Adebayo Signs

Discuss all matters related to Dagenham and Redbridge
SUSSEX DAGGER
Posts: 2619
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:47 am

matt_drfc wrote:Would have needed quite a bit more money to get a defender who's good enough to go straight into the first xi.. Added to that the right defender would have to be available, so if you know of any quality defenders available at the moment let us know.
Would not have to be quality, just better then ours any thing north of dreadful would be an improvement.

18 months we have endured this shambles and it is getting worse.
matt_drfc
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:58 pm

SUSSEX DAGGER wrote:
matt_drfc wrote:Would have needed quite a bit more money to get a defender who's good enough to go straight into the first xi.. Added to that the right defender would have to be available, so if you know of any quality defenders available at the moment let us know.
Would not have to be quality, just better then ours any thing north of dreadful would be an improvement.

18 months we have endured this shambles and it is getting worse.
Maybe quality wasn't the right word, but jokes aside if a new defender were to come in, and be better than what we have, they would certainly need to be on either more than or the same as what say, Doe and Saah are on, and if we had that sort of money available then they would have been brought in before the window closed..
User avatar
ARNU
Posts: 3746
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:43 pm

[quote="matt_drfc"]

Maybe quality wasn't the right word, but jokes aside if a new defender were to come in, and be better than what we have, they would certainly need to be on either more than or the same as what say, Doe and Saah are on, and if we had that sort of money available then they would have been brought in before the window closed[quote="matt_drfc"]


Dosen't work like that.You have a talent in this case football.You want to play at the highest level ultimately and to do that you have to be on show to get noticed.Dagenham and Redbridge offer you that window of opportunity.You don't go "I aint playing if I don't get what Doey gets" do ya ? You'd probably play for nothing to grab that opportunity.Whilst money matters if you are an up and coming player and you are any good your priority should be to get in a team first.If you are any good the money will come to you.Dwight Gayle being the perfect example.Got an opportunity,took it well and now the money sorts itself out.I'd imagine he wasn't on much more than jobseekers allowance when he 1st signed for us.
Bollix to Shampoo, it's real poo we want !
User avatar
ThatRoundThing
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:40 am

Probably get a defender from the loan market will be Wayne's choice. I think the new striker is possibly asset building. Buy him cheap and sell on later.
matt_drfc
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:58 pm

ARNU wrote:
matt_drfc wrote:

Maybe quality wasn't the right word, but jokes aside if a new defender were to come in, and be better than what we have, they would certainly need to be on either more than or the same as what say, Doe and Saah are on, and if we had that sort of money available then they would have been brought in before the window closed
matt_drfc wrote:

Dosen't work like that.You have a talent in this case football.You want to play at the highest level ultimately and to do that you have to be on show to get noticed.Dagenham and Redbridge offer you that window of opportunity.You don't go "I aint playing if I don't get what Doey gets" do ya ? You'd probably play for nothing to grab that opportunity.Whilst money matters if you are an up and coming player and you are any good your priority should be to get in a team first.If you are any good the money will come to you.Dwight Gayle being the perfect example.Got an opportunity,took it well and now the money sorts itself out.I'd imagine he wasn't on much more than jobseekers allowance when he 1st signed for us.


I know that and so the defenders we will be looking at are going to be non-league, so they're not definitely going to be good enough to go in the first XI. Dwight Gayle, he wasn't good enough to go straight into the first XI, and went out on loan, so that comparison is fairly irrelevant
Lcbdagger
Posts: 1872
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:17 pm

Confused about the comments relating to the possible cost of defensive cover that may start? If money is the option then don't bring in a 20 year old non league player on a one year contract even if he was free if he won't play... We don't need a forward player, we do need a defender. Pretty simple
User avatar
ARNU
Posts: 3746
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:43 pm

What do you mean Matt ?? Gayle wasn't good enough ?? Stilly wanted him to play v Bristol Rovers on the last day of that season because we were so shite but Gayles loan deal conditions wouldn't allow him to play for us.Also who's to say he wouldn't have been better than the dross we had up front at the time ?? He clearly would have been more than good enough.He only played for us 17 or 18 times and got a championship move straight away and within a short time of that move was a prem player.Gayle was better then than anything we had before and since.(With the exception of CMS and Maybe benno)

