roversfan99

Its more that no one has really said why as a winger that they rate him, or why he needs to be on an extended contract considering his age and his current deal. Eustace's opinion (and like I said, he hasnt had much in the way of alternative to him, he did v Luton and dropped him) is irrelevant. We can disagree with him if we choose.

We may aswell close the messageboard if thats the default argument.

He praises everyone, he isnt going to slag players off. He probably wont have autocracy over contracts, maybe he does want Hedges to sign for longer and maybe he does like him. Im not saying otherwise. But just because he does, doesnt make it the right decision. It might be a case where its deemed cheaper to sign him than find a replacement, especially with no one on a long term deal in that position. But I dont personally think its the right decision, he doesnt contribute enough and to me it doesnt make sense in terms of the deal he is currently on, his age and the proposed/assumed new contract duration.

You are the one that is obsessing over stats. Its not a case of a fuss, its just a talking point. That hes "brilliant" with the young players and in the changing room is total speculation. I still am yet to see why we are offering him a new contract. He doesnt offer enough as an attacking player to merit a deal on performance. He doesnt score goals, he isnt creative, isnt quick and doesnt take people on. And there is no logic in committing to a 2 and a half year deal now taking him to 32 years old, when IMO a more logical solution would be to let him see out the season with the option of another year available should it be required. Like I said, a big contributing factor to him playing so often is a lack of alternatives IMO. But even if Eustace has personally pushed for a new deal, which again is speculation, I personally dont agree with it.

But this idea that he is the easiest implies that they all need to be done. On an individual level specific to Hedges, the question is should we be renewing his deal presumably for 2.5 years from now up until he is 32 based on his contribution? Its not about reading too much into it, its not as complex as that.

The 2 crosses you refer to werent even good crosses, Gueye assisted a goal by missing an open net but that wasnt a positive contribution. Hedges isnt having the credit for 4 points, you can strip any goal down and find a minor contribution at some point in it. Its not just his stats, from an attacking perspective. Not only does he not score and is not creative but he isnt quick and he cant take people on. He has played for us at a time where we have been starved of natural wide men, so its not like hes being selected over good alternatives. Doesnt mean managers love him necessarily. And just because its easy to do doesnt mean its worthwhile to do. Its not a case of we need to sign someone on a new deal, get anyone to sign. His current deal includes an extension until the age of 31. I cant see why we would rush to extend that considering his lack of contribution.

Again, the same buzz words and absolutely nothing about what he actually provides as an attacking player. And nothing to justify why as a player who turns 30 in the summer and for whom we hold the option to extend his current deal until he is 31, why we would have any urgency in getting him signed for an additional year.

I cant see why he would voluntarily agree a wage drop even for an extra year. Especially if his deal becomes more incentivised as he will know that he doesnt contribute to enough goals to get those bonuses. My "problem" is that I dont think he is good enough. I keep seeing platitudes about his work rate, his experience etc without anything about his actual ability. Both of those managers have had very few alternatives but to play him. We have never had a massive squad nor lots of quality and/or pace out wide. But either way, even if they did both really rate him, which as I have suggested isnt as clear as that, I am allowed to hold an opinion that doesnt fall in line with them. No one has ever said hes quick, he takes people on, he scores goals, he is a creative player etc because he is none of those things. Hes a plodder and there should be absolutely no urgency to extend his deal until he is 32.

The biggest compliment that anyone seems to be able to give him is that he is useful, tries hard and gives decent cover. So why do we need to offer him an extended contract when his current one with the extension should we choose to activate it already keeps him until he is 31?

He definitely isnt better than 50% of equivalent players, he rarely ever contributes going forward, has 7 goals in 4 seasons and is less effective for us in comparison to a left back. How is he a sellable asset? He will be 30 next summer, has had 2 bad (the same) injuries and as mentioned seldom offers an attacking threat. How much do you think he is worth?

