king of spain Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 Anyone else abit confused why we signed this guy? Found it weird that when Erskine came off with 5 mins to go at 2-1 Archie still preferred to bring on Lawless rather than another midfielder to help shore things up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Maybe Archie was convinced we could get a third goal? It was like for like, at least in the sense of winger for winger. Since we won 3-1 maybe it was the right call. Sometimes it's a better defensive move not to replace a forward with a defender --- it's sometimes better to leave yourselves with another outball option rather than fall back into complete defensive mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Anyone else abit confused why we signed this guy? Found it weird that when Erskine came off with 5 mins to go at 2-1 Archie still preferred to bring on Lawless rather than another midfielder to help shore things up. I thought the substitution was fine. Been guilty of defending too deep late on too often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of spain Posted March 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 I thought the substitution was fine. Been guilty of defending too deep late on too often. The manager has complained about the team not seeing games out. Lawless for Erskine in 85 mins with Higgy,Doolan & Elliott already on seemed a strange change to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 The manager has complained about the team not seeing games out. Lawless for Erskine in 85 mins with Higgy,Doolan & Elliott already on seemed a strange change to me. I can understand where you're coming from tho' I feel (cliché alert) defending in the opposition half is preferable. I think Lawless can hold the ball up better than Craigen and in any case perhaps it's better Moncur doesn't debut quite so late on in a match? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Legend Blows Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Another classic Archie signing. Why bother wasting the boys time, West Hams time, pissing off his agent/contacts if you are not gonna play him. Pretty sure the guy could hold his own in our midfield yet his lasting memory of his 4 months at Thistle will be Glasgow Airport to go home on his weeks off and posting sheet about his girlfriend on Twitter. From a Thistle point of view why not just get loan deal for a lesser player closer to home seeing as he's so far down the pecking order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Another classic Archie signing. You mean like Osborne, Higgy, Taylor, Erskine, Fraser and Mair. The guy has been unfortunate that he has came in at a time when we have hit form. Think he will get game time once we are safe. Archie has made a few boobs in the transfer market, like Kerr and Mukendi, but the signings above more than outweigh the negatives and to be honest, given our budget, I think he has done a magnificent job in the transfer market Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibberish Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Typical of the usual on here, the boy hasn't had a chance to break in the team and yet he is getting written off already, give the lad a break 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of spain Posted March 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Typical of the usual on here, the boy hasn't had a chance to break in the team and yet he is getting written off already, give the lad a break Who's writing him off? I'm saying he surely must merit some game time otherwise what was the point in signing him. He's not in the same bracket as mukendi either as he is on the fringes of the west ham first team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThickAsThieves Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 He's behind Fraser, Bannigan and Buaben in the pecking order. The first two being our own contracted players and the latter having experience of this division. There was an opportunity for him to play today but Archie went for Doolan - who a lot of people wanted to start - and it paid off. He might be a good player but look at our recent form: are we going to change our team to accommodate Moncur so that we don't piss off West Ham? I'd like to think not. And Archie's signings have been on the whole very good. Moncur could prove to be a good signing too, he's back-up for us and may be called upon at some point. I wouldn't start him right now. What an odd thread this is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagtastic Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 If we didn't have him folk would be bemoaning our lack of depth in midfield with welsh and Osborne out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonehJags Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) I can't quote the legend blows but f....n do one. That comment above is the stupidest thing I've seen, an this forum has its fair amount of trumpets. Clearly know nothing aboot fitbaw. This thread is a joke. How could ye possibly chuck a young inexperienced boy on in a game like that. Granted Fraser an the fresh prince were bomb scares at times but ye can't unsettle the team by changing anyone in the middle of the park. Well done Archie fir the choices the day. I bet ur gutted we won. Start going to the games before writing nonsense Edited March 16, 2014 by MonehJags 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trotter Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) When I saw the team lines yesterday thought we'd be going 4-4-2 so was a little surprised to see the same formation