He actually is decent, he just needs to man up a bit, stop getting blown over by a slight breeze, stop whinging when he doesn't get a decision, and learn when to shoot rather than ***** about. The skills are there, the maturity and mind set are not at the moment. This is his chance to toughen up and show Slav he has some fight in him.
Hopefully Millwall's training will bulk him up a bit. Pair him up with Danny ****tu in the gym. I remember after we sold Theo Robinson he ended up contracted to Millwall but on loan to Derby, came to the Vic to play against us and looked completely different. Much bigger and stronger compared to the skinny boy he was when at Watford.
I'm a natural born conspiracist. Fabbrini ain't a bad player, he's shown flashes of brilliance but he's not quite as good at TD9, Vydra, Igloo, Fessi, but he's certainly good enough as a WFC squad player. Millwall aren't a real threat to us but a decent striker in their squad may result in them causing a few upsets along the way nicking a few points from top-ten clubs which will work to our advantage. Thrown in a clause that he can't play against us and thats he's guaranteed game time and its a win-win situation...
I'm glad you took it so well then. Not sure what you mean above because it only reiterates my meaning. Do you really think that Keith Andrews is not one of those four, seeing as he's the only one that Jocanovic has actually named so far? He's still a Watford player, and that would make five, unless the WO are saying he is back in favour.
Andrews isn't even training with the club, so he's clearly not one of those training with the reserves.
I'm sorry JH. Have we got a reserve team now? When were they reinstated? We can remove the players from our future first team plans, but we cannot disallow them from our training facilities without opening ourselves up to legal action that in KA's case could cost us hundreds of thousands, and the same with any other player. Although KA has chosen not to train at London Colney he still has a legal obligation to inform us and the FA that he is not training with any other team (whilst we are still paying him) , that is why he is/was training with the MKD fitness coach and not their team. He would be perfectly within his rights to return to London Colney at any time during his contract because we are obliged to ensure he has training facilities, otherwise he could claim to have been unfairly dismissed; just as we could claim he had broken his contract if he did train with another club. Keith Andrews is in exactly the same situation as any other player who has been told he can find another team and will no-longer be involved with the first team. So that makes five players who have apparently been told that, when the WO said four. However, one of them has not been allowed full autonomy, as Fabbrini has been told to come back in time for the play-offs, so there is some question as to whether he is one of them, IMHO.
Lloyd Doyley's opportunities look a bit limited at the moment, perhaps we could loan him to them as well......
Which bit of "Watford quartet Lloyd Dyer, Lewis McGugan, Mathias Ranegie and Diego Fabbrini are no longer training with the first team" (the headline of the Wobby article) are you not understanding? Andrews is old news. There would be no need for Frank Smith to ask Jokanovic about him as he already knows the answer. So, to conclude, no I don't think Andrews is one of those four. And yes I think Fabbrini is one of the four - mainly based the fact the article says he is!
I actually thought about editing the quoted post to change it to 'not training with the first team', but decided against it as I didn't believe anyone would be petty enough to make a point of it. As for the rest of your post, the report states that 'the quartet are still training at the club's London Colney base' and actually names the four players. Keith Andrews isn't, and hasn't been for a month, so he clearly isn't one of the four. As for your point about the legality of excluding Andrews from the training facilities, of course that would be legal - what difference is it to placing a manager on gardening leave? The law isn't different when applied to footballers. I'm sure this forum never used to have as many 'difficult' posters. It really is becoming a chore, sometimes.
If difficult is pointing out the facts then this forum NEEDS more of them. The WO named those players, not the club and not Jokcanovic; who doesn't even confirm that it is four players. As for petty; excusing your own lack of knowledge, particularly when you are promoting an unsupported argument, is far more of a problem than pettiness. Andrews is just as much a Watford player now as the four YOU name, and if Watford denied him training facilities they would be in breach of contract: we do not need to play him, but we are legally obliged to maintain his fitness: your comment is the most ridiculously na*ve thing I have heard for many a day. When someone is so ignorant of the facts, it is perplexing that they promote greater ignorance by ruing the fact that some posters actually care about what is said and do not just accept what the WO feeds us, or stories the more credulous embrace just because it was published.
Aaaand we get to the crux of what you've been dragging out over all these posts. You think Frank Smith is making things up. Fair enough. I wish you'd have just said that at the start rather than playing the all-knowing sage. You're a tad hypocritical however given you seem to have taken the Millwall reporter's unattributed comment at face value but won't accept similar from the Wobby...
I understand the headline, I just question the veracity of the article UEA, mainly because it provides no source, not even suggesting an anonymous one. What bit of "refused to name the players" do you not understand, and remember, you explicitly connect the general comment to Fabbrini, when Jokanovic neither confirms the names nor the number of players. You are expressing the views of the Watford Observer not the club or Jokanovic. As I say, I'd rather rely on something a little more certain.
