So would I if they do make the team better but not if they dont. This sounds like the logic of good old Hemsy. A player that cost money must by definition be better than one that you developed yourself
Right, I get your thinking now lol In fairness, we've only had the players a week (they only signed last Friday) and Kane has made 2 sub appearances. They need to get up to speed with the new training and tactics. I think Murray has done the right thing and bring him in gradually. Also don't forget we've got 2 games most weeks, so it's a squad game - need to keep everyone happy as well as fit
I'm not saying that. I'm saying if the squad was in such dire straights why are players we had already keeping new signings out of the team? If Kane and James are needed why are we playing Palmer instead? Surely it should be Palmer on the bench replacing them?
Palmer was injured so wasnt availlable and had he not played really well in the last 2 games I would agree with you but to drop an in form player who hadnt been playing doesnt make sense to me just because someone else cost money
Can’t see Matty starting and finishing, 45 mins for him and Palmer each? I’d start Palmer and tell him he’s got the first 45.
I didnt - I just said Palmer has been the best player on the pitch when playing the last 2 games - there are 10 others who could be dropped
If by having James in the building pushes our existing players to better levels, which keeps him out, that’s gotta he a positive.
Not much of a positive for James. It's a bit like having Emile Heskey in the England team just because Michael Owen said he liked playing with him when we'd have been better off playing Peter Crouch.
I just want to see Schmidt and Woodrow start a game together before it's put in room 101 permanently.
James is here to make us better, ideally in the team, but it’s much better for the club long term if it makes the others kick on.
Imagine all the things James is passing onto the younger players in training, that's got to be a huge positive