[Released] Terry Kennedy

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Barney said:
He was asked about Kennedy. If he was injured at the moment, I'm very confident he'd have said.
Click to expand...

According to you, Adkins is an idiot. Now suddenly, the fact he didn't say that Terry Kennedy isn't unfit, means he must be fit. That's a big leap for people in the real world to accept from you, why would you be confident about anything Adkins says?
 
Barney said:
No. I'm presuming truth in what he's saying regarding the injury news.
Click to expand...

..and he said he'd like Terry to be playing football ( as would you apparently, despite not rating him)..which is what you're berating Adkins for not doing ( playing him)...so if Adkns would like Terry to playing football..and he isn't, then why do you think that is?
 
This is an absolutely ridiculous thread. We're at probably the most important stage of the season where we need to sort some consistency out to haul us back into promotion contention. For that, we need a consistent set of players to rely on, that can get through 90 minutes and be good to go again 3 days later.

Kennedy may well be able "to start a game" and on his day is arguably one of our best central defenders. But the whole point of him going out on loan was for him to prove his fitness over a series of games. Do that, and he could have returned to us and staked a claim to start. He did not. On his debut he got through the game. In his next game a week later, he was forced off with injury after a quarter of the game. He didn't start again – Cambridge clearly didn't think he could be relied on.

Adkins has said "Kennedy needs games" – he's absolutely right. Because if he doesn't get a loan deal (and frankly, it's questionable whether anyone in League 2 will take the gamble based on his most recent experience where he was loaned "fit"), there won't be anyone willing to give him much of a deal in the summer. It's an enormous shame, he's been extremely unlucky with injuries has Kennavaro. And I'd have loved it if he could have reestablished himself. But it's very unlikely to now happen. Adkins has got this, and the James Wallace situation, absolutely bang on in my opinion. No surprise given his background as a physio.
 
Esablade said:
..and he said he'd like Terry to be playing football ( as would you apparently, despite not rating him)..which is what you're berating Adkins for not doing ( playing him)...so if Adkns would like Terry to playing football..and he isn't, then why do you think that is?
Click to expand...
There's absolutely no question he'd have detailed the current injury should that have been the case. He does it every time, there's no reason to presume this is an exception. Further loans perhaps.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
This is an absolutely ridiculous thread. We're at probably the most important stage of the season where we need to sort some consistency out to haul us back into promotion contention. For that, we need a consistent set of players to rely on, that can get through 90 minutes and be good to go again 3 days later.

Kennedy may well be able "to start a game" and on his day is arguably one of our best central defenders. But the whole point of him going out on loan was for him to prove his fitness over a series of games. Do that, and he could have returned to us and staked a claim to start. He did not. On his debut he got through the game. In his next game a week later, he was forced off with injury after a quarter of the game. He didn't start again – Cambridge clearly didn't think he could be relied on.

Adkins has said "Kennedy needs games" – he's absolutely right. Because if he doesn't get a loan deal (and frankly, it's questionable whether anyone in League 2 will take the gamble based on his most recent experience where he was loaned "fit"), there won't be anyone willing to give him much of a deal in the summer. It's an enormous shame, he's been extremely unlucky with injuries has Kennavaro. And I'd have loved it if he could have reestablished himself. But it's very unlikely to now happen. Adkins has got this, and the James Wallace situation, absolutely bang on in my opinion. No surprise given his background as a physio.
Click to expand...

Logic that even a simpleton could understand.
 

Barney said:
There's absolutely no question he'd have detailed the current injury should that have been the case. He does it every time, there's no reason to presume this is an exception. Further loans perhaps.
Click to expand...

I'll ask again.

Is Adkins lying to you when he says 'he'd like Terry to be playing football'

Adkins is the manager. If, as you claim, Kennedy is fit, then it's within his power to start him...he hasn't..therefore he doesn't want Kennedy to be playing football.

Right?
 
LoughboroBlade said:
This is an absolutely ridiculous thread. We're at probably the most important stage of the season where we need to sort some consistency out to haul us back into promotion contention. For that, we need a consistent set of players to rely on, that can get through 90 minutes and be good to go again 3 days later.

Kennedy may well be able "to start a game" and on his day is arguably one of our best central defenders. But the whole point of him going out on loan was for him to prove his fitness over a series of games. Do that, and he could have returned to us and staked a claim to start. He did not. On his debut he got through the game. In his next game a week later, he was forced off with injury after a quarter of the game. He didn't start again – Cambridge clearly didn't think he could be relied on.

