Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Ronnie Schwartz (Page 73 - contract cancelled)
Comments
-
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?
7 -
One of the most pitiful sights I have seen at The Valley was the match where Simon Francis visibly crumbled in front of our eyes. It was so sad to see and left me feeling so sorry for him. Imagine that was your son or brother out there. Certainly, I didn’t see him as having the mental strength to forge a successful stint with a team in the Premier. Fair play to him. The last laugh was on the doubters and those who verbally abused him that day.Crusty54 said:I'm reminded of the way Simon Francis was constantly criticised.
Left to join Bournemouth and went on to captain them in the Premier League and did pretty well.
Constructive criticism is good. The make up of the team changed with the signings in the window after Schwartz signed.2 -
I agree on that point, I haven't really said he should be playing ahead of anyone.. at least i dont think i have??Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?
Aneke, deserves a spot as he is such a beast and scores
Washington, our form forward and probably the place more likely RS needs to fight for, as i doubt they would pair each other
Stockley, also a new signing and has done well. More hold up and play, similar to Aneke a bit without the power and not as much threat.
All 4 of our strikers seem decent for this level, well i say that but i assume Ronnie will step up when given the chance.
My only thought and continued argument as such, is literally people who are writing him off it is far too soon and he hasn't been given the chance. I still feel personally he would be the best finisher at the club, but well see. I am giving him time to adjust to a new setting before forming a proper opinion.2 -
Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?The geezer knew what he was letting himself in for when he signed.This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing. For his sake I hope Adkins rates him and he can kick start his career with us.Having said that I am dubious as to his success, the standard he has played at over the years has been no different to League 1 and he has hardly set the world alight.2 -
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)5 -
Why doesn’t he rent a place or does he think he won’t be here for longCroydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?0 -
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.0 -
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.4 -
Nah, I'm still not buying it.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.
Chased through 2 windows and given a 2 1/2 year contract over the head of your manager?2 -
I wasn't aware that his lady in was pregnant, and back in Denmark.
As someone who works offshore for half the year, be in in 3 week blocks, I can tell you that it adds huge pressure on your mental state. Things seem to always go wrong whist you're away, be it house stuff breaking, dog having to go to the vets, kids usually get sick only when men are away. (I don't own any kids, but the blokes at work always complain of this happening).
Add the subconscious guilt of leaving loved ones to fend for themselves, it's hard to focus at times and perform at the best of ones ability. I'd say for an athlete to perform at his/her peak, their whole life needs to be balanced and in a happy state.
Now I don't know the reasoning behind his signing or why he agreed to move over, maybe it was needs must financially for his family, but I don't think he'd fully realised the implications of that move. Add the fact that he isn't getting much game time, players love to play, add in the isolation sue to covid, it can be a heavy burden to carry.
Now given that NA is all about mental health and having strong bonds with his players, maybe Ronnie with thrive under him.
Or it could be ' right player, wrong timing'.
I've seen many strong capable men start offshore, getting their dream job, and crumble quickly. Until you put yourself in that position, you never know.
Time will tell, and time is what we should give him for now.
10 -
Sponsored links:
-
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.0 -
Better than League One Charlton!ElfsborgAddick said:
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.3 -
You’d think Gallen & Sandgaard people trafficked Schwartz into the country against his will the way people are going on about how tough the circumstances for him must be. He chose to do this, probably because he couldn’t believe his luck.7
-
ValleyGary said:
Better than League One Charlton!ElfsborgAddick said:
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.
Definitely not. Top league football in Scandinavia is League 1 standard.
1 -
se9addick said:You’d think Gallen & Sandgaard people trafficked Schwartz into the country against his will the way people are going on about how tough the circumstances for him must be. He chose to do this, probably because he couldn’t believe his luck.
You have no idea, so why insult one of our players?
2 -
ElfsborgAddick said:ValleyGary said:
Better than League One Charlton!ElfsborgAddick said:
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.
Definitely not. Top league football in Scandinavia is League 1 standard.
Hmm, would say that the top teams (FC Midtjylland and FC Copenhagen) in Denmark definitely are more Championship than League 1.
1 -
From my experience of the Allsvenskan in Sweden I'll stick by my view.Danepak said:ElfsborgAddick said:ValleyGary said:
Better than League One Charlton!ElfsborgAddick said:
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.
Definitely not. Top league football in Scandinavia is League 1 standard.
Hmm, would say that the top teams (FC Midtjylland and FC Copenhagen) in Denmark definitely are more Championship than League 1.
The standards in Sweden and Denmark I'd put down as similar.
