by papereyes »
04 Jun 2007 13:46
Royalee Ian Royal Royalee Given that a large number of fans were calling for Coppell's head at the time of this thread and that people were defending players such as Hughes and Goater (which were ditched after the creation of this thread, where the squad was pretty much overhauled) I think some of the comments on here are a bit rich.
The pretentiousness of some of the posters on here when looking back astounds me.
In some ways I respect you... you're sticking to your views of the time while many are pretending they didn't have them or convieniently ignoring them..
You were still talking absolute toss and those who told you so at the time have every right to crow about it though.
And I think you'll find plenty of people still defend Goater's contribution to our club in his first season, and appreciate all the hard work Hughes put in and how he held our squad together until Coppell managed to mould the club into what he wanted.
Hughes held the squad together?
Here's a novel idea, let's employ a motivational speaker on the playing staff and play him in every match if that's what's required, sod skill and awareness on a football pitch.
...I also think you'll find many who'd slam Goater's performances in both his first and second seasons with us, and they'd be right too.
This is what I don't get. Hughes clearly had a big positive effect on the side when he was in it. He may have been technically one of the worst players in the side, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have a big role in it and its relative success.
Equally, its true that once we replaced him with a genuine left winger with pace, skill and a football brain, we improved. The second fact doesn't mean that Hughes' role in the side in the previous seasons was somehow less.
Its the same as any comments written in the middle of 2004-05. The side
were playing poorly, the side
did look unmotivated, the two transfer window signings
were painfully short-termist and did not work. Subsequent success doesn't change any of that.
