Q: Is having only two centre backs enough?

[chilipepper91]

Halls and Halford were both purchased as replacements for Murty, maybe not in the immediate short term, but with the expectation that they'd push him out of the side eventually.

Neither got close to it.

Rosenior did an ok job yes, in some eyes (I wasn't a critic) but in many others view he was woeful. He didn't make the position his own and was let go as soon as we could find someone to take him. I think that equates to a failure personally.

Halls was bought as backup, he was never seen as a long term replacement.

wasnt he a couple of million quid?
and a record buy?
not like us at all to do that for a back up player

Halls was £250k, Halford was ~£2m

[Svlad Cjelli]

Halford was ~£2m

But in his own mind worth far, far more than that.

[chilipepper91]

Halford was ~£2m

But in his own mind worth far, far more than that.

I checked on Wikipedia after this as I was unsure of the exact price - apparently we sold him to Sunderland for £3.5m 6 months later

John Halls is now at Wycombe, after 2 years at Aldershot.

[Hoop Blah]

i wasnt slagging you off at all, simply highlighting where the difference lies between the two thought processes, and why that means we wont ever agree- and therefore probably shouldbnt bother arguing about it.

I don't think you were slagging me off, it was others who's opinion you were slagging off. I was just pointing out that you're Sidwell's the only one we've not replaced adequately is a bit of a misrepresentation of the real events.

[brendywendy]

its your.

and that depends on your definition of the word adequately


mine is that we have replaced them, and still remained competetive
and yours seems to be that we widnt replace them with players who were as good as.

i think that expecting that after relegation from the prem is silly cos it will never happen.
except sidwell who went before we were relegated.

[Hoop Blah]

except sidwell who went before we were relegated.

Little?
Sonko?
Murty (to a much lesser extent as he only missed about a third of the season)?
Lita?

We didn't adequately replace those players when they missed the relegation season (or significant parts of it) and paid the price.

[brendywendy]

what?

they were still here during the relegation season werent they?

or are you saying we should have replaced them when they got injured?

im no longer even sure what im arguing with you about anyway.

please carry on.

[Hoop Blah]

We tried to replace Little and Sonko when they were out for significant periods of time.

Why else were Kebe and Duberry signed? Neither were really up to the job unfortunately and we ended up going down because of it. We even played something like 7 different options on the right to try and replace Little.

As I said, Murty was a lesser problem and De La Cruz and Rosenior did ok filling in, although I could see the strength in an argument that they weren't quite adequate.

I'm not saying we should expect the club to have replacements or backups that are as good as the players they replace, but your argument against the concerns around replacing Mills is that there isn't anything to worry about because we always, Sidwell aside, do a spiffing job of replacing and remaining competitive. Personally I think history suggests we understandably struggle.

[brendywendy]

We tried to replace Little and Sonko when they were out for significant periods of time.

Why else were Kebe and Duberry signed? Neither were really up to the job unfortunately and we ended up going down because of it. We even played something like 7 different options on the right to try and replace Little.

As I said, Murty was a lesser problem and De La Cruz and Rosenior did ok filling in, although I could see the strength in an argument that they weren't quite adequate.

I'm not saying we should expect the club to have replacements or backups that are as good as the players they replace, but your argument against the concerns around replacing Mills is that there isn't anything to worry about because we always, Sidwell aside, do a spiffing job of replacing and remaining competitive. Personally I think history suggests we understandably struggle.

i said the relegation season was the exception.so no.
and my only argument to suggest otherwise is that we have remained competetive since, whilst getting rid of all the best players weve ever had.

either way, im bored of the circular argument.
thankyou for keeping it entertaining for so long.

[Tilehurst End]

We tried to replace Little and Sonko when they were out for significant periods of time.

Why else were Kebe and Duberry signed? Neither were really up to the job unfortunately and we ended up going down because of it. We even played something like 7 different options on the right to try and replace Little.As I said, Murty was a lesser problem and De La Cruz and Rosenior did ok filling in, although I could see the strength in an argument that they weren't quite adequate.

Could have played all 7 at once and it still would not have replaced Little.

[brendywendy]

replacing the white pele was always going to be impossible.
not even the good ronaldo in his prime.....etc

[Terminal Boardom]

http://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/readingfc/s/2096144_reading_fc_boss_forced_to_enter_the_loan_market

Some numpty at the scrote wrote:

Brian McDermott is on the lookout for a loan star after being told he can only bring in a new centre-back on a temporary basis.

