Fortune

[Trafford]

Forgive me if this was commented on at the start of the week but I thought he was terrible against Barnsley, even allowing for the fact that he's been out for some time. Comments yesterday that he's hoping to retain his place seem very optimistic to me.

 

[Santos]

Forgive me if this was commented on at the start of the week but I thought he was terrible against Barnsley, even allowing for the fact that he's been out for some time. Comments yesterday that he's hoping to retain his place seem very optimistic to me.

I thought he looked very poor too but in fairness he hasn't played for over a year and it was hardly an easy game to come into. Unless we sign another central defender before Peterborugh he's starting!!!

 

[Bradders]

And who've we got as back up I wonder?

 

[Bradders]

I meant to go on, there's Walker and Naysmith if fit, but we're back to square pegs again.

 

[Fiery Blade]

And who've we got as back up I wonder?

Sam Ellis :thumbup:

 

[Bazzle]

I've seen lame camels with a better turn of pace than Jonathon Fortune. :-(

 

[Fiery Blade]

I've seen lame camels with a better turn of pace than Jonathon Fortune. :-(

Any idea if one is out of contract or do we have to wait until January window? :thumbup:

 

[yorkshirecoast]

Agreed. I was shocked at how slow & generally poor he was. Defensively, we've looked like a pub team recently. Fortune (in particular), Davies & Taylor just don't look good enough. Add to that the fact that Killa's mind seems elsewhere & it's no wonder we look like conceding everytime the opposition attacks.

 

[Bradders]

Blackwell has let us down big time here. Right from the close of the last transfer window, it was evident that one injury or suspension would leave us with only Bromby to fill in, and then he went and sold Bromby.

It's been a scramble all season to stabilise the central defence, and in my opinion has been the overiding factor in the dismal defensive record so far this season. Kilgallon's attitude hasn't helped, and of course Paddy's suspension also, but I've never known a time when we had to scrap around to put out a decent CB pairing on a rgular basis. You gambled and lost Mr. Blackwell, and it's costing us now.

 

[madeinsheffield]

What about Sandra Rednapp, maybees we could get her on loan, Harry speaks very highly of her!

 

[Bladesman]

Only seen him play that once against Barnsley.

So I am prepared to give him time since I cant imagine he was fully fit.

 

[lenners]

Reject, no-one else wanted him, slow, a body to make up the numbers who's ended up actually playing.
Will hardly play again barring injuries.
A symptom of the chronic lack of planning at SUFC this season.

 

[Foxy]

A symptom of the chronic lack of planning at SUFC this season.

Ummm, he trialled with us pre-season with the idea that if he looked good enough and could prove his fitness he'd add to the numbers in the event of injury.

Surely he's a symptom of forward planning?, rather than a lack of, or if you'd like... your opinion is more that the planning was executed but the players in the plan aren't good enough?

 

[Come from away]

I tihnk when you look at the other CBs in the CCC Fortune would (assuming he stays fit) get picked up by another CCC team if we let him go. He's slow compared to Walker but not much different than Morgs - certainly could outpace that Moore guy from Barnsley.

 

[sitwell]

Another pretty boy more bothered about their hair than kicking fuck out of the opposition centre forward, to go with Kilgallon, Bromby ,Davies. Who targets our players Blackwell or Gok Wan ?

 

[lenners]

Ummm, he trialled with us pre-season with the idea that if he looked good enough and could prove his fitness he'd add to the numbers in the event of injury.

Surely he's a symptom of forward planning?, rather than a lack of, or if you'd like... your opinion is more that the planning was executed but the players in the plan aren't good enough?

Foxy, I do admire your loyalty but you shouldn't let it blind you to reality.
Ending up with a crock who's barely played for a year in a team that was apparently planning for promotion is a symptom of chronically bad planning.
When exactly did we sign this guy anyway?
I seem to remember us drafting Davies in ten minutes before kick-off against the porkers, was he unavailable then?
I guess the Davies signing was part of your vision of the club's forward planning as well mind.

 

[Santos]

Another pretty boy more bothered about their hair than kicking fuck out of the opposition centre forward, to go with Kilgallon, Bromby ,Davies. Who targets our players Blackwell or Gok Wan ?

He's bald!!!!

Ched Evans, another pretty boy too concerned about his afro.

 

[DuncDisorderly]

Ummm, he trialled with us pre-season with the idea that if he looked good enough and could prove his fitness he'd add to the numbers in the event of injury.

Surely he's a symptom of forward planning?, rather than a lack of, or if you'd like... your opinion is more that the planning was executed but the players in the plan aren't good enough?

