Jump to content
IGNORED

Lansbury


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Won possession pretty well today but on the ball was poor

I thought he was improving a bit as the game wore on.

Not convinced by the signing overall, but I saw a bit more tonight than other games.

Would’ve brought Massengo on ahead of him though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ziderheadarmy said:

Yes please. 

So you’re saying this is Jons version of David (his previous game was at the World Cup) James ? 

So Holden had no say what so ever? 

Also, How the hell is he perceived to be a good PR exercise? 

I await correction or confirmation by KITR but Peters end, Cunningham or Manning I thought? Those were the 3 names.

The rest I have no idea on but 3 serviceable- not stellar but serviceable- options right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I await correction or confirmation by KITR but Peters end, Cunningham or Manning I thought? Those were the 3 names.

The rest I have no idea on but 3 serviceable- not stellar but serviceable- options right there.

He is talking nonsense about Lansbury.

It is well known were were after a left back, and the names you heard were ones reported. For whatever reason it didnt happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Atticus said:

He is talking nonsense about Lansbury.

It is well known were were after a left back, and the names you heard were ones reported. For whatever reason it didnt happen. 

Lansbury aside, if Ashton had lined up one of those 3 and the board blocked then it's ridiculous.

Signing Lansbury on top of that is even worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Lansbury aside, if Ashton had lined up one of those 3 and the board blocked then it's ridiculous.

Signing Lansbury on top of that is even worse?

Why would the board block a left back and sign an ageing midfielder? Thats bollocks.

Clearly that dimwit Ashton signed Lansbury then failed in the negotiations of the left back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, big dosser said:

thought he would be a good signing, now thinking one of the worst we made

Waste of wage in my opinion and taking game time from better options. That said it was NP that decided to bring him on, guess he must have shown something in training.

First time I've not liked something NPs had to say "Henri came on and I thought he showed a lot of experience and got to the pace of the game pretty well" Hopefully he said that just for encouragement as to me he was poor once again, esp. his passing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, old_eastender said:

Waste of wage in my opinion and taking game time from better options. That said it was NP that decided to bring him on, guess he must have shown something in training.

First time I've not liked something NPs had to say "Henri came on and I thought he showed a lot of experience and got to the pace of the game pretty well" Hopefully he said that just for encouragement as to me he was poor once again, esp. his passing.

Perhaps he just wanted to see for himself what he could do? 
It sounds like quite a generic comment, like you said, just for encouragement and diplomacy than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s easy to be critical of Lansbury’s performances, but I’d stress that it is ridiculous to play him as the DM. 
I’ll judge Lansbury on his performances as an AM, if he ever gets played there. If he never plays there then it was a ludicrous signing. 
 

Holden stupidly played him at DM, and Nige has made the same mistake. I won’t criticise Nige on that as he is new and making his own judgments and inevitable mistakes as to what players can and can’t do. 
 

As for the actual signing itself, people need to realise that it wasn’t a case of ‘a left back OR Lansbury’. 
The non-signing of a left back has no bearing whatsoever on the signing of Lansbury. 
However, this wasn’t a signing which was heavy in due diligence. We’d contacted Villa about Keenan Davis, but it transpired he wasn’t available for loan, but Villa suggested Lansbury was available. One of those situations where it happens quite quickly without months of scouting, research and diligence. Just someone who became available in a conversation about another player. The fact that there’d be no loan fee too, as he agreed to cancel his contract, made it an easier sell in terms of finances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some points made on the Lansbury thread but in common with every forum subscriber after a defeat with late goals in both halves it must be Mark Ashton's fault. Nothing to do with crap 'keeping' and a lack of concentration in defence, it was Mark Ashton's fault - surely?

Oh wait a minute, he brought in most of the players who have done well over the past 3 games and brought in NP. Oh hell, what have i got to complain about today on this forum to make people laugh?  Oh, yes wait a minute, i should criticize at least one player who contributed to our disastrous performance that rightly has every City fan slagging off the team and calling for a new manager; - let's pick on Henry and give him hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bristol_Badger said:

Pretty sure Pearson made the sub (could be wrong)... unless someone saw Ashton or Jon Lansdown down there? 

Pearson chose to bring him on and not HNM so why are we bashing Lansbury?

The new scapegoat for uneducated BristolCity fans.

Pearson is still getting to know the squad and it was an enforced sub made through injury rather than choice. Not really sure why we would be criticising Pearson.