as we have been playing with Doolan being in behind. I thought Doolan was immense yesterday, covered very blade of grass and put in a number of important challenges but after half an hour thought Archie had got it wrong by playing him instead of a midfielder- Moncur. I thought him or Craigen might have come on as sub for Taylor as in Doolan going up top & with one them in the midfield but we held out & got the 3rd & 3 points. Though truth be told haven't seen Moncur in the u20s, maybe the manager thinks he's not up to it? Edited March 16, 2014 by Trotter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 I'm not confused why we signed him, no. Mark Kerr left and Isaac Osbourne and Sean Welsh are injured. We signed him as cover for our two defensive midfield positions. Bannigan, Fraser and Buaben are ahead of him at the moment and we can only play two in that position. When Archie took Erskine off he replaced him like for like with Lawless. Had Fraser or Buaben gone off, I'm sure it would have been for Moncur. Moncur did tweet 'Zzzzz' at 5.36pm yesterday mind you so take from that what you will. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabbath Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 going into the last ten minutes the midfield needed to be shored up to keep the hibs away from our penalty box . Moncur is just too young to shoulder that responsibility in a dog fight. since there was no one on the bench that could take control of the midfield Archie didn't have to many options. Archie's total contempt for the hi-bees by bringing on Elliott should be applauded, but it was a huge risk. Moncur a last ten against the Celtic when were up by two is a possibility..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Elliott on was the only option when replacing a knackered Taylor. Craigen was also stripped to come on just before we got our third. Good to see Archie has learned from previous mistakes regarding subs he's made, been pretty much spot on since the Motherwell match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kni Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 I'm not confused why we signed him, no. Mark Kerr left and Isaac Osbourne and Sean Welsh are injured. We signed him as cover for our two defensive midfield positions. Bannigan, Fraser and Buaben are ahead of him at the moment and we can only play two in that position. When Archie took Erskine off he replaced him like for like with Lawless. Had Fraser or Buaben gone off, I'm sure it would have been for Moncur. Moncur did tweet 'Zzzzz' at 5.36pm yesterday mind you so take from that what you will. Bannigan, Buaben and Fraser have been playing together for weeks. Yesterday, Doolan replaced Bannigan so Moncur will be disappointed that he was not picked to start. The result proved that the manager's decision was the right one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) i think i am developing involuntary tourettes. it does seem to coincide when i visit this forum and read batshit crazy posts from a number of certain posters. anyone else similarily afflicted? Edited March 16, 2014 by yoda-jag 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 i think i am developing involuntary tourettes. it does seem to coincide when i visit this forum and read batshit crazy posts from a number of certain posters. anyone else similarily afflicted? ****! $@$@*! *&$@$^*&^*! Aye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Archie's total contempt for the hi-bees by bringing on Elliott should be applauded, but it was a huge risk. I hate to say it, but that's quite funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Moncur came to the club ridiculously over weight and no where near our level of fitness. He's now up to speed, and I think he will feature soon. Just needs to stand out in the reserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Moncur came to the club ridiculously over weight and no where near our level of fitness. He's now up to speed, and I think he will feature soon. Just needs to stand out in the reserves. Well if that is the case, he shouldn't have been signed. Any player signed in the January window should be fit and ready to play a part from January. The statement "ridiculously overweight" means we are not talking a few pounds here. He should have been shipped straight back to the Hammers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garscube Road End Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Well if that is the case, he shouldn't have been signed. Any player signed in the January window should be fit and ready to play a part from January. The statement "ridiculously overweight" means we are not talking a few pounds here. He should have been shipped straight back to the Hammers! Maybe that by West Ham standards he is fine, whereas Archie demands super fit guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Well if that is the case, he shouldn't have been signed. Any player signed in the January window should be fit and ready to play a part from January. The statement "ridiculously overweight" means we are not talking a few pounds here. He should have been shipped straight back to the Hammers! Sorry, is this a written rule, players must be fully fit and ready to play or should not be signed in January? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Maybe that by West Ham standards he is fine, whereas Archie demands super fit guys. I'm not sure an English Premier League club would have less strict rules around fitness than us. Although, one of my mates said he ran into a pished Ricky Lambert last weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.