McDermott, who has until the transfer window shuts on August 31 to recruit a replacement for Mills, continued: “I’m not overly concerned about it at this stage of the season, but it is a position we need to get sorted.”

Goes to show the value of HNA? If this thread hadn't started BmcD would have never known. What is alarming though is that first statement. That indicates to me that the budget that BMcD was given for bringing players in permanently was a big fat zero. What I don't get is the value of bringing someone in on loan. We have them for a few months or even a season then they piss off (Griff and legs excepted). I would have thought that by having a player on a permanent contract would give an option to cash in and get some return for the investment. Loanees just pick up the money with no mid term benefit to the borrowing club. I just don't understand this approach at all. Certainly not at this stage of the season anyway.

[Terminal Boardom]

We tried to replace Little and Sonko when they were out for significant periods of time.

Why else were Kebe and Duberry signed? Neither were really up to the job unfortunately and we ended up going down because of it. We even played something like 7 different options on the right to try and replace Little.As I said, Murty was a lesser problem and De La Cruz and Rosenior did ok filling in, although I could see the strength in an argument that they weren't quite adequate.

Could have played all 7 at once and it still would not have replaced Little.

FFS, Blakey had 1 outstanding season. That's right. a big fat 1.

And we got relegated from the Prem because we were not good enough. End of. WTF are we still crying about what happened in 2008??? Get a grip folks.

[brendywendy]

http://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/readingfc/s/2096144_reading_fc_boss_forced_to_enter_the_loan_market

Some numpty at the scrote wrote:

Brian McDermott is on the lookout for a loan star after being told he can only bring in a new centre-back on a temporary basis.

McDermott, who has until the transfer window shuts on August 31 to recruit a replacement for Mills, continued: “I’m not overly concerned about it at this stage of the season, but it is a position we need to get sorted.”

Goes to show the value of HNA? If this thread hadn't started BmcD would have never known. What is alarming though is that first statement. That indicates to me that the budget that BMcD was given for bringing players in permanently was a big fat zero. What I don't get is the value of bringing someone in on loan. We have them for a few months or even a season then they piss off (Griff and legs excepted). I would have thought that by having a player on a permanent contract would give an option to cash in and get some return for the investment. Loanees just pick up the money with no mid term benefit to the borrowing club. I just don't understand this approach at all. Certainly not at this stage of the season anyway.

i guess the club sees it that we have two fit CBs, plus two back up options.plus the opportunity to have another look in january, so a loan, which isnt a long term drain on our finances probably is the best way to go.
i find that quite worrying, but not at all surprising

[brendywendy]

We tried to replace Little and Sonko when they were out for significant periods of time.

Why else were Kebe and Duberry signed? Neither were really up to the job unfortunately and we ended up going down because of it. We even played something like 7 different options on the right to try and replace Little.As I said, Murty was a lesser problem and De La Cruz and Rosenior did ok filling in, although I could see the strength in an argument that they weren't quite adequate.

Could have played all 7 at once and it still would not have replaced Little.

FFS, Blakey had 1 outstanding season. That's right. a big fat 1.

And we got relegated from the Prem because we were not good enough. End of. WTF are we still crying about what happened in 2008??? Get a grip folks.

still the best player ive seen here. for that 1 season.

[rhroyal]

We tried to replace Little and Sonko when they were out for significant periods of time.

Why else were Kebe and Duberry signed? Neither were really up to the job unfortunately and we ended up going down because of it. We even played something like 7 different options on the right to try and replace Little.As I said, Murty was a lesser problem and De La Cruz and Rosenior did ok filling in, although I could see the strength in an argument that they weren't quite adequate.

Could have played all 7 at once and it still would not have replaced Little.

FFS, Blakey had 1 outstanding season. That's right. a big fat 1.

And we got relegated from the Prem because we were not good enough. End of. WTF are we still crying about what happened in 2008??? Get a grip folks.

He had a run in the team in 06/07. I thought he looked very accomplished in the Premiership for that spell. Not outstanding, but he was at a higher level and was by no means out of his depth. Same can't be said for all the alternatives we tried in 07/08.

[RoyalBlue]

We tried to replace Little and Sonko when they were out for significant periods of time.

Why else were Kebe and Duberry signed? Neither were really up to the job unfortunately and we ended up going down because of it. We even played something like 7 different options on the right to try and replace Little.
.

