I'm not sure I ever had any credibility, certainly I never tried to. On this, however, the issue is that whilst we do need to strengthen with proven quality, we also need to plan for the future - balance. Bond is a very good goalie. He's getting the usual treatment on here now as fickle people now find fault in everything he does, despite him standing in for Gomes with a couple of MOTM performances this season. We're building a squad of players who are here for business reasons alone. In a mediaeval army, the mercenaries were always on the flanks, because whilst they were often the most skilled and experienced fighters, they were also the least committed and liable to turn and flee at the first sign of trouble. We're dissolving our loyal core. Few of our players will end up having any real connection with the club. Bond will end up being a very good keeper IMO and he's still a good four years from his prime. Losing him is a blow. If you disagree, that's fine and it's a valid opinion, but don't presume that to have an alternate view is beyond belief. There is fast developing an orthodox viewpoint on here about every issue and any person who strays from that view is labelled a heretic by the masses. It's like being a bloody Cathar on here at times if you simply question the wisdom of any decisions of the club or take a critical view of one of our players or coaches.
Stock wfcforums answer #142: 'if Bond was any good and the Pozoos wanted to keep him he's have signed a five year contract, but he hasn't so they obviously don't rate him. Therefore Bond is shyte and good riddance. £250k is great business and I'm glad he's gone.
No, the place of honour on ancient battlefields was the right flank. That's where the best troops would be placed, against the enemy's weak left flank. If the mercenaries you speak of were any good, they would either be placed in the rump of the army, or occupy the right flank. As for Bond, he won't be first choice at Reading this season, as they'll sign a more experienced keeper (probably Al-Habsi) and within two years, Stuart Moore, who will doubtless be on loan in the Conference, or League 2 this season and therefore come back more experienced than Bond, will be Reading's first choice. Sadly, all he's done is swap being 3rd choice at Watford for 2nd choice at Reading. Plus, Reading are *****.
I get where HB is coming from though again it's a hindsight thing (as with Brit). Obviously we weren't promoted last summer so we probably didn't have the cash to offer long contracts to players that may or may not have made it. Bond was an adequate championship goalkeeper and this will be a bad deal if we don't stay up and the current ones leave
I think you need to chill out. I was challenging your viewpoint with my own! Where have I said it's beyond belief that you like Bond?! I like Bond, but the club have done right by him by letting him go and start his career properly elsewhere. To be fair, if you start criticising everything the Pozzo's are doing, two days into pre-season, just to be contrary to a quite reasonable amount of patience from most of our fans, you're going to be challenged/in the minority.
It would have been good to keep Bond, he has potential. I challenge the viewpoint that the club has screwed up. He wants to play regularly but he's simply not good enough to be #1 or #2 in the Prem at the moment. He's left. Good for him. He goes with all our and the clubs best wishes.
I'm disappointed he's gone, but Reading are a team that have a track record of developing keepers, and I think he deserves credit for deciding that rather than stay in his comfort zone, sign a new contract & go out on loan, he's backed himself by going to a new club where he'll get game time & can kick on. I just hope we have a sell on clause.
How do we know that there isn't a buy back clause as part of the sale? The coaching staff in their professional judgement have decided that Bond is not ready to play in the Premiership at the present time or the immediate future, hence the signing of the Lithuanian keeper. Consequently it is more sensible to sell (assuming that there are similar provisions to the Assombalonga deal) than loaning the player out. From the players point of view it is better to be settled at one club than keep being loaned out to a different club every year where he has to get used to a new defence in front of him. The goalkeeping position is different to any other position, insofar as unless the number one gets injured or loses form you are not going to get a look in except perhaps in the League cup. Outfield players have a chance of getting time on the pitch, even Doyley if he signs again could get the odd minute due to injuries, suspensions or tactics to close a game out at the end. All in all I think this is the sensible outcome for both sides. It is something we have to get used to if we stay in the Premier as we cannot hang on to youngsters who the coaching staff decide are unlikely to attain the standard we need. They will make mistakes however which HB1 will not be slow and delight in highlighting!
I don't get it. As has already been said, people said exactly the same thing in the summer of 2013. I agree that it's a real shame that Bondy has been sold, but in no way are we dissolving our loyal core. We've so far signed 3 players in positions that NEED strengthening, and we're about to sign a very gifted midfielder from Spurs who will no doubt be a valuable improvement to what we've already got. I'm not actually entirely sure what this 'loyal core' is, considering this is still a relatively new team composed of many players who have only signed in the last couple of seasons. However, the fact that Cathcart, Angella, and Troy have all just signed new long-term contracts suggests that the spine of our team remains intact.
Hadn't looked at this thread before as I assumed it was a loan deal, but was then told it was a permanent transfer. Am a bit disappointed really, regardless of the amount we've received for him. He came through our youth system and is an excellent shot stopper. I have to admit though, he does look slightly error-prone sometimes so maybe this holds him back. Regardless, If we've sold him for 250k that's a very poor business decision. £1.5M is a bit more understandable, and is probably a fair amount of money for a keeper who hasn't ever played a full season. I still think it would have made more sense to loan him out to a Championship club where he will get guaranteed first team football, and if he proceeded to have an exceptional season we could have got a bit more than £1.5M in for him next summer. Still, every club, no matter how good their owners are, make the odd bad decision, no one is perfect. And who's to say whether Bond can cut it long-term. I personally hope he does though.