Stilly ****** up putting him out on loan in the 1st place choosing to stick with the muppets we had at the time like a lazy fat Brian Woodall.Gayle would have run rings round all of 'em.Putting out Gayle on loan that season was a glaring managerial mistake on the same level as Pardew hardly playing Tevez and Mascherano at West ham that season.Look where they both went on.
Bollix to Shampoo, it's real poo we want !
matt_drfc
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:58 pm

ARNU wrote:What do you mean Matt ?? Gayle wasn't good enough ?? Stilly wanted him to play v Bristol Rovers on the last day of that season because we were so shite but Gayles loan deal conditions wouldn't allow him to play for us.Also who's to say he wouldn't have been better than the dross we had up front at the time ?? He clearly would have been more than good enough.He only played for us 17 or 18 times and got a championship move straight away and within a short time of that move was a prem player.Gayle was better then than anything we had before and since.(With the exception of CMS and Maybe benno)

Stilly ****** up putting him out on loan in the 1st place choosing to stick with the muppets we had at the time like a lazy fat Brian Woodall.Gayle would have run rings round all of 'em.Putting out Gayle on loan that season was a glaring managerial mistake on the same level as Pardew hardly playing Tevez and Mascherano at West ham that season.Look where they both went on.
Last day of the season, AFTER he had scored that many goals, at the start of the season when we signed him he had only played for Stansted in what, Essex Senior League? I doubt he would have been ready, he needed that loan move to Stortford and Stilly clearly thought so aswell, otherwise he wouldn't have loaned him out. Lazy fat Woodall was our top scorer that season and scored a hat-trick in the mentioned Bristol Rovers game. This is way off topic though...
Diggerthedog
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 pm

So Matt still don't think we need better defenders?
matt_drfc
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:58 pm

Diggerthedog wrote:So Matt still don't think we need better defenders?
I said I agree we do. But my point was that I don't think we can find a defender who will come straight in our team and sort our problems out for the same amount of money as a 20 year old striker from Ryman North..
Diggerthedog
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 pm

FairPlay. We need a defensive coach but instead we get in Dalton Grant an Olympic high jumper. Jobs for then boys.
matt_drfc
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:58 pm

Diggerthedog wrote:FairPlay. We need a defensive coach but instead we get in Dalton Grant an Olympic high jumper. Jobs for then boys.
That is what is needed for sure, someone to work with the boys 1 to 1, it's not the defence as a whole, it's individual players making mistakes. The shape of the team defensively has been ok, just players lacking desire to get the ball ahead of their opponent at corners..
matt_drfc
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:58 pm

View From The Stand wrote:Sorry Matt it's a team game with components within, the defence being one part of. Therefore the defence has to be treated first as a unit.
Think about the goals we've been conceding majority are individual errors, of course we are going to concede a goal every now and then through purely being opened up and out played. But I'd say out of the last 8 goals we have conceded (Oxford, Northampton, Cambridge) at least 4, maybe 5 have been individual errors, 1 was a penalty which was harsh and the other 2 were decent play from the opposition.

3rd goal v Oxford - Connors diving in and allowing Hylton to get the ball across and eventually scoring
2nd goal v Northampton - Gayle lost his marker
1st goal v Cambridge - O'Brien poor positioning
2nd goal v Cambridge - Someone lost their marker (not sure who)
3rd goal v Cambridge - O'Brien's fault (May have been fouled though)
Adrian
Posts: 1261
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:09 pm

matt_drfc wrote:
View From The Stand wrote:Sorry Matt it's a team game with components within, the defence being one part of. Therefore the defence has to be treated first as a unit.
Think about the goals we've been conceding majority are individual errors, of course we are going to concede a goal every now and then through purely being opened up and out played. But I'd say out of the last 8 goals we have conceded (Oxford, Northampton, Cambridge) at least 4, maybe 5 have been individual errors, 1 was a penalty which was harsh and the other 2 were decent play from the opposition.

3rd goal v Oxford - Connors diving in and allowing Hylton to get the ball across and eventually scoring
2nd goal v Northampton - Gayle lost his marker
1st goal v Cambridge - O'Brien poor positioning
2nd goal v Cambridge - Someone lost their marker (not sure who)
3rd goal v Cambridge - O'Brien's fault (May have been fouled though)
Conceding the occasional goal because of excellent play by the other team is fine. It will happen.
To be putting the other goals down as individual errors is ridiculous. The simple reality is that we concede far too many goals that are avoidable. If we have that many 'individual' errors then there is still something wrong - either the players being used aren't good enough or the way they've been told to defend doesn't suit them.
Post Reply