I'd fancy Elfsborg being given the runaround in the Championship.0 -
Not been impressed with what I've seen so far but refuse to judge the bloke on the few minutes he's played. Maybe a readjustment to the playing formation will suite him. We'll see next season.1
-
Edited for youElfsborgAddick said:
From my experience of the Allsvenskan in Sweden I'll stick by my view.Danepak said:ElfsborgAddick said:ValleyGary said:
Better than League One Charlton!ElfsborgAddick said:
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.
Definitely not. Top league football in Scandinavia is League 1 standard.
Hmm, would say that the top teams (FC Midtjylland and FC Copenhagen) in Denmark definitely are more Championship than League 1.
The standards in Sweden and Denmark I'd put down as similar.
"From my experience of football in Sweden, I'll judge the football in Denmark"1 -
None what so ever. Danish owner, danish striker. 2+2=?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
I also read on here that bowyer had the final say on transfers written into his contract! If that is the case, I’m not sure how Schwartz couldn’t be a bowyer signing.4 -
Sponsored links:
-
Meaning......Dazzler21 said:
Edited for youElfsborgAddick said:
From my experience of the Allsvenskan in Sweden I'll stick by my view.Danepak said:ElfsborgAddick said:ValleyGary said:
Better than League One Charlton!ElfsborgAddick said:
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.
Definitely not. Top league football in Scandinavia is League 1 standard.
Hmm, would say that the top teams (FC Midtjylland and FC Copenhagen) in Denmark definitely are more Championship than League 1.
The standards in Sweden and Denmark I'd put down as similar.
"From my experience of football in Sweden, I'll judge the football in Denmark"0 -
FC Midtjylland who got two draws in the Champions League against Liverpool and Atalanta? Yes he wasn’t playing for them this year but got 6 in 15 or similar last season for them. What about Guingamp who were comfortably mid table in Ligue 1 when he signed for them?ElfsborgAddick said:
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.
An instant impact didn’t materialise under Bowyer but who else has truly shone this season? Foreign players can struggle to adapt at the best of times, let alone in the middle of a pandemic. Let’s at least give him more than a few sub appearances before he’s totally written off.19 -
.0
-
Dazz won’t have a bad word said about rocking Ronnie.ElfsborgAddick said:
Meaning......Dazzler21 said:
Edited for youElfsborgAddick said:
From my experience of the Allsvenskan in Sweden I'll stick by my view.Danepak said:ElfsborgAddick said:ValleyGary said:
Better than League One Charlton!ElfsborgAddick said:
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.
Definitely not. Top league football in Scandinavia is League 1 standard.
Hmm, would say that the top teams (FC Midtjylland and FC Copenhagen) in Denmark definitely are more Championship than League 1.
The standards in Sweden and Denmark I'd put down as similar.
"From my experience of football in Sweden, I'll judge the football in Denmark"2 -
Please do not get me wrong. I am not writing him off, particularly as I have not seen him play.Callumcafc said:
FC Midtjylland who got two draws in the Champions League against Liverpool and Atalanta? Yes he wasn’t playing for them this year but got 6 in 15 or similar last season for them. What about Guingamp who were comfortably mid table in Ligue 1 when he signed for them?ElfsborgAddick said:
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.
An instant impact didn’t materialise under Bowyer but who else has truly shone this season? Foreign players can struggle to adapt at the best of times, let alone in the middle of a pandemic. Let’s at least give him more than a few sub appearances before he’s totally written off.
However, the only pedigree he has been connected with is found in a dogs bowl.4 -
Never even seen him play 😂😂😂😂4
-
Don’t let a trivial point such as that stop you 😂ElfsborgAddick said:
Please do not get me wrong. I am not writing him off, particularly as I have not seen him play.Callumcafc said:
FC Midtjylland who got two draws in the Champions League against Liverpool and Atalanta? Yes he wasn’t playing for them this year but got 6 in 15 or similar last season for them. What about Guingamp who were comfortably mid table in Ligue 1 when he signed for them?ElfsborgAddick said:
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.
An instant impact didn’t materialise under Bowyer but who else has truly shone this season? Foreign players can struggle to adapt at the best of times, let alone in the middle of a pandemic. Let’s at least give him more than a few sub appearances before he’s totally written off.