No. This is my point... Perhaps you would like to read that article, in which Jokanovich clearly refuses to name the players he is talking about, and the Watford Observer offers the four names with no explanation why. Jokanovic does not speak or imply the opinion you attribute to him in that article, and it would seem ironic, when you are demanding sources from others, that you fail to provide any yourself. See, no criticism of the WO, just a statement of the facts; they've got to sell newspapers and hits. My problem is that you started accrediting the WO's un-supported statement as that of Jokanovic, with no source to confirm it, whilst calling for sources from others. Now that is what hypocritical is. Come on man, you're a University, have some humility.
Invoking the rules of a playground for a second I'd point out it's you who started this anyway at post #60 by asking me to prove a negative. Jokanovic hasn't chosen to frame Fabbrini's loan in positive/optimistic terms. Fact. I can prove this by virtue of the fact he's not come out with any of the usual soundbites managers spout on such occasions when they want to say what a great opportunity it'll be for the player etc etc. Given that on the same day he's named in the local paper as one of 4 no longer training with the club who have been told they can leave and I'm happy to read between the lines a little. So I have provided a source. He's the Chief Watford FC correspondent for the Watford Observer. It is you who doubts the veracity of it and that isn't my problem. A question for you: do you not think it a little odd that if four names are put to him by Frank Smith and one of them is clearly wrong Jokanovic doesn't take the simple step of saying, "Actually, Diego isn't one of them. He's different."
So much for that ... Jokanovic isn't a manager, he's first team trainer and with him the 'usual soundbites' don't apply. He hardly comments on anything except the previous game and the matchday squad.
Fair point but that doesn't stop him correcting Frank Smith though if he's wrong to include Fabbrini.
Because if he said Fabbrini wasn't one of them, he would be saying that the others were 'one of them', instead, respectfully he refused to name any, implying that it may or may not be any of them, and then was honest enough to say that some un-named players had been informed that they were no longer a part of his first team plans. A little more respectful than the inference of some people who were attributing the naming of the players to him, and a fair point worth making in his defense, and the defense of possibly innocent players too IMHO. Smith doesn't say what the question actually was - we only get the response - so we don't know exactly what he was responding too: were the names even mentioned to Jokanovic? We do not know because it isn't said. Is it UEA? Godfather is right, the loan has nothing to do with Jokanovic, but has Fabbrini gone to Milwall because he is a problem, or is it because there are too many in front of him? Either is possible, neither is confirmed.
I'd imagine if fabbrini had been causing issues you would've seen a free transfer back to udinese. it seems to me that he's just surplus to requirements at the moment and seen as not good enough to push those ahead of him. he's been given an opportunity to get a run of games else where and prove his worth in the english game. hopefully he cab perform well, develop his game more and come back the better for it.
No, you see, that's how print journalism works. Interview questions get asked but only the answers get published. The journalist then goes away and writes the article around the answers to provide context to the questions that lead to them. The trouble with folk like you on forums is you want to argue every point in isolation without looking at the wider picture. Why would Frank Smith make something up, given he could be cut off very easily indeed? Why would Jokanovic allow himself to be quoted swearing about this group of players but not take the opportunity to correct an obvious mistake? How many times has Fabbrini played for Jokanovic (answer = zero). Does that lend itself to the idea that he is surplus to requirements and free to find a new club? You clearly believe some great crime has been committed against Fabbrini and Jokanovic in the publishing of that article. I suggest you make a formal complaint to the editor of the Wobby and see what comes of it. I'd point it out to the club as well- I'm sure they'll back you up and immediately ban this rogue reporter from the training ground and contact with Watford FC staff forthwith #justice4thewatford4 And all this because I asked someone to point out where the line about Fabbrini being lined up for the play offs was sourced from, knowing I'd read it somewhere on t'internet earlier in the day but was unable to find it again myself :dismay:
No it's not, it's because you keep attributing what the Watford Observer said to Jokanovic, end of. I never saw an article in which he said that, and it is clear now that neither have you; but god forgive that anyone would ask you for your source. As yet, there is none, and that is plain to anyone that reads the article properly, rather than someone who fantasizes that they know how journalism works. Let me explain the reality: If the story isn't sexy enough, you sex it up; that is what the WO did here, and, like it or not, that is their job in this modern age of journalism. I don't blame them; If you got hooked, and you did with line and sinker, that is your fault, but when you declare that you know who these four people are and that you know that Jokanovic was talking about them, it is only fair that someone asks where you learned it. When your alleged source fails to provide any proof of your claims, then faith in your opinion must suffer a little. It is wholly understandable that you do not wish to end up with egg on your face, but it is ludicrous that you continue to argue that Jokanovic was categorically talking about Fabbrini, when the WO are the only ones pointing that finger, and he refuses to say who he is speaking about, especially when there are other candidates for the finger that seem just as likely (Ekstrand perhaps), and a near certainty (Andrews), who is still a Watford player excluded from the first team and the only player so far named. I am not saying Smith is lying, but there is the possibility that he is wrong, and he received nothing in that interview to confirm the WO's belief that it is the four they named. Fact. Journalists have to speculate, but readers must be on their toes to spot the difference between speculation (no source given) and news (a source named and directly quoted). I have answered your direct questions to me, so please answer this one: UEA, what words do the Watford Observer use to describe their source for the four names they give in the article? The actual words please.
