We signed a player for several million while in the premier league, he was completely marginalised by two consecutive managers but now it seems he might be effective at championship level as a substitute. But yeah, lol at the forum.
Assumed it was LOL at the forum for not waiting to see a player actually...play before judging him as a useless player. I think most can agree the signing itself, at the time it was made, wasn't massively needed.
If people want to argue Louza or Sarr were good signings, I don’t agree but I can see the argument how they could be considered so. Knight using Kalu as an example to try and get one over negative people on the forum is just weird. An abysmal signing irrespective of a few cameos he might put on. And a view backed up by the galaxy of our previous managers.
Again, I don't think anyone is necessarily defending the actual act of the signing, more pointing to the fact he was written off as a player by forumites who have never seen him play in a football match. Personally I won't be making my own judgements on a player based on the decision making of an out-of-ideas Ranieri, an out-on-day-release Roy Hodgson, or a straight-out-of-league 2 Rob Edwards
And 3 managers not putting him anywhere near the first team is no basis for thinking he’s poor? I suppose some people still expect Peneranda and Steve Leo Belleck to start tearing it up shortly. Can’t make any judgement after all.
Some real mental gymnastics going on, it’s wrong to use the opinion of three successive manager to form an opinion on player, yet on the other hand, if you complain about player like Zink not getting a chance, you’ll be told they were probably not fancied by the incumbent manager who knows best because he sees him in training.
Exactly. If we call Cathcart out for being an obsolete donkey for what we see with our own eyes the “successive managers rate him” card is played. Kind of loses credibility when the argument changes 180 degrees.
Why act high and mighty about those who wrote him off then unnecessarily say the safest thing possible? They're both wingers, literally couldn't be more similar in the job they're supposed to do, the profiles are different which is what the OP said.
Yep, and the three managers who didn’t rate Kalu are all somehow discredited as being wrong to write him off because they’re poor managers, despite the fact we’ve sacked every single manager we’ve had in the last 10 years.
It was a baffling signing, and I'd suggest his attitude hasn't been great up to this point. However clearly Bilic has seen something in him so at least we've found a useful player where most of us thought there wasn't one
Laugh at people who give him no chance before seeing him play. I wouldn't trust Hodgson as far as I can throw him and not sure he was here under Ranieri for long if at all. Don't get me wrong, not the signing we should have made but he actually looks half decent
I'm not trying to get one over anybody. I'm just saying now we've actually had a chance to see him play it looks as though there is a decent player. Writing somebody off before we've seen them kick a ball has always seemed a little strange and it's genuinely the more negative people who say this. It's their opinion which I disagree with so I mention it. I thought that's what this forum is for?
So, you can use that argument, or can't? Because you must realise you're doing the exact thing that you're calling out her, right? Considering the fact that managers constantly misjudge/misuse players and have favourites, don't you think it's a better idea to judge players with your own eyes? I've seen Beleck and Penaranda play, I know they're not good enough. I hadn't seen Kalu play, so I didn't completely write him off.
Zink played a lot of games in The Championship. During that period I didn't think he was all that and neither did Watford apparently Kalu, who I repeat I think was a wrong signing, hadn't played before being written off. Hodgson and Ranieri didn't give a to55 what happened and considering how bad we were it is I grant you a little surprising he wasn't played. Only they can tell you why Bilic has obviously seen something in him and is getting more game time. I've said in another thread where somebody said he should play instead of Sema that I think he needs to contribute more when given the chance in terms of assists and goals but he has at least looked promising
I was trying to see both sides, one that he was written off too early but two, he hasn't done much yet except look a little bit lively when coming on
He was bought millions of pounds to fill obvious quality gaps in our squad in the PL. He was nowhere near good enough for that purpose and that money should have been put to much better use, hence the criticism. I'm personally not surprised he's able to make an impact off the bench in the championship when fit. The question again is whether there is anyone else we could have bought that would have been a better use of funds (e.g. a CB). Given this, Kalu has to make a sizeable contribution to our promotion this season to even begin to justify his purchase.
Wasn't he £2-3m ? I'd always assumed he was bought as cover assuming that Sarr or Pedro would leave or could get injured. They didn't, nor did they leave in the summer which means he's still struggling to get in the side given Sema is very productive at this level too. We clearly didn't have the cash to spend big in January, with Samir & Kamara being the key signings in the battle against relegation.
1. That's not the question, in terms of what's being discussed above 2. We don't know *for certain* that he's nowhere near good enough for that level, as he was never given a chance. He was good enough to make an impact in Ligue 1, although PL is a step up. 3. No one is trying to justify his purchase, in the circumstances that he was brought in
I think we paid £3.5m? But that barely pays for the index finger of a PL player. He was clearly never going to save us from relegation. As you say more of a back-up player, that could now be very useful at this level
Some positive cameo appearances but can he keep fit over a long period of time or even break into the starting line up ?
Cathcart is poor because his displays have shown it (in my opinion). If an ageing player is brought in for several million and then discarded by 3 managers I don’t think it’s unreasonable to conclude he’s a dud (and why anyone would use this as a “gotcha” moment is beyond me. It’s simply arguing against common sense). There is no inconsistency. Player looks poor =dud. Player doesn’t get close to first team under successive managers who watch him = dud. Duds all over the shop. Dud, Dud, Dud. If that player does something productive a year down the line at a lower level then great at least he is contributing a bit.
But several managers have chosen to continue to play Cathcart, so their opinion on the player must be correct, right? Aging, he signed as a 24 year old! Why not judge him off his record in Ligue 1, rather the judgement of two (injured for Edwards, right?) managers whose decision making at the club was poor at best. That's before factoring in the very likely scenario that Ranieri had no say whatsoever on Kalu being signed, which isn't ideal for Kalu's chances of being given a chance.
Managers are forced to play Cathcart because of Pozzo’s incompetent recruitment in that area. What choice do they have? Kabasele? Troost? But aside from that Kalu is actually 24? Must have been the never ending forum “banter” but I genuinely thought he was late 20s.
The same managers who you're trusting the judgement of re Kalu decided Cathcart and Kabasele were better options than Sierralta. Turned 25 in August, supposedly.
There was a report on here about an age controversy surrounding Kalu, which will come as no shock to anyone. For the position we're in, he'll be an asset, he's been looking really bright in the cameos he's had (albeit against tiring legs while he's been as fresh as a daisy), although of course, just like a number of signings we've made, there are huge red flags surrounding his signing