The approach you mention makes sense. We have the security of a years extension should he unexpectedly show something he hasnt in the years he has been here, at which point he would be 31 at the end of it so he isnt an asset. He has suffered a hamstring tear twice in the last year and a bit. There are players in the squad who we could do with getting to sign a new deal, he isnt one. You look in his position, we tried and failed to get a wide man in on deadline day and seemingly plan to try again so Eustace must not be totally happy. Weimann has had injury problems, Dolan was often played centrally especially when Cantwell wasnt fit, Sigurdsson has been a write off and ACD had built his fitness up to start, then got injured and was put in when deemed ready to start again above Hedges, with a left back on the other side.

Most of the criticism was prior to the end of the season and it died down over the summer because of the 2 late impressive victories leading to our survival. He failed to win any of his first 9 games, and he failed to win a single home game full stop. We ended the season much closer to the relegation zone than when he came in. The situation wasnt easy for a number if reasins so there was mitigation but yes, criticism and doubt was warranted. The great work this season doesnt change that.

By free sorry I meant to give him an extension as opposed to signing someone new. I wouldnt activate it but there is a year option in his deal in our favour.

I want more from my wide men than just effort, experience and trust. Whether it be pace, the ability to beat a man, a regular goal threat, a regular supply of chances. He has none of those things. There are few alternatives, as soon as ACD was fit enough to start over him he did so with a left back on the other side. And both matched his goal tally in one game.

Im not misunderstanding, I fully understand. Im saying I dont agree with it.

What does he offer aside from trying his hardest and being selected?

We will be waiting a long while for that under owners for whom one of their lapdogs has actively told fans that they are concentrating on more important business.

I do understand that. The problem is you have no critical faculty. I think the common approach of having a director of football choosing the tactics usually based on snobbery of "playing the right way" leaving the head coach forced to stick with that regardless of circumstances to be totally backwards. Southampton is a great example. Martin appointed, then due to the "ethos" sticks to a style the players clearly cant play at this level and keep getting smashed. He loses his job.

Hes the cheap option. No fee and likely to be on a wage that isnt groundbreaking. As RevidgeBlue said, 7 goals in 4 seasons. Doesnt contribue anywhere near enough, and isnt a winger where as a full back youd have any fear. We saw an actual exciting winger at the weekend.

We will never know if they would have changed their naive approach, but even if they wouldnt, that might be a byproduct of knowing that in this backwards modern day, clubs tend to be only interested in managers who play that way.

The symptom of a club whose owners dont have any interest in making us better.

I understand the reasoning behind having someone to help to spread the workload and add more expertise to the off the field stuff. Its the idea of a director of football being the one telling any head coach how to play. Drivel about an ethos or principles is exactly that. The head coach should come in, analyse what he has, the circumstances etc and decide how he wants to set up. He should then feed back and say I want x and y and the director of football can then work around that. Southampton are a good example. They had a very strong team in the Championship, so such a style made sense. When they came up suddenly they go from one of the best technical sides in the division to the worst. The "ethos" demands continuing with a style that clearly isnt effective. The effect of the current setup is that nearly every club wants to play "the right way" as a club isnt going to have plans of playing more direct football even if it is effective, so you get loads of teams playing a style they clearly cant pull off.

All them ideas are good, cheaper under 16s tickets are good, but one controllable thing will move the dial, and that is cheaper adult season tickets.

Club philosophy and ethos, its just nonsense business speak. Im still none the wiser as to how it is possibly more sensible to get the director of football to decide the style of play and not the head coach. Should be a case of the head coach comes in, decides how he wants to play, and then the club is built around that.

Even Mowbray didnt have a really deep squad. Initially for the year or two after promotion much of the depth was the likes of Smallwood, Downing, Samuel, Nuttall etc, who helped us get promoted to varying degrees but weren't Championship players. And towards the end the funding was cut and the squad was too small to sustain a full season because the Armstrong money vanished.