Andre Brooks

[AWetFlannel]

What about the fact that BBD has been crap the last 5 or 6 games?

Players up and down the country run into poor form, do they all get dropped for academy players? No is the answer, especially for teams gunning for promotion. It's a factor worth considering though.

Does it matter if Brooks isn't tearing it up on Shirecliffe if he is delivering in games?

He's not delivered in games any more than BBD or JRS, but regardless, yes it matters. Wilder and the players have always gone on about standards in training being important.

Could he have made a difference second half at Oxford? We will never know but what we do know is that who did come on didn't make a difference.

Right, but we didn't know they wouldn't make a difference before they came on. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We brought on JRS, a lad with 22 goals and 11 assists in his young career. Your argument is that obviously we should've brought on Brooks, a lad of a similar age with 2 goals and 2 assists to his name.

Nibody is saying he's a world beater but it seems weird that a lad who has that bit of magic has not been in the matchday squad for over half of our games. Whereas other players who turn in mediocre perfoemances most of the time get a lot more opportunity. But yep Wilder is always right and nobody should question his judgement on any player.

BBD and JRS haven't put in mediocre performances all season, if they had we'd not be 3rd and top 2 most of the season.

It's absolutely fair to question Wilder. It's understandable to want to give a young, promising blade more chances. But just because one player starts playing poorly, it doesn't mean their potential replacement should start. You don't watch them in training, you probably don't watch them play reserve games, whereas the manager does.

Plenty of people want Brooks to play. They weren't insisting it was obvious when we were top, but whatever, fine. To start making up conspiracy theories is just mental though, particularly when we have a squad full of top talent.

 

[FriethBlade]

Players up and down the country run into poor form, do they all get dropped for academy players? No is the answer, especially for teams gunning for promotion. It's a factor worth considering though.

He's not delivered in games any more than BBD or JRS, but regardless, yes it matters. Wilder and the players have always gone on about standards in training being important.

Right, but we didn't know they wouldn't make a difference before they came on. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We brought on JRS, a lad with 22 goals and 11 assists in his young career. Your argument is that obviously we should've brought on Brooks, a lad of a similar age with 2 goals and 2 assists to his name.

BBD and JRS haven't put in mediocre performances all season, if they had we'd not be 3rd and top 2 most of the season.

It's absolutely fair to question Wilder. It's understandable to want to give a young, promising blade more chances. But just because one player starts playing poorly, it doesn't mean their potential replacement should start. You don't watch them in training, you probably don't watch them play reserve games, whereas the manager does.

Plenty of people want Brooks to play. They weren't insisting it was obvious when we were top, but whatever, fine. To start making up conspiracy theories is just mental though, particularly when we have a squad full of top talent.

I would argue that BBD has been mediocre at best since he came back and at worst he's been none existent. Brewster has also been mediocre at best the entire seaon, Cannons performances have been mediocre at best ever since we signed him.

However those players seem to get a lot more leeway and some would argue that is because 'Wilders name' is all over them either due to massive fees paid for them or massive wages sanctioned. So the question is does Wilders 'competency need' sometimes weigh too heavily on squad selection? It's a legitimate question for people to ask....and i will bet u a lot of money thst it's one Brooks agent is asking too.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

I think he certainly deserves more game time than shit like Cannon

 

[derfblade.3]

I think he certainly deserves more game time than shit like Cannon

Can't you express your opinions of one of our players better than that?
The guy needs our support after a difficult start not abuse.

 

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

He needs to play the last two games. Him and JRS are the two wide players who are unpredictable and can cause problems. One needs to be on the pitch at all times.

I think BBD has been woeful in this spell. Sure, he gets a few goals and assists but does sod all else. Does almost no defensive work on top of largely being uninvolved with general play.

Aye
Diaz you idle bastard all tha does is score (“a few”) .
Oh, and “assists”

To be clear I feel he’s been poor but you’ve not made the most convincing of arguments

 

[Pollingtonblade]

Can't you express your opinions of one of our players better than that?
The guy needs our support after a difficult start not abuse.

Apologies

I think Brooks performs at a higher level than Cannon, who appears to be not very good at his role.

 

[AWetFlannel]

I would argue that BBD has been mediocre at best since he came back and at worst he's been none existent. Brewster has also been mediocre at best the entire seaon, Cannons performances have been mediocre at best ever since we signed him.

All the players you're calling mediocre are proven players at this level, Brooks is not. That's the difference, that's why they get "leeway".

However those players seem to get a lot more leeway and some would argue that is because 'Wilders name' is all over them either due to massive fees paid for them or massive wages sanctioned. So the question is does Wilders 'competency need' sometimes weigh too heavily on squad selection? It's a legitimate question for people to ask....and i will bet u a lot of money thst it's one Brooks agent is asking too.

I don't think it is a legitimate question to ask.

Walk me through the thought process. To prove himself right, he chooses to play players that he's paid a large fee/stuck his neck out for, even when he knows we're less likely to win.

So he:

1. Cares more about his reputation than the football club.
2. Cares more about how well his signings do than getting wins.
3. Would rather lose games and throw promotion than play Sheffield born academy players.
4. Doesn't understand that ultimately managers get judged on results, not transfers.
5. Enjoys bragging about his signings more than celebrating wins and promotions.

 

[FriethBlade]

All the players you're calling mediocre are proven players at this level, Brooks is not. That's the difference, that's why they get "leeway".

I don't think it is a legitimate question to ask.

Walk me through the thought process. To prove himself right, he chooses to play players that he's paid a large fee/stuck his neck out for, even when he knows we're less likely to win.

So he:

1. Cares more about his reputation than the football club.
2. Cares more about how well his signings do than getting wins.
3. Would rather lose games and throw promotion than play Sheffield born academy players.
4. Doesn't understand that ultimately managers get judged on results, not transfers.
5. Enjoys bragging about his signings more than celebrating wins and promotions.

Walk me through the thought process.... and you just make 5 points up

It's called confirmation bias and understandably he gives more leeway to 2 players he's paid 30m for than one who has come through the academy for free. His bosses would expect nothing less...he has to believe spending that much money on 'assets' has some end product doesnt he?

Anyway let's agree to disagree as this is going nowhere with you making stuff up.

 

[AWetFlannel]

Walk me through the thought process.... and you just make 5 points up

It's called confirmation bias and understandably he gives more leeway to 2 players he's paid 30m for than one who has come through the academy for free. His bosses would expect nothing less...he has to believe spending that much money on 'assets' has some end product doesnt he?

Anyway let's agree to disagree as this is going nowhere with you making stuff up.

I don't think it is understandable. He would justify the fees with results on the pitch; if he meets his target and we go up, they won't care who cost what.

We can agree to disagree, but let's remember the original claim that was made: "there's no logical reason that he wouldn't play Brooks". I hope the lad goes on to do well, but if he ends up playing for Buxton, Harrogate or Halifax, (as is most likely with any young player) imagine how silly this will look.

 

[IdLiketoRogerMoore]

Maybe he’s more interested in doing the things that will give him the best chance of a long and healthy career than being a “culture carrier”.

My best mate was his PE Teacher for 5 years and can't speak highly enough as him as a human being!!

 

[Nick Jansky]

My best mate was his PE Teacher for 5 years and can't speak highly enough as him as a human being!!

I know this from first hand experience