Only had year left on contract and he would not sign a new one so loan not to our advantage. Would only have got a fee decidedvby tribunal.
Accidentally liked this post. Was Bond demoted to 3rd choice, or was an experienced reserve keeper signed so Bond could go out on loan? The answer to that would be in the length of the Lithuanian guy's contract, which I don't know. In my view it's a terrible shame that a future England keeper, and along with Hoban the most promising of our Academy boys for some years, has been allowed to leave for peanuts. Obviously it was his decision, not the club's, but surely he would have stayed if he'd been give a decent 5-year contract like some others. As it is, I don't see much point in upgrading our academy. Watford is no longer a good place for a young player to come.
"A future England keeper" - really? What makes you think that? Objectively speaking he's not shown anything yet to demonstrate that sort of potential and if he had he'd be moving upwards now not downwards. Anyway I'd think he's much more likely to be a future Wales keeper. For me you're totally ignoring the fact that (a) 'if you're good enough you're old enough' is always going to the the mantra at Watford and (b) you can only name one goalkeeper in a team and it's an absolutely crucial position. However before now we definitely went for quantity over quality. 50 academy players appearing in the first team in however many years was a lovely claim to fame but it was meaningless given the vast majority ended up playing League 2 or non-league football within 18-24 months.
How do you know he'll play for England? And if kids are good enough they'll play. You're stuck in the past where we had to rely on Hodson, Thompson and Bennett to make up our defence. We don't have to rely on kids anymore but like every other club in the country if they're good enough, and breaking into this team means they certainly will be, they'll play.
Everyone is remembering that era when our academy graduates were so poor we were perennially at the foot of yhe table, being relegated every other year and being completely outclassed by everyone. It seems to have slipped my mind however. Undoubtedly, many of the players we've brought in from abroad have been far better than we could produce at home. Many, however have not. It's a shame that the priority is only on the signed players, with no attention to the long view of developing players. People are passing judgment on Bond, forgetting that in goalkeeper terms, he's a toddler. He's 5-6 years to improve and prove himself to be a top keeper, but now if/when he does, it will be to someone else's benefit.
Christ moog. It's a fact that 90% of them have gone on to do diddly squat in football. I've no fuss with giving anyone a chance, especially our academy graduates, but let's not pretend we've ever had a stellar production line on the go. As it is the 50 were spread over enough years that it had no great effect, positive or negative on our overall standing, but that says more for those around them. We did something no other club did out of necessity. As for Bond what would you have the club do in those 5-6 years? Presuming of course he does improve which is far from guaranteed. A succession of loans? Play him in a handful of cup games? Or just forget about having an experienced goalkeeper and give him a go instead, regardless of how he actually performs? His rare forays into the team hardly bred confidence in him. This idea that we can just keep him on some sort of short leash, stymying his career for our own selfish ends seems to me to be totally contrary to everything the academy stands for.
One is reminded of britt, but if britt stayed he'd be in the reserves still not getting in our squad, so let him leave and be safe in the knowledge we will never ever need to wonder if we needed him cos we don't. Good luck to Mr bond but no tears please you bunch of saps.
We needed to make such a big jump when the Pozzos came in, that there had to be a short-termism approach. The same happened at Man City. It meant that none of their youth players graduated for a few years. Then, the foreign owners predictably got tarred with the "don't care about the academy" brush. Now they're established, their academy set-up is jaw-droppingly good & is starting to catch up. The same will happen here.
The staff probably see our youth players are good enough for a mid-table championship side, but not the premier league. Also, because we had such a thin squad under Mackay/Dyche we had to play them and have our subs-bench packed out with them. We got used to seeing them and to be fair to them, often produced quality well above their station, which is why the majority (Mingoia, Bennett, Thompson etc) are now playing at L2 level or below.
There aren't many good young English keepers, so there's not too much competition (even Loach got on the bench for England). I believe that with regular football he'll overtake Butland in the pecking order, but I'd be amazing if Bond isn't capped at least once. The two points which you reckon I've ignored are in conflict. Goalkeeper is indeed a crucial position, and one where experience counts. If you're good enough means in effect if you're talented and experienced enough. A trading organisation like Watford have become rather than a player development one like we used to be is bound to go for an experienced keeper rather than a talented but inexperienced one. It's a pity that we didn't get in somebody like Lee Camp on a short-term contract last season so Bond could get regular games on loan and come back to be Gomes' heir apparent. Maybe there were good reasons why this didn't happen or maybe there weren't.
I look at the Goalkeepers in terms of distribution. If you look at Van Gaal in the 1990's he states formations like 1-4-4-2 or 1-4-3-3. They are an important part of the outfield because they need to be good with their feet as well as shot stopper, grab crosses etc. By the sounds of it, QSF will be playing out from the back so will not be relying on long kicks. I think Gomes has excellent distribution because he can throw very well across long/short distances and can make short passes/control the ball etc. I don't think you could class Bond's distribution in the same league and for that the Pozzo's made the correct decision.
