Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="rnabokov, post: 3163197, member: 1847"] We didn't need him and we shouldn't have signed him. As I see it, the issue is not whether or not Croft is good or bad, nor is it that he will (or won't) develop into a top half in time. The issue is that he was the wrong choice for us. It was wrong because we already had "developing" halves in Dearden, Paix, Gamble, and SOS. We didn't need another one. The issue also is that he is, again as I see it, similar in style to Dearden (although I reckon Dearden has more potential). We didn't need another Dearden, let alone what Croft's signing might do to Dearden's growth and maturity by being replaced by Croft. With Milford injured, we now have 2 seriously inexperienced halves trying to organise a rabble, of which they are part. Little chance of that. What kind of strategic thinking is this Seibold??? Finally, as I posted elsewhere, Croft is too immature to handle any sort of real pressure. He is a long way from being a game manager. He played most of his best football in the Storm system, the Storm game plan, with players like Smith and Munster and Slater. He didn't have to manage the Storm's game, which in many respects is self-managing because of quality coaching. Waste of money for mine, and not good for Croft's development. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 92 (members: 0, guests: 92)