a penalty) between them all season and Bamford didn't get a look in, that speaks volumes.

Eventually instead ofbashing the club we have to accept players aren't good for enough, before anyone quotes me saying how do you know if they won't get a chance? If that's how you think then how about we start Marco Amelia on Sunday against Arsenal?

Or me.

[OhForAGreavsie 6,060]

10 minutes ago, Muzchap said:

This!!! How many non-Kane stories are there? Very few. 

This season Kane has struggled a bit more - injuries etc. in my mind he still needs to do this over a few more seasons

but sad to say, Poch is a decent manager and has a pretty good young squad full of energy and running - it makes our team look really ridiculous

 

Could you please give a health warning on any posts that have nice things to say about that lot. It takes me days to recover from reading stuff like this.

[Jase 43,479]

38 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Kane is the exception rather than the rule, using Kane as an example as to why we should give player chances is akin to using Fergie as evidence of why managers should be given time.

But Bamford could turn out to be a success like Kane, couldn't he? You can't turn around and say Bamford is 100% failure and that's why we shouldn't give him opportunities to show what he can do, especially when he has generally done well during his loans.

To be honest, I'm not even sure why some people are so averse to seeing Bamford getting chances in the first team. He's in our books and it's not like we have to go out and buy him from elsewhere.

[blues.bridge 343]

27 minutes ago, Tomo said:

So If we sent a 21 year old Sturridge to Palace would he have been benched because Palace don't own him?

Palace strikers scored one goal (from a penalty) between them all season and Bamford didn't get a look in, that speaks volumes.

Eventually instead ofbashing the club we have to accept players aren't good for enough, before anyone quotes me saying how do you know if they won't get a chance? If that's how you think then how about we start Marco Amelia on Sunday against Arsenal?

i wanted to say just that if a team had to decide if give a change at own players, or at players on loan, them prefer always give it at own!

[OhForAGreavsie 6,060]

14 hours ago, Jason said:

Sometimes, all a player need is the chance to prove himself (or herself). You only have to look at Harry Kane as an example. Didn't shine during his time out on loan and early in his Spurs career. But when he was given the chance to show what he can do around end of 2014, he took it and has never looked back since.

Hello Jay,

Honest question; which other players spring to mind who are examples of this? I can't name any off the top of my head but then I'm not trying too hard since I take the opposite view to yours on this issue.

My take is that Kane got chances to play at Spurs because he earned them. Eventually he took one of those chances and showed that he could contribute. He was able to do both of those things because he is good enough but how many of our lads have shown that they are good enough to earn, and then to take, their opportunity too? On the face of it the answer is none since, none of them have made significant progrees under any of our managers. I can guess that your explanation for this is very different to the one I'd give.

[OhForAGreavsie 6,060]

17 minutes ago, blues.bridge said:

i wanted to say just that if a team had to decide if give a change at own players, or at players on loan, them prefer always give it at own!

It only becomes an issue if the player on loan is not the better option for the team. When he is the better option, he gets selected. In fact clubs who find that a player on loan is good for them often then try to sign him on a permanent basis. Footballers who fail to get selected while on loan fail for the same reason they fail at their parent clubs; they have not convinced the manager that the are good enough. No more complicated explanation is necessary.

P.S. I edited this post in an effort to make my point more clearly. I think @blues.bridge liked the post before that edit. It may be that in the updated form, he'd want to take it back. Apologies to b.b if that's so.

[Tomo 21,751]

37 minutes ago, Muzchap said:

ridiculoThis!!! How many non-Kane stories are there? Very few. 

This season Kane has struggled a bit more - injuries etc. in my mind he still needs to do this over a few more seasons

but sad to say, is a decent manager and has a pretty good young squad full of energy and running - it makes our team look really ridiculous

 

 

28 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Or me.

Hopefully if/when an academy player comes through to be a full time first team player, all this pining for players clearly not good enough (Bamford, Kalas and before them PVA, Clifford etc) will ease up a bit.

[Tomo 21,751]

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

But Bamford could turn out to be a success like Kane, couldn't he? You can't turn around and say Bamford is 100% failure and that's why we shouldn't give him opportunities to show what he can do, especially when he has generally done well during his loans.

To be honest, I'm not even sure why some people are so averse to seeing Bamford getting chances in the first team. He's in our books and it's not like we have to go out and buy him from elsewhere.

Usually you can tell if a player has a chance of succeeding and if we can't the coaching staff can, like I alluded to in an earlier post if we are going down the route off we will only know if we play them then we might as well play Amelia for a few games, after all Courtois and Begovic have hardly been stocking up on clean sheets.

If we brought Bamford now there would probably be ameltdown over our lack of ambition for signing a player whos only proves themself in the Championship, just like when Hector was signed.