Oooo bold text for demands. It'll be captial letters next! I genuinely couldn't care less if your "faith in [my] opinion" suffers. Nor about ending up with egg on my face. It has happened plenty of times on here before and will do again I'm sure. I'm actually happier than most to admit when I'm wrong. I have no idea though why you've turned up out of the blue with a hard on about this particular topic though. I guess we'll all know the right answer in due course. If he stays at the club past the summer, regardless of what happens with his form at Millwall, I'll be the first to say you were right. Be sure to ask your 'beat down' buddy WatfordTalk to quote me when the time comes :]] In the meantime you can get back to your day job as Fabbrini's agent or whatever it is you do.
Looks like Fabricating Frank is causing mischief again...can't believe he is doing it again after he got Sannino sacked.
But why bother making it a 93-day loan and specifying that we want him back in case of the play-offs if there's not a slim chance that he could be considered in the future? Do you not understand how loans like this work?
Watch out, 424 will be on your case! That is an unsupported comment made by a local journalist with no quote to back it up. The forum regulator will be on to you sharpish. To answer your point though, who knows? I'd be more than happy if he came back from Millwall having scored a few goals and set up a few more, and generally looked the part, for him to be considered for selection again. I can't see it happening. I imagine mainly though it came down to the this: loan him until end of the season and Millwall will finish on 2nd May whatever happens. He then returns to Watford to train while we're (hopefully) in the play-offs. He can't play though because FL rules say he is inelligible. The day of the Play-Off Final every attacking player bar him is out with injury or suspension. The club would probably feel a bit silly. I'd attribute it to that.
Bloke at work (not a Millwall fan) was at their game on Saturday and said Fab was the best player on the pitch
But why make that specification, if not for that reason? Do you really believe that if Fabbrini performs well throughout the rest of the season for Millwall, he won't be considered as an option?
Sorry, edited above to add more. Should answer this point. Remember not every problem case mentioned by Jokanovic (allegedly, as no one has heard the tapes who knows if he was even in the room?) was a trouble maker.
Fair enough, I guess. I just can't see Fab being a trouble maker, with the positive words said about his attitude by the academy manager and other players. I've said from the start he needs a run of games to build up confidence that he was never going to get behind combinations of Deeney, Vydra, Forestieri, Ighalo and an in-form Ranegie.
I AM RIGHT!!:jumping1:. The only point I have been trying to make here is that there is no source for your comment that Jokanovic said anything derogative or negative specifically about Fabbrini, as you have claimed, or that he is one of the players who has been excluded from first team training because of his attitude. I also mentioned that Ranegie may not be one of them, and that possibly Ekstrand was and almost certainly Andrews is IMHO. The answer to the question you so clumsily side stepped is that the WO made no mention of a source, and additionally, they clarified that Jokanovic did not verify the claim. I will shut up on the subject now, but I'm happy that the meaning of my posts has remained on topic throughout, no matter how much you have tried to twist out of the simple fact that there is no source for what you said about Jocanovic.
Oh dear. All that and it turns out you're putting words in my mouth. I never said Jokanovic "said anything derogative or negative specifically about Fabrinni" - on the contrary I said from the start he had refused to attribute his comments to individual players although I maintain he was asked about the four as otherwise the article would make little sense. Nor that he had been "excluded from first team training because of his attitude" - which would be silly as one of the players Jokanovic talks about "adds nothing the team" (direct quote). Indeed as WatfordTalk says there are people on the record just this week saying he has been training well and asking for involvement with the U21s so I doubt it was attitude which sees him excluded. Zero minutes on the pitch since Jokanovic came in though is a pretty clear indicator to me that he considers Fabbrini adds nothing to the team. I'm sure you'll be along to tell me he meant Bernard Menseh or the cleaning lady or something. You're right on one thing though. This is best ended here.
I'm sure I could find the quote but I'm not going to, this little spat is far too entertaining. I'm definitely with 424 though ... the media are experts at misleading their readers and their readers are pretty expert at being misled.