However, the only pedigree he has been connected with is found in a dogs bowl.3 -
Okay, fuck it then. He's got to be shit, he's from Denmark.SheffieldRed said:
Don’t let a trivial point such as that stop you 😂ElfsborgAddick said:
Please do not get me wrong. I am not writing him off, particularly as I have not seen him play.Callumcafc said:
FC Midtjylland who got two draws in the Champions League against Liverpool and Atalanta? Yes he wasn’t playing for them this year but got 6 in 15 or similar last season for them. What about Guingamp who were comfortably mid table in Ligue 1 when he signed for them?ElfsborgAddick said:
Pedigree? Have you seen the rubbish he has played for?ValleyGary said:
Nothing sussy. Obviously a TS signing, but I’m prepared to forgive him when he’s putting his hand in his pocket. And it’s not like he’s bought a mate who’s been playing in the Danish lower leagues. He’s got pedigree. It’s not a natural foreign transfer with what’s going on. I think next season, under a new manager and with crowds he might be a useful asset. If not, nothing lost.ElfsborgAddick said:
How many games did he start/minutes play under Bowyer?Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
That's the second time I have seen that suggestion casually thrown into a post.ElfsborgAddick said:Croydon said:
It's not an agenda to state that none of our other strikers deserve to be dropped. That's absolutely true.johnnybev1987 said:
i have stated you are more than entitled to your opinion, however you have repeated your point even to the point it feels like an agenda. Maybe its just how i have read things.FishCostaFortune said:
Let what lie exactly? Why am I not allowed to voice my total disagreement to those posters who are arguing that Schwartz is being mismanaged by the team and treated harshly by fans?johnnybev1987 said:
Fish, you seem to not let this lie. I think everyone knows your opinion. No-one is saying its not valid, just most including myself are saying give it time, he hasn't had the chance to settle or played enough.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
We just have to trust the management team to either get the best out of him, or move him on if it was all hype. Seems to be going round in circles this conversation, surely it would be better to see in say 6 games or even the end of season.
This is nothing to do with whose opinion is valid or not. How do you think this thread should continue, that it should only be those in agreement making their point, and if you disagree then you shouldn't be able to respond?
I am certainly not a Bowyer defender at all - indeed I feel like we played some of our worst football under him, and his reliance in players like Pratley was quiet baffling. So he could have completely mismanaged Schwartz but would you rather give Aneke 45 minutes from the bench of Schwatz?king addick said:
We have 4 strikers to rotate and he can play with either Stockley or Aneke..maybe even Washington if we play a high press game where Washington harries the defence and Schwartz picks up loose balls etc.FishCostaFortune said:
Who would you start him at the expense of though? It shouldn't be our other strikers who are scoring goals, and offer more across the pitch because they fit in with our play style better.king addick said:The simple answer to all the problems.....Start him too see what he can do or if bringing him on as a sub, give him 30 minutes instead of 5.
Personally think he is a good addition to our team that has been poorly managed up till now.
I don't think someone is being poorly managed because they are not getting a place ahead of 3 strikers who are playing better then him. Especially when we don't know what goes on in training.
I'd say the poor decision would be to bring him in January, and taking him away from his pregnant girlfriend during a pandemic, where he can't do anything but dwell on what's going on.
I believe Bowyer poorly managed him. To constantly say "he isnt up to speed" then not play him to build his fitness is stupid. Aneke though, who has issues, got 45 here, 60 there. Bowyer had one system and that was that.
He is an adult..he DIDNT have to move but chose to do so. No doubt it plays on his mind but this is his job and should be an outlet for him but instead he was made to splinter his arse on the bench...thats when he sit there and dwell...thinking WTF have I moved for when i'm not playing.
It's very early days, but this didn't change under JJ, or Adkins when he had a chance to put him on instead of Washington.
By all means reason/ discuss this, but it just seems like the same things in response to others which include myself making the same point. Its going round in circles really.
I do feel he hasn't been given the chance and with a new manager you would hope he can make the decision whether he deserves one. (NB this does sound like i am repeating my point again so i apologise and will move on)
All our strikers are currently playing well, and scoring fairly regularly. Why should Ronnie be given game time ahead of them? Just because we feel sorry that he's living in a hotel?This is no criticism of him as I do have sympathy for the Dane as it seems that he was not a Bowyer signing.
Is there a single shred of evidence to back this up?
(I'm genuinely curious, not being funny)
Coincidence that a random fella from Denmark ends up at The Valley? Very sussy.
An instant impact didn’t materialise under Bowyer but who else has truly shone this season? Foreign players can struggle to adapt at the best of times, let alone in the middle of a pandemic. Let’s at least give him more than a few sub appearances before he’s totally written off.
However, the only pedigree he has been connected with is found in a dogs bowl.1 -
I work for the ONS.ValleyGary said:Never even seen him play 😂😂😂😂0 -
Does Schwartz have an injury or was he just dropped from the squad yesterday?0