I seem to remember that the problem was we waited far, far too long before trying to replace Little in the hope that he was going to recover from his injury. We put off having him operated on because it was hoped that he would recover without. Eventually it was decided surgery was the only option. Post surgery we hung on in the hope of a speedy recovery that wasn't forthcoming.

[Ian Royal]

Successfully replaced at the first attempt? By that I mean replacing with a player to consistently produce at the level we then found ourselves at (ie I don't expect a Sidwell or Shorey replacement of the same quality as their best, just someone to do their same job to a decent standard).

Up for debate, but off the top of my head, without too much consideration

Little? No
Doyle? No
Murty? No
Sonko? No
Shorey? Yes, but then Armstrong No
Hahnemann? Yes
Kitson? No
Harper? Not really
Convey? Yes

who said at the first attempt?
apart from you of course?

In the context of this conversation, replacing Mills/Ingimarsson/Kishanishvili for the upcoming season is there another relevant measure?

We're left with two recognised centre halfs so we're talking about replacing them for this season, that means we need to do it right first time don't we?

From my list above I think you could argue we did ok replacing Sonko at the time (a combination of Bikey/Dubery) but it was a bit hit and miss.

You could add Bikey? Yes (Mills)
Armstrong? Yes (Bertrand)
Bertrand? Yes (Harte)
Rosenior? debateable took six months for Griffin.
Kebe for Little a season after it was needed and six months after Kebe joined.

So it's fairly balanced, and most of the major problems were during the Prem or in the season immediately after, when we know we went about things wrong or the situation was very difficult respectively.

And I still think it's ludicrous to be whining about a Mills replacement less than a week after he was sold, with a month to go until the season starts, let alone the window closes.

It's borrowing trouble and being pessimistic and grumpy for the sake of it.

[Cypry]

http://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/readingfc/s/2096144_reading_fc_boss_forced_to_enter_the_loan_market

Some numpty at the scrote wrote:

Brian McDermott is on the lookout for a loan star after being told he can only bring in a new centre-back on a temporary basis.

McDermott, who has until the transfer window shuts on August 31 to recruit a replacement for Mills, continued: “I’m not overly concerned about it at this stage of the season, but it is a position we need to get sorted.”

Goes to show the value of HNA? If this thread hadn't started BmcD would have never known. What is alarming though is that first statement. That indicates to me that the budget that BMcD was given for bringing players in permanently was a big fat zero. What I don't get is the value of bringing someone in on loan. We have them for a few months or even a season then they piss off (Griff and legs excepted). I would have thought that by having a player on a permanent contract would give an option to cash in and get some return for the investment. Loanees just pick up the money with no mid term benefit to the borrowing club. I just don't understand this approach at all. Certainly not at this stage of the season anyway.

i guess the club sees it that we have two fit CBs, plus two back up options.plus the opportunity to have another look in january, so a loan, which isnt a long term drain on our finances probably is the best way to go.
i find that quite worrying, but not at all surprising

Reading between the lines of what McD says in that article, I suspect he's waiting to see what happens regarding any other outgoing players to be honest - the current situation is he's signed Leigertwood possibly using up a fair chunk of any transfer budget he had for this Summer (lots of people seem to forget about that signing), and we've sold Mills at a level which should allow us to make up any short fall between predicted income and outgoings this season (last season the gap was around £4M - I suspect that's little changed this year).
So our "books are balanced" - any other signings other than loans are likely to be triggered by more outgoing players. I reckon the club will do everything they can to hold on to the likes of Long and Kebe (and I'd be happy with that) whether the players themselves want to stay's a different matter. So I wonder if the preferred option is to offload one of our many keepers, thereby funding the purchase of a new CB or LB - is it any coincidence that Feds appeared to put himself in the shop window on SSN the other day? Could it be that this was actually sanctioned by the club?

If we could get a couple of £M for Feds, this would then allow us to strengthen defensively, with an easy replacement for Feds in McCarthy - perhaps this is why McD talks about at the moment it looks like a loan? I strongly suspect that a loan player is his contingency just in case no other club comes in for Feds / McCarthy - I for one would be very surprised if we saw any other players leave for good money and McD still doesn't get a fund to strengthen at CB/LB....

[andrew1957]

I have to say that I do find the Fordham article surprising.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/footb ... oan_market

In one way it might be positive. Perhaps the club are expecting no more players to go. If Long and Kebe have both agreed new contracts then that would be great news and I can live with a loan replacement at CB.

If, however, we do intend to cash in on either Kebe or Long then not signing a permanent replacement for Mills now would seem short sighted in the extreme.