Well no, because if he comes in and plays well, which I sincerely hope he does, that will demonstrate he has been well coached.
I agree, but this doesn’t mean the coach is making the wrong choice at the moment. I’m also concerned that our midfield trio seem so easy to play through and so unable to string any passes together. We don’t have good enough defenders anywhere to withstand that pressure.
If it’s the club hierarchy exerting influence to play an inferior player over a better one I’m going to ask you why on Earth would they do that?
I know it in vogue at the moment to bemoan Louza's fee but presumably we didn't cut a £10m cheque up front to Nantes? I wouldn't be surprised if the fee was well spread out and so the impact of signing him on our transfer budget in the window just gone must not be as great as some think? (I accept this is also guesswork by me).
With our history we probably won’t pay any of it then they complain and we counter that by saying we have !
I guess you can say the same about all our signings though, not to mention our outgoings. For example, did Everton pay us up front for Doucoure last season, or are we also getting paid for him in stages? So the Louza fee, whether in stages or not is still nearly £10m that needs to be covered and accounted for.
And your view could be considered the same. If he comes in and plays well you’ll just assume Munoz was an idiot or mentally ill rather than he was well managed. The most obvious explanation in this is that the coaching staff have their reasons and in their position, knowing what they know, you would make the same choice.
The most obvious explanation would be that they are making a mistake in playing a clearly inferior player. Only your mental gymnastics would allow for some hidden issue that means that playing a man so blatantly out of his depth as Catchart can be justified. And to take it further, even once you are proved wrong, which you can foresee if/when 18000 watford fans get their wish to see Cathcart dropped for Sierralta, you will still claim it was the right decision to play Cathcart because - reasons. It's really quite simple. Catchart is awful and should not be playing. Sierralta is not perfect but is far superior. That's it. Your generous licence to the decisions being made is completley unfounded.
Again, I watched MOTD and see bad defending by most clubs. It is what happens. But we let in 1 goal yesterday, and 18 were conceded elsewhere, most of, if not all, can be contributed to defensive mistakes by anyone determined to do so.
Exactly. I dont know what it is, but there simply has to be a reason Sierralta isnt included in the 1st XI and yesterday the squad. If it fits with the theory some have that Munoz is an idiot, then that's what gets trolled around.
We the fans don't get the full picture but it's clear something is off. Sierralta didn’t play in Pre season either or against Villa/Brighton then starts 3 game before scoring an unfortunate own goal v Wolves ..
Thing is, it's not oversight. We can see from the noises being made at the club and the activity of the past 10-12 windows that they just don't give a **** about center backs. To the point where it's not unreasonable that we cannot even field 2 crap ones at some point this season. With the ACON it's not inconceivable or even particularly unlikely that we will have to make do and mend with someone out of position there for a game or more because of the complete lack of cover, let alone the desperate lack of quality. But nevermind because the club have data and stats up the Wazoo and wouldn't be making a blatantly stupid judgement about this.
Why the **** is this guy spouting this online? This sort of stuff is for behind doors discussions, crazy.
But unless Sierralta is injured (which seems highly unlikely as he played in the cup a few days ago) then most of the reasons he could possibly be out of the squad because of Catchart make Munoz an idiot, it’s the only logical conclusion, people aren’t saying it just to be unnecessarily nasty about the bloke. Furthermore, being picked for us in the early rounds of the league cup is generally a back handed compliment that says you’re not a first choice player.
Newcastle have played Villa, West Ham, Southampton, Leeds, us and Man Utd. Not a tough run of games really and they would have hoped for a win. I obviously wanted 3 points but not losing wasn't a terrible result in the grand scheme. And before Norwich... If we had lost both games we would be in the bottom 3, a point off bottom placed Burnley.
I don't think that was the case. He was central from pretty much the start from what I could see. Think I even said that to the people around me in the 5th minute that he was more central than usual and should've been hugging the touchline much more as there was loads of space out wide. Seemed baffling to me that he looked like he was playing as a central centre forward with no space around him or in behind their defence rather than a winger out wide.
There is plenty of evidence. His gibberish interviews His team line ups and 'tactics' His substitutions His panicked, little boy lost face on the touchline as he is baffled about how to affect games His career track record
Yep, it's a long term problem. I can see the logic insofar as attackers/midfielders usually have greater resale value, but the fact we've never spent more than £5m(?) on a CB, despite 5 years of PL money is bizarre.
Thought that too. Looked like a post match rant type tweet. Or trying to curry favour with fans by agreeing it wasn’t a good performance.
It's ******** logic. Ok, signing 2 good 8m odd centre backs instead of Sarr might not have been as fun, but it would almost certainly have been enough to keep us up. We would have a couple of hundred million more than we do now. Basically it's a symptom of the Pozzo's real motivation, which is player trading over team success. Which is why I hate them as owners.
Thats all circumstantial and opinion. I'll need proof of his GCSE failure, 1st hand witnesses of him driving the wrong way on a roundabout and a picture of him with his shoes on the wrong way round or clothing back to front.
But because of Cathcart we should have let in five and were only saved by Foster, who by the way is also apparently **** and shouldn’t be playing.
It’s baffling that we didn’t sign a centre back (ok not baffling as we usually neglect this area) but not baffling that the coach chooses between the players available.
His career track record is a league title, a promotion, and a mid table PL position. The substitutions, line ups and tactics led to the above. That's the only evidence we have to go off and it's all pretty much success. He does say so random things in interviews, especially in the early days when his English was worse. The kids on the forum have started calling him Xiscy Donkey Brains
It's pretty simplistic stuff, some of it a bit silly, I would say; but I can't see that posting any of that stuff in public is remotely controversial or secret. What's the problem?
Do you not recognise that you make a lot of assumptions about Munoz because of his physical appearance? I reckon if he looked like some maturing, brainy hunk, rather than Terry Scott playing a schoolboy, opinions of him would be different even if the outcomes were the same.
Next week it will be Duxbury, then Gino the following week. This could be a sign of our owners finally waking up and getting closer to the fans perhaps? It's probably just a message he posted in frustration after King's winning goal was rightly ruled out for offside. But, we can live in hope that it could be a ripple in the water of change.
Does he speculate about why? Not that he will know, but it’ll give us all something to get all frothy about and theorise to death for the next month.
You may be correct but if you are then it begs the question that even the small hen in its late forties has asked,"cluck,cluck,cluck,cluck?"* *"Why didn't we sign a good centre half?"