Personally I don’t think HNM is at his best as a deep lying midfielder either. I’d have brought Towler on, moved Sessegnon to the right and kept Vyner in midfield. But I’ll judge Pearson’s substitutions once he knows the squad and has got better options on the bench as players recover from injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Harry said:

It’s easy to be critical of Lansbury’s performances, but I’d stress that it is ridiculous to play him as the DM. 
I’ll judge Lansbury on his performances as an AM, if he ever gets played there. If he never plays there then it was a ludicrous signing. 
 

Holden stupidly played him at DM, and Nige has made the same mistake. I won’t criticise Nige on that as he is new and making his own judgments and inevitable mistakes as to what players can and can’t do. 
 

As for the actual signing itself, people need to realise that it wasn’t a case of ‘a left back OR Lansbury’. 
The non-signing of a left back has no bearing whatsoever on the signing of Lansbury. 
However, this wasn’t a signing which was heavy in due diligence. We’d contacted Villa about Keenan Davis, but it transpired he wasn’t available for loan, but Villa suggested Lansbury was available. One of those situations where it happens quite quickly without months of scouting, research and diligence. Just someone who became available in a conversation about another player. The fact that there’d be no loan fee too, as he agreed to cancel his contract, made it an easier sell in terms of finances. 

Why did they say no to the LBs then? Were they too expensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hampshire Red said:

Some points made on the Lansbury thread but in common with every forum subscriber after a defeat with late goals in both halves it must be Mark Ashton's fault. Nothing to do with crap 'keeping' and a lack of concentration in defence, it was Mark Ashton's fault - surely?

Oh wait a minute, he brought in most of the players who have done well over the past 3 games and brought in NP. Oh hell, what have i got to complain about today on this forum to make people laugh?  Oh, yes wait a minute, i should criticize at least one player who contributed to our disastrous performance that rightly has every City fan slagging off the team and calling for a new manager; - let's pick on Henry and give him hell.

I think a lot of criticism on this forum goes way over the top, but at least we've got you to balance the other complete end of the scale ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Hampshire Red said:

Some points made on the Lansbury thread but in common with every forum subscriber after a defeat with late goals in both halves it must be Mark Ashton's fault. Nothing to do with crap 'keeping' and a lack of concentration in defence, it was Mark Ashton's fault - surely?

Oh wait a minute, he brought in most of the players who have done well over the past 3 games and brought in NP. Oh hell, what have i got to complain about today on this forum to make people laugh?  Oh, yes wait a minute, i should criticize at least one player who contributed to our disastrous performance that rightly has every City fan slagging off the team and calling for a new manager; - let's pick on Henry and give him hell.

I think you may have won the most immature post of the week. Well done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Hampshire Red said:

Some points made on the Lansbury thread but in common with every forum subscriber after a defeat with late goals in both halves it must be Mark Ashton's fault. Nothing to do with crap 'keeping' and a lack of concentration in defence, it was Mark Ashton's fault - surely?

Oh wait a minute, he brought in most of the players who have done well over the past 3 games and brought in NP. Oh hell, what have i got to complain about today on this forum to make people laugh?  Oh, yes wait a minute, i should criticize at least one player who contributed to our disastrous performance that rightly has every City fan slagging off the team and calling for a new manager; - let's pick on Henry and give him hell.

Henri 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Harry said:

It’s easy to be critical of Lansbury’s performances, but I’d stress that it is ridiculous to play him as the DM. 
I’ll judge Lansbury on his performances as an AM, if he ever gets played there. If he never plays there then it was a ludicrous signing. 
 

Holden stupidly played him at DM, and Nige has made the same mistake. I won’t criticise Nige on that as he is new and making his own judgments and inevitable mistakes as to what players can and can’t do. 
 

As for the actual signing itself, people need to realise that it wasn’t a case of ‘a left back OR Lansbury’. 
The non-signing of a left back has no bearing whatsoever on the signing of Lansbury. 
However, this wasn’t a signing which was heavy in due diligence. We’d contacted Villa about Keenan Davis, but it transpired he wasn’t available for loan, but Villa suggested Lansbury was available. One of those situations where it happens quite quickly without months of scouting, research and diligence. Just someone who became available in a conversation about another player. The fact that there’d be no loan fee too, as he agreed to cancel his contract, made it an easier sell in terms of finances. 

Been injured as well, expect Pearson played him (positionally) based off what he'd been told about him by Simpson and Downing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be the latest whipping boy. I actually thought he did ok against a decent side in Bournemouth, especially considering his obvious lack of game time. Thought he looked to play forward as and when he could. But sometimes the execution was off, I believe that will come with game time. We got done by a goalkeeping blooper & a lack of concentration, not Lansbury coming on at halftime. Wasn’t brilliant, but done ok. COYR 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now it's Nigel Pearson who's talking rubbish is it???