Adkins has said "Kennedy needs games" – he's absolutely right. Because if he doesn't get a loan deal (and frankly, it's questionable whether anyone in League 2 will take the gamble based on his most recent experience where he was loaned "fit"), there won't be anyone willing to give him much of a deal in the summer. It's an enormous shame, he's been extremely unlucky with injuries has Kennavaro. And I'd have loved it if he could have reestablished himself. But it's very unlikely to now happen. Adkins has got this, and the James Wallace situation, absolutely bang on in my opinion. No surprise given his background as a physio.
Click to expand...
You play your best team for every match. If he's ready to start a game, and he's better than the other centre halves (which he is), he should be getting on. It's like Barcelona refusing to play Messi in one game because he won't be available for the next.
 
Esablade said:
I'll ask again.

Is Adkins lying to you when he says 'he'd like Terry to be playing football'

Adkins is the manager. If, as you claim, Kennedy is fit, then it's within his power to start him...he hasn't..therefore he doesn't want Kennedy to be playing football.

Right?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that could mean a whole range of things. We can discount an injury because as I've said, he'd have detailed that if it were to be the case. Unless this is some sort of an enormous exception to almost every interview he's had. It is possible to want a player to be playing football without actually playing them.
 
Barney said:
You play your best team for every match. If he's ready to start a game, and he's better than the other centre halves (which he is), he should be getting on. It's like Barcelona refusing to play Messi in one game because he won't be available for the next.
Click to expand...
The fact of the matter is no one other than Adkins and Kennedy knows if he's fit or not so all you are doing his making assumptions all coming from one line at the very end of an interview, can you see how ridiculous that sounds?
 
Barney said:
Yes, but that could mean a whole range of things. We can discount an injury because as I've said, he'd have detailed that if it were to be the case. Unless this is some sort of an enormous exception to almost every interview he's had. It is possible to want a player to be playing football without actually playing them.
Click to expand...

Is it..how?
If they're fit and you want them to play in your team?
 
Barney said:
Yes, but that could mean a whole range of things. We can discount an injury because as I've said, he'd have detailed that if it were to be the case. Unless this is some sort of an enormous exception to almost every interview he's had. It is possible to want a player to be playing football without actually playing them.
Click to expand...

We can't discount an injury in the slightest.
The only person who discounted it is you, and absolutely no one agrees with you.
And you've also made a point of saying you don't listen to his interviews, so I've no idea how you can be so knowledgable of them.
 
wizadry said:
The fact of the matter is no one other than Adkins and Kennedy knows if he's fit or not so all you are doing his making assumptions all coming from one line at the very end of an interview, can you see how ridiculous that sounds?
Click to expand...
Works both ways. You're assuming he isn't fit. Pete's already written him off and got rid in his head.
 
Barney said:
Unless this is some sort of an enormous exception to almost every interview he's had.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly know this when you have recently said you don't normally listen to his interviews?
 
Esablade said:
Is it..how?
If they're fit and you want them to play in your team?
Click to expand...
Really?

Example: You've got 20 fit players. 11 can start. Regardless of how bad they might be, you always want the other 9 to be playing barring some sort of a fall out.
 
Barney said:
Works both ways. You're assuming he isn't fit. Pete's already written him off and got rid in his head.
Click to expand...
I'm not assuming anything, although him coming off after 20 odd minutes for Cambridge, coming back to us and him not being on our bench could possibly mean he is unfit.
 
wizadry said:
I'm not assuming anything, although him coming off after 20 odd minutes for Cambridge, coming back to us and him not being on our bench could possibly mean he is unfit.
Click to expand...
And Adkins not detailing the injury, and seemingly cagily avoiding it could suggest otherwise.
 

Barney said:
Works both ways. You're assuming he isn't fit. Pete's already written him off and got rid in his head.
Click to expand...

Pete's actually only said he's incapable of playing consecutive games.
Pete bases this on fact.
Pete does not base this on what Nigel didn't say in a one minute interview.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Coolblade
A few (brief) observations from the stats (plane pointers):
Replies
22
Views
1K
William Large
William Large
Coolblade
A few observations from the stats (Potters):
Replies
10
Views
899
Coolblade
Coolblade
Deadbat
Season Review / School Report 24/25: Part 4 - Defence
Replies
4
Views
855
232 Bramall Lane
2
G
Wilder skulking off at the end of the game
10 11 12
Replies
348
Views
24K
Greenwich Blade
Greenwich Blade
Deadbat
Season Review / School Report 24/25: Part 6 - Attack
Replies
4
Views
722
Deadbat
Deadbat

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom