I'm sick and tired of this 'Sir Bobby' culture

''I wait for assasination from people who don't know what a good footballer really is'' - your words in your original post?!?!

Some may argue its the other way round as far as intolerance is concerned eh?

We'll agree to disagree on wether we consider Bobby a 'good' footballer or not. Sir or no Sir.

 

I certainly didn't tell you what to think. I merely disagreed with you.

You can hold the opinion that Hassell eats babies if you like. The world will continue to turn, and others will continue to put forward another view, or not.

 

Re: you need a permanent ban.. whats yer thoughts on Rimmo then

I agree with most of that.

But he was an average player at his best who had no pace and was often caught out of position and struggled to get back.

 

I'm convinced of it.

That doesn't mean I don't like Danny. Never stopped me liking Keith either. But I do think (and I may well be wrong) they were all distracted by him and everything he entailed. I cannot for the life of me understand why Danny brought him back in to such good effect, yet then dispensed of him and selected the likes of Frimpong, Woods and even picked TK at right back on occasion. That's not based on football ability.

As for it being injury related, or '****** knees' as you put it, I can only go on what Bobby himself says and that's that he's been fit for months and ready to play. His last injuries weren't even knee injuries. The one he picked up at Leeds was cramp. Then he hurt his calf. Lack of match practice/fitness the cause. And, it's well known that Danny selected lots of lads in the last couple of months who weren't fit. He even put RNL on at Derby who was injured and hadn't trained for over ten days. Did the same with McLaughlin at Wigan...


I'm saying no more on it anyway. It's boring. I'm hoping to interview Bobby for my blog and/or WSB this Summer. Hopefully he'll have a few answers/stories. But other than that, Bobby's gone and I've moved on. I wish him all the best. It matters not really, whether Danny liked him or rated him etc. All that matters is getting behind him and his new squad next season, then judging him on his second coming. Last season doesn't count against him in my opinion. It's 2014-15 that'll shape my opinion on his second spell.

 

Re: you need a permanent ban.. whats yer thoughts on Rimmo then

Just out of interest, can you name me just FIVE goals he's cost us in the last three seasons? Or, FIVE games he's cost us. You know, because of the weaknesses you claim he's got?


It amazes me that the outfield player with the best win percentage over the last three seasons still gets this kind of critique. Especially when we have had (and still do) ACTUAL players here who've cost us huggins of goals/games in that same period.

 

Re: you need a permanent ban.. whats yer thoughts on Rimmo then

Get over it. Hassell's never been a good full back. Just accept it he was ****.

 

Re: you need a permanent ban.. whats yer thoughts on Rimmo then

Wow. Mr Sugden speaks.

 

Re: you need a permanent ban.. whats yer thoughts on Rimmo then

Said nobody with a fcukin clue.

 

I do remember one game where he was absolutely awful. Luton at home under PHart. One of the worst defensive performances I have ever seen. Honest.

 

I remember a few poor games of his, mainly in his early BFC career. But in the last three years?

Hemsworth Tyke would name me em. I miss him.

 

I can't remember the last time I saw him play a full 90 minutes.

 

You didn't see it, but he played 90 at Palace and Cardiff late last season, in two draws.

 

At sellhurst park he looked like he was playing for palace

 

I thought he was crap for much of that first season. Since then, he's rarely had a bad game. Steady Eddie, does his job, neat and tidy passes, far better positioning than a few on here give him credit for, and a special knack for being in the right place at the right time, making last ditch clearances and tackles that get his team mates out of trouble. A number of replacements have been brought in for him, but none of 'em lasted that long and Bobby was always back in the side.

Having said that, he's far more injury prone than he will admit to. If professional football were my living, I wouldn't admit to it either. Maybe 'admit to' is the wrong phrase. That suggests he knows it but he just isn't telling anyone. I don't think that's the case. Many ageing sportsmen and women don't admit to themselves they're getting older, that they're not as fit/good/strong/fast as they once were, that they're becoming more susceptible to injuries, that they don't recover like they once did. Unfortunately, it happens to us all, even when we don't want it to.

IMHO Bobby Hassell has been criminally underused these past few seasons. But there have also been a lot of times when he's been injured. He broke down towards the end of last season and missed the final few games. It happened again when Danny Wilson brought him in to the side when he first arrived. Yes, he hadn't played much and that could be the reason why he got injured. But how do you get a player match time when he breaks down every time you play him? He needs games to build up his fitness to prevent injuries, but gets injured when you give him those games. He may say he's fit to play, but when he is played he gets injured again. I don't know what you can do about that. Well, I do, but it hasn't been popular.

If Bobby Hassell was at the level he was at three seasons ago he would have been the first player I tried to retain. Top of my list. Three years on and I don't know if he is still at that level, I've hardly seen him, but I do know he's susceptible to injuries. With that in mind, I think it was probably the right time for him to leave. I wish his testimonial would get a move on though. He was a great servant to our club and I want to show my appreciation.

 

Palace must have been crap. 12 men to our 10 and they still failed to score against one of the most generous defences in the league.

 

No he just had a palace top on that's all

 

Maybe.




Flicker said, after that game: "I think the experience of Stephen Foster and Bobby Hassell marshalled Glenn Murray really well which you have to do, he is the best striker in the league. He didn't get a sniff."

 

That's a fair summary, Jay. Maybe that was Danny's thought behind not picking him. I don't know. Especially when you consider he picked other injured players, or left backs at right back etc.

 

I think over the last couple of seasons he would have been more suited to the game that Dawson supposedly plays as he can tackle, reads the game and has a decent range of short passing. Might have given us a bit more support in front of the back four if he had played there.

 

It's the only reason I can think of. When Danny Wilson arrived he talked Bobby Hassell up. He was singing his praises in his first interviews. He put him straight in the side for the Leeds game. Got a good review from Danny after it too. It seemed to me like he knew he was a good player and wanted to use him.

He got injured or cramp or whatever in that Leeds game and was withdrawn on the hour, but he was still in the side for the following game at home to Bolton. He had to be withdrawn from that too and wasn't fit enough for the next couple of games. He was then properly injured and out for weeks.

Bobby then said he was fit for the last couple of months of the season and I'm sure he was over his injuries, but think of it from the manager's point of view: You've played him a couple of times, but had to withdraw him in both games. He's then injured in training or whatever. He believes that the reason he was injured was because he'd played so few games, yet here is again, coming back from injury, very few games under his belt and it's not like he's a spring chicken, he's getting in to his mid 30s. You might risk McLaughlin and RNL who are in their teens, hope they can pull through, but someone at 33? Wilson put Bobby on the bench for the last couple of months. Bobby is a better player than a lot of those who were selected before him. But would he have even lasted the match? Could we risk him? We probably should have done, we were relegated anyway, Hassell's inclusion couldn't really have made things worse. We'll never now if he could have made a difference, but I can understand why it happened.