I agree totally, and I think that we should continue with 'backward-planning', that process of knowing exactly what the future will be and doing something about it months before. Its a bit like that film with Keanu Reeves or Tom Cruise or somebody. I mean the CIA have those computer systems now, right..?

 

[shorehamview]

Its a bit like that film with Keanu Reeves or Tom Cruise or somebody.

Much Ado About Nothing? Poetic Justice?

Or All The Right Moves? Risky Business?

You can't mean The Matrix, or A Few Good Men?

If you mean that film with somebody else that's all about things turning out well, you must mean When Saturday Comes. Or not.

 

[Foxy]

Foxy, I do admire your loyalty but you shouldn't let it blind you to reality.

The reality is, we brought in a player pre-season to cover a position we were light on. He's ended up playing just last week. To me, that seems a little be like it was actually planned in plenty of time, regardless of your rating of the player (who, by the way, you've now written off completely after 90 minutes).

Ending up with a crock who's barely played for a year in a team that was apparently planning for promotion is a symptom of chronically bad planning.

Perhaps it is, but you are now changing your tune again, as earlier it was down to a chronic lack of planning.

 

[lenners]

The reality is, we brought in a player pre-season to cover a position we were light on. He's ended up playing just last week. To me, that seems a little be like it was actually planned in plenty of time, regardless of your rating of the player (who, by the way, you've now written off completely after 90 minutes).



Perhaps it is, but you are now changing your tune again, as earlier it was down to a chronic lack of planning.

As I said, when did we sign Fortune?
When did we sign Davies?
This is really your notion of sound planning by United?
Jeez, none so blind as them who cannot see.

 

[Guesty]

I agree totally, and I think that we should continue with 'backward-planning', that process of knowing exactly what the future will be and doing something about it months before. Its a bit like that film with Keanu Reeves or Tom Cruise or somebody. I mean the CIA have those computer systems now, right..?

Minority Report?

 

[shorehamview]

Minority Report?

Days of Thunder.

 

[Guesty]

Color of Money would have been my other guess.

 

[Foxy]

As I said, when did we sign Fortune?
When did we sign Davies?
This is really your notion of sound planning by United?
Jeez, none so blind as them who cannot see.

We got Davies in because we needed him.

Unless you think we should have also planned for Fortune's recent achilles problem before it actually happened?

 

[lenners]

We got Davies in because we needed him.

Unless you think we should have also planned for Fortune's recent achilles problem before it actually happened?

I think we should have had a proper centre half replacement in place. We had one in Bromby who we sold.
In his place, we scuffled around with an injured Fortune - when did we actually sign him? - and ended up loaning a bloke in ten minutes before our biggest game of the season.
As I said, I admire your loyalty to the establishment view but the reality is a wee bit different.

 

[alcoblade]

As I said, I admire your loyalty to the establishment view but the reality is a wee bit different.

but let's be clear, you sneer at ANY loyalty to the establishment.

UTB

 

[Foxy]

In his place, we scuffled around with an injured Fortune - when did we actually sign him?

He signed a contract in September, but he's been on "extended trial" since pre-season.

As I said, I admire your loyalty to the establishment view but the reality is a wee bit different.

How is saying that we brought Fortune to the club pre-season an "establishment view"?

We did, I saw him with my own eyes.

Similarly, we brought in Davies because we needed him or someone else in his position. Establishment view again? erm.... not sure how.

If you said to me (without the riddles/changing goalposts) that we should have had more capable cover from day one, then I'd agree. But you can't say that Fortune is an example of a "chronic lack of planning", when actually he is an example of forward planning, whether you think he's good enough or not.

 

[lenners]

but let's be clear, you sneer at ANY loyalty to the establishment.

UTB

Let's be clear that that is cobblers, perhaps you should read my posts.
I've challenged Beighton over his continual drip-feeding of stuff about McCabe and others who state as fact various points about money being taken out of the club, the hotel, property business etc, etc.
Always think before posting.

 

[lenners]

He signed a contract in September, but he's been on "extended trial" since pre-season.



How is saying that we brought Fortune to the club pre-season an "establishment view"?

We did, I saw him with my own eyes.

Similarly, we brought in Davies because we needed him or someone else in his position. Establishment view again? erm.... not sure how.

If you said to me (without the riddles/changing goalposts) that we should have had more capable cover from day one, then I'd agree. But you can't say that Fortune is an example of a "chronic lack of planning", when actually he is an example of forward planning, whether you think he's good enough or not.

So we failed to plan properly but then forward planned by bringing in an injury-prone bloke who hasn't played for a year?
As I said, admirable, if misplaced, loyalty.