"Henri came on and I thought he showed a lot of experience and got to the pace of the game pretty well, so there are always positives to come out of these situations.”

:dunno:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Simon79 said:

Seems to be the latest whipping boy. I actually thought he did ok against a decent side in Bournemouth, especially considering his obvious lack of game time. Thought he looked to play forward as and when he could. But sometimes the execution was off, I believe that will come with game time. We got done by a goalkeeping blooper & a lack of concentration, not Lansbury coming on at halftime. Wasn’t brilliant, but done ok. COYR 

Yes I think we need to be a bit patient with him.    Nakhi Wells was the worst signing ever a few weeks ago  according to some but the Nige effect has worked wonders on him (although he was subdued last night).

Lansbury's passing was poor and has been since he's joined us - his stats for accurate passes were dire.    No doubt Nige will be keeping a close eye on him.  Will be interesting to see if he steps up,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at the time, you could kind of see the logic of signing a midfielder, T was struggling for form, several were still out injured - some experience in the centre was a good idea - but it was the wrong signing IMO.

Expecting someone whose played so few games and not been in any sort of form for so long to come in, in Jan, and make a difference in the cut and thrust of the champ was a misjudgment.


To be fair to him, last night when he came on had 2 or 3 good moments - but would proceed to massively over hit the next pass. Perhaps if the right manager can get his arm round him there’s a player still in there, but I suspect at his age he has more eyes on the exit plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Redtucks said:

So now it's Nigel Pearson who's talking rubbish is it???

"Henri came on and I thought he showed a lot of experience and got to the pace of the game pretty well, so there are always positives to come out of these situations.”

:dunno:

 

That’s an impressive quote in terms of finding a way to give some positives without actually saying Lansbury played well.

As others have said, the issue is less Lansbury than the circumstances he was brought in and brought on. He is obviously a player who has been great at this level in the past but was frozen out at his previous club and has gone a long time without football.

It might be he settles in and gets his contract extended and, if so, it might be that, with a preseason behind him, he is a very different player next year.

But right now we signed him during an injury crisis and, over the coming months, we are going to have a number of midfielders returning after extended absences and trying to get back up to speed. I don’t think another player in that exact situation is what we needed in January and it made no sense in the short term to sign any player who could not hit the ground running and get more hands on deck during our injury crisis.

Maybe he was signed with a view to the longer term and next season and that’s fine but I still don’t think he should have been starting ahead of Nagy or Massengo in recent games or that he was the right player at the right moment yesterday 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some really over-the-top criticism on this thread, IMO. I've not been impressed by Lansbury but was he really that bad last night? He looks like a player who is ring rusty and needs game time. Not the signing we needed, but you would think he was Ryan McGivern reincarnated reading the comments on this thread.

I guess because we lost there has to be a scapegoat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, REDOXO said:

That says a lot. Could not find a pass if his life depended on it. Utter dross at the moment and we all know it including him and the gaffer. 
 

However form is temporary. Although Dean Smith would think he hasn’t shown any of that for three years. Feels like a Dinning signing without the good bit. 

And yet ironically he actually did play a lovely through ball at one point last night. My out-loud reaction was something like: "Good ball!......OH......it was Lansbury!"

The point being we know there's a player in there. The question is whether this is the right time and place for City to be trying to help him back to form and fitness. Personally I think not, though I guess NP is better qualified (and mandated) to make that judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

That’s an impressive quote in terms of finding a way to give some positives without actually saying Lansbury played well.

As others have said, the issue is less Lansbury than the circumstances he was brought in and brought on. He is obviously a player who has been great at this level in the past but was frozen out at his previous club and has gone a long time without football.

It might be he settles in and gets his contract extended and, if so, it might be that, with a preseason behind him, he is a very different player next year.

But right now we signed him during an injury crisis and, over the coming months, we are going to have a number of midfielders returning after extended absences and trying to get back up to speed. I don’t think another player in that exact situation is what we needed in January and it made no sense in the short term to sign any player who could not hit the ground running and get more hands on deck during our injury crisis.

Maybe he was signed with a view to the longer term and next season and that’s fine but I still don’t think he should have been starting ahead of Nagy or Massengo in recent games or that he was the right player at the right moment yesterday 

Yes, I agree.

Some work, some don't.

Ashley Williams and Adrian Mariappa were brought in when we needed experience in difficult circumstances.

Both IMO were/are worthwile.

Chris Brunt obviously didn't work.

Lansbury may or may not.

I guess that the manager and coaches will be far better judges than many on here. 

:dunno:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...