Ben Reeves - DONE DEAL 2 year contract page 4

SDAddick

NapaAddick said:

How does Reeves compare to Dack in terms of quality?

From what I've seen Reeves is better technically and in terms of picking a pass. Fewer goals. Less busy. But he still works hard. I think he fits our system better. The big question as mentioned by @MKDinpeace (great post mate) is his injury problems. But I personally feel he has a bigger upside.

blackpool72

Can't understand all the negativity regarding Reeves.
I went to bury on the opening game last season and our midfield was full of old slow unimaginative players.
When fit Reeves Marshall Holmes fosu and Clarke will give us the best attacking options we have had for quite a while.

Doesn't stop Roland being a cnut mind.

LoOkOuT

In Driessen we trust.

aliwibble

LoOkOuT said:

In Driessen we trust.

FIshing for LOLs LoOkOuT? I thought mods were meant to be above such things :-)

Henry Irving

cafcfan1990 said:

seth plum said:

Reeves might be fragile, I get that. He was a free transfer though which mitigates the risk.

Having Billy Clarke too helps. I don't think he's promotion material but he's a very good squad player to have.

I think Clarke might turn out to be a better player for us than Reeves.

cafcfan1990

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

seth plum said:

Reeves might be fragile, I get that. He was a free transfer though which mitigates the risk.

Having Billy Clarke too helps. I don't think he's promotion material but he's a very good squad player to have.

I think Clarke might turn out to be a better player for us than Reeves.

Possibly, evidence from recent league 1 seasons suggests Reeves is the better player though

Henry Irving

cafcfan1990 said:

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

seth plum said:

Reeves might be fragile, I get that. He was a free transfer though which mitigates the risk.

Having Billy Clarke too helps. I don't think he's promotion material but he's a very good squad player to have.

I think Clarke might turn out to be a better player for us than Reeves.

Possibly, evidence from recent league 1 seasons suggests Reeves is the better player though

maybe, maybe not. Bradford finished above MK Dons last season.

cafcfan1990

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

seth plum said:

Reeves might be fragile, I get that. He was a free transfer though which mitigates the risk.

Having Billy Clarke too helps. I don't think he's promotion material but he's a very good squad player to have.

I think Clarke might turn out to be a better player for us than Reeves.

Possibly, evidence from recent league 1 seasons suggests Reeves is the better player though

maybe, maybe not. Bradford finished above MK Dons last season.

That means nothing, or is every single Chelsea player better than any Arsenal or Liverpool player?

The general feeling from Bradford fans is that they weren't bothered about Clarke, MK fans didn't feel same way about Reeves though

Henry Irving

cafcfan1990 said:

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

seth plum said:

Reeves might be fragile, I get that. He was a free transfer though which mitigates the risk.

Having Billy Clarke too helps. I don't think he's promotion material but he's a very good squad player to have.

I think Clarke might turn out to be a better player for us than Reeves.

Possibly, evidence from recent league 1 seasons suggests Reeves is the better player though

maybe, maybe not. Bradford finished above MK Dons last season.

That means nothing, or is every single Chelsea player better than any Arsenal or Liverpool player?

The general feeling from Bradford fans is that they weren't bothered about Clarke, MK fans didn't feel same way about Reeves though

It was you who cited "recent league one seasons" as evidence.

cafcfan1990

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

seth plum said:

Reeves might be fragile, I get that. He was a free transfer though which mitigates the risk.

Having Billy Clarke too helps. I don't think he's promotion material but he's a very good squad player to have.

I think Clarke might turn out to be a better player for us than Reeves.

Possibly, evidence from recent league 1 seasons suggests Reeves is the better player though

maybe, maybe not. Bradford finished above MK Dons last season.

That means nothing, or is every single Chelsea player better than any Arsenal or Liverpool player?

The general feeling from Bradford fans is that they weren't bothered about Clarke, MK fans didn't feel same way about Reeves though

It was you who cited "recent league one seasons" as evidence.

Yes as players, not teams as the comparison was Reeves and Clarke, not their respective teams

roseandcrown

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

seth plum said:

Reeves might be fragile, I get that. He was a free transfer though which mitigates the risk.

Having Billy Clarke too helps. I don't think he's promotion material but he's a very good squad player to have.

I think Clarke might turn out to be a better player for us than Reeves.

Thats a big shout but Clarke played well Saturday doing the often unoticed bits well.

sillav nitram

Makes you wonder why he wasn't keeping himself fit over the summer?

dickplumb

sillav nitram said:

Makes you wonder why he wasn't keeping himself fit over the summer?

He was, but he is not match fit.

sillav nitram

dickplumb said:

sillav nitram said:

Makes you wonder why he wasn't keeping himself fit over the summer?

He was, but he is not match fit.

So what is the difference, other than playing matches?

Couldn't that be replicated in some other way?

ross1

sillav nitram said:

dickplumb said:

sillav nitram said:

Makes you wonder why he wasn't keeping himself fit over the summer?

He was, but he is not match fit.

So what is the difference, other than playing matches?

Couldn't that be replicated in some other way?

That is what the coaches are doing with him this week, then sub for Saturday and starting 11 against Norwich next Tuesday

Elthamaddick

never bought into the term 'match fit' you are either fit to play or not

dickplumb

Elthamaddick said:

never bought into the term 'match fit' you are either fit to play or not

You can be fit, but there is a difference between being fit and being fit enough to play a high intensity football match for 90 minutes. Hence the maxim match fit.

East_Stand_Loopy

Elthamaddick said:

never bought into the term 'match fit' you are either fit to play or not

So, Usain Bolt is very fit. How do you think he'd do in a marathon?

Covered_End_Lad

dickplumb said:

Elthamaddick said:

never bought into the term 'match fit' you are either fit to play or not

You can be fit, but there is a difference between being fit and being fit enough to play a high intensity football match for 90 minutes. Hence the maxim match fit.

I always thought being fit was able to sustain the physical demands of football, but match fit meant you had played enough games to have got your touch/finishing/game awareness up to scratch?

moutuakilla

East_Stand_Loopy said:

Elthamaddick said:

never bought into the term 'match fit' you are either fit to play or not

So, Usain Bolt is very fit. How do you think he'd do in a marathon?

He'd smash the first 100m

Elthamaddick

just think it's a lame excuse personally.

guinnessaddick

East_Stand_Loopy said:

Elthamaddick said:

never bought into the term 'match fit' you are either fit to play or not

So, Usain Bolt is very fit. How do you think he'd do in a marathon?

Usain Bolt could play for Manchester United - if he recovers from injury in time

The Jamaican could appear at a United legends match against Barcelona at Old Trafford, according to reports

ShootersHillGuru

East_Stand_Loopy said:

Elthamaddick said:

never bought into the term 'match fit' you are either fit to play or not

So, Usain Bolt is very fit. How do you think he'd do in a marathon?

Better than me.

CafcWest

Covered_End_Lad said:

dickplumb said:

Elthamaddick said:

never bought into the term 'match fit' you are either fit to play or not

You can be fit, but there is a difference between being fit and being fit enough to play a high intensity football match for 90 minutes. Hence the maxim match fit.

I always thought being fit was able to sustain the physical demands of football, but match fit meant you had played enough games to have got your touch/finishing/game awareness up to scratch?

That's exactly how I would describe Match Fit over being simply fit enough to play. Lots of players come back from injury slowly and then recover their fitness but getting past that period of being 'a bit rusty' takes time and it is then that they can be considered match fit. Think Reeves needs time to get back to his best - even if he is 'fit'. In the 'old days' of Reserves that was always a good way of regaining some element of match fitness before being thrown back in (ala Magennis).