James Wallace

[BushBlade]

Then it becomes another wall in front of the decision to go out and buy the midfielders that we need, none of which are at the club right now.

UTB

Why should it? We know we can't build a team around Wallace. Whether we keep or not, we still need another 'Wallace-type' midfielder. So if we keep him we've got a back up, if he ever gets fit.
But if you're already resigned to a midfield of Coutts and Hammond why are you expecting us to sign more midfielders?

 

[BushBlade]

We signed this pillock to appease the fans after missing out on Coady.

No we didn't. We signed him because we needed a midfielder like him, we still do.

And why is he a pillock? Do you think he enjoys being injured?

 

[alcoblade]

Why should it? We know we can't build a team around Wallace. Whether we keep or not, we still need another 'Wallace-type' midfielder. So if we keep him we've got a back up, if he ever gets fit.
But if you're already resigned to a midfield of Coutts and Hammond why are you expecting us to sign more midfielders?

It shouldn't, but it often does. Human nature puts too much emphasis on recent performance over history.

If he had 5 exceptional games and we released him, there'd be uproar.

I'm resigned to Coutts and Hammond until we assemble a proper midfield. We will eventually improve on this. I still hold out some small hope for Hammond, but none for Coutts.

UTB

 

[BushBlade]

It shouldn't, but it often does. Human nature puts too much emphasis on recent performance over history.

If he had 5 exceptional games and we released him, there'd be uproar.

I'm resigned to Coutts and Hammond until we assemble a proper midfield. We will eventually improve on this. I still hold out some small hope for Hammond, but none for Coutts.

UTB

There's always an uproar. If he had five decent games and we offered him a 'pay as you play ' type contract (or pay for being on the bench) no one would complain. And few would complain if we let him go, given his injury record. Only the squealers on here would make an issue over it. And I doubt Adkins is so naive to be fooled by a few good performances into building the team around him.

Personally, I think he's fucked but the benefits of keeping him until his contract expires outweighs any negatives.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

No we didn't. We signed him because we needed a midfielder like him, we still do.

We needed a midfielder who can't play?

 

[RealMcCoy]

I'm not sure. We lose the continuity that his presence breaks every time he makes an appearance. There is no way he's going to get a run of games in, so I think his inclusion is detrimental.

It's such a shame, because I really rated him and it seems we're thus stuck with Hammond and Coutts.

UTB

Might be a good idea to lose the continuity of mediocrity and losing performances.....

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Might be a good idea to lose the continuity of mediocrity and losing performances.....

drawing performances

 

[INTERUNITED]

We needed a midfielder who can't play?

Yes, we needed someone like this so badly we signed 2 (Cuvelier). The board always make sure we are covered.

 

[CarlingBlade]

No we didn't. We signed him because we needed a midfielder like him, we still do.

And why is he a pillock? Do you think he enjoys being injured?

He spent a season injured at Tranmere so we signed him, his injury problems have stretched on for 2 1/2 seasons now.

Yet another crock we're counting on and stealing a living for the club.

 

[BushBlade]

He spent a season injured at Tranmere so we signed him, his injury problems have stretched on for 2 1/2 seasons now.

Yet another crock we're counting on and stealing a living for the club.

No it's much longer than that. We shouldn't have signed him based on his injury record.

But that wasn't my point. You said we signed him to 'appease the fans because we didn't sign Coady'. We didn't. We signed him because we needed a midfielder who plays like he does when he's fit and, for some reason which I don't understand, Clough believed he was fit and would remain so.

That isn't Wallace's fault. Nor is getting repeatedly injured. So why is he a pillock? Unlucky, yes. Waste of money, yes. But unless you know something I don't, like his recovery is being slowed down because he's drinking heavily or not training properly, why the need to insult him?

 

[Lt. J Dangle]

Damn good player, just wish we could take the opposition on at Subbuteo to get a full 90 minutes out of him.

He'd probably end up on the sidelines with a broken fingernail

 

[Pierre's PC]

His head must be as messed-up as his body by now.

I think this is probably a overlooked issue for someone who probably just wants to play football.

 

[SandyMcBlade]

The worrying bit is we seem to be a club that does this on a regular basis, Wallace is not the first or the only long term injured player the club has signed is he.

 

[Silent Blade]

The worrying bit is we seem to be a club that does this on a regular basis, Wallace is not the first or the only long term injured player the club has signed is he.

 

[Bartleby]

I'd like to know what's actually up with him. Hasn't trained all week for an entire career?

It's beyond being injury prone, it's more like he has a chronic condition. And if he has a chronic condition, what on earth were we doing giving him a multi-year contract?

Either way it's a tragedy because in that short glimpse of a fit player we had last season, he looked our best footballer. His head must be as messed-up as his body by now.

I saw an interview he did in pre-season where he said that part of the problem was psychological now rather than physical, that he constantly worried while on the pitch that he would get injured again and that it had actually brought some problems on. Sounds daft now but I definitely saw it, but I can't find it now on Bladesplayer so maybe they took it off.

There is one on there from 24th July though that I hadn't seen and I'm a bit gobsmacked, had to watch it twice. He says he's been training every day and looking forward to playing regular as he hasn't managed to string 3 games together in 3 years since a knee operation!! What the fuck was Clough doing??

 

[Bartleby]

Further to last post just looked at the interview Clough did when he signed Wallace and he was asked about any fitness concerns given Wallace's record. Just says he passed the medical and they expect him to feature a lot over the next 9 months, though also says summat about players won't feature every game in a 60 game season. So looks to me like either it is all in Wallace's head and he was physically fit when signed, the medical process is flawed, or Clough took a gamble thinking he could get away with a less than 100% fit player due to squad rotation.

 

[Rodders]

No it's much longer than that. We shouldn't have signed him based on his injury record.

But that wasn't my point. You said we signed him to 'appease the fans because we didn't sign Coady'. We didn't. We signed him because we needed a midfielder who plays like he does when he's fit and, for some reason which I don't understand, Clough believed he was fit and would remain so.

That isn't Wallace's fault. Nor is getting repeatedly injured. So why is he a pillock? Unlucky, yes. Waste of money, yes. But unless you know something I don't, like his recovery is being slowed down because he's drinking heavily or not training properly, why the need to insult him?

He puts roller skates on each step of his stairs on purpose.

 

[super_pig]

No point in rushing him back. We could do with him but he's only had a few minutes game time and I guess we wanted to be sure there was no reaction. I don't think he should be near the first team until he's capable of 90 minutes at u21s level.

we've been not rushing him back for a year now!!. ok i'm currently living in Austria and only get to a third of the games but christ.. i've never seen this guy play AT ALL. same goes for Cuvalier AIH
we need to get rid of all these crocks they are taking the piss. we need to be cold pro's here. and i'd add coutts and scougall.
we're like a retirement home for cloughs mates.