Brislingwood Red Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Any reports on how Trundle played? Does he look in acceptable shape? Was hoping the big fella was going to get a couple of goals and play the role of hero (bit strong for a friendly I know). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Percy Parrot Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I might be the only one but I'm not convinced that the signing of Trundle was a bad one. In his first season I thought his effort and ability to hold the ball up, keep possession and peg back the opposition was crucial to us winning loads of games by one goal. Then, having watched the end of the season DVD I was amazed at how many goals he was involved in during that season. I am fairly certain if you looked at every goal from that season and found one player who was involved in most moves it would have been Trundle. Unfortunately last season in his limited games he didn't show it so well. I guess most of us are expecting Maynard and Clarkson to be first choice come the start of the season but if Haynes is played outwide then our two sub strikers could well be Akinde and Trundle. Last thought - it's a shame we didn't get to see more of Adebola and Trundle. They just started to show signs of a great partnership at the very end of the play-off season and last year their 4 games together yielded 8 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brislingwood Red Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I'm a massive Trundle fan. His attitude has been first class from the day he arrived. I pray that he'll be given one more opportunity, maybe a consistent run of games. . . I hope he still has a role to play!! But very nuch doubt it. He is the only "club in the bag" of his kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I don't think he was a bad signing either. I just think we can and have done better now. When we came up he was about the best we could get. Charlton, Wolves and Sheffield Utd set the bar for signing league one forwards and pushed their prices up excessively. We couldn't at the time sign a Sharp or a Varney or a Vokes, so we had to settle for someone we could get and in the first season he did a decent job for us. Since then we have been able to attract a better class of forward and I think Trundle is probably surplus to requirements, but he's done a good job and the price tag wasn't his fault or City's, it was simply down to the state of the market at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brislingwood Red Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Since then we have been able to attract a better class of forward and I think Trundle is probably surplus to requirements, but he's done a good job and the price tag wasn't his fault or City's, it was simply down to the state of the market at the time. Very much a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfred Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I don't think he was a bad signing either. I just think we can and have done better now. When we came up he was about the best we could get. Charlton, Wolves and Sheffield Utd set the bar for signing league one forwards and pushed their prices up excessively. We couldn't at the time sign a Sharp or a Varney or a Vokes, so we had to settle for someone we could get and in the first season he did a decent job for us. Since then we have been able to attract a better class of forward and I think Trundle is probably surplus to requirements, but he's done a good job and the price tag wasn't his fault or City's, it was simply down to the state of the market at the time. There seems to be an air of resignation surrounding Trundle. Almost as if we've all given up hope that he'll ever appear for us in a meaningful game again. I personally think he will play a key part in our season next year, even if it is limited to mostly coming off the bench to try and change a game. However i might be completely wrong because if Johnson brings in another two strikers, then he sadly will be the one who falls to the back of the pecking order i think. I don't see him as a complete waste of money, just for the Palace play off goal he was worth bringing to the club. One of the top, top moments in my time supporting this club, so even if he does go that is what i will remember him for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Trundle was a poor signing, and some of the worst value for money this club has had really. £1m fee, £10k a week for 3 years, in total probably cost us over £3m considering fees, agents and employer contributions. All of that for a player who was already in his 30s with very clear strengths and weaknesses that we never really exploited properly in our play. Personally I found that frustrating, Trundle was obviously at his best in a second striker role, facing goal, using tricks and running at defenders, and we didn't use him like that much at all. The move definitely hasn't worked. That's not because he's poor or he didn't try hard, neither are true, it was the wrong signing for the wrong club in the wrong position. He's been entertaining in flashes and scored an important goal to kill off the play off semi final but overall it hasn't worked. I think this happened because GJ succumbed to fan pressure to make an exciting signing to tackle the Championship, which became worse after the deal was public knowledge and dragged out for ages. I'd say he's since learned from it as we saw last summer with the much firmer stance taken with Meteb and Mifsud. I think it's also true that at the time we signed Trundle it was hard to bring in decent Championship level strikers, and that at the time we were probably still hoping he could play alongside Brooker. I'm much happier with the business done this summer, I think it's in the interests of both the club and the player that he move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfan Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I think the original question was how did Trundle play. As far as I can see he wasn't selected even for the bench. Can anyone clarify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinker Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I think the original question was how did Trundle play. As far as I can see he wasn't selected even for the bench. Can anyone clarify? He watched the game from the stands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfan Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 What a shame. How pathetic is that?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RobbieTurner Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 There seems to be an air of resignation surrounding Trundle. Almost as if we've all given up hope that he'll ever appear for us in a meaningful game again. I personally think he will play a key part in our season next year, even if it is limited to mostly coming off the bench to try and change a game. However i might be completely wrong because if Johnson brings in another two strikers, then he sadly will be the one who falls to the back of the pecking order i think. I don't see him as a complete waste of money, just for the Palace play off goal he was worth bringing to the club. One of the top, top moments in my time supporting this club, so even if he does go that is what i will remember him for. I don't. The issue highlighted by others on here is that not many teams in League 1 can afford him, without us subsidising. Can only see a couple of Championship teams that may take a punt on him, Blackpool, Doncaster, S****horpe maybe, again though they will struggle to meet the wages. there appears to be a deteriorating relationship between GJ and LT, to the extent that GJ will involve LT away at Hereford then completely overlook him for the glamour game against Ajax. Whilst on the Ajax game, I couldnt make it last night, but from the report, it says Hartley came on after 82 mins....anyone know why he only played 8 mins ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redhyde Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I just really hate it when a player isn't utilised effectively. Isn't really given a fair chance of playing where he's been successful in the system he's been successful in. It makes me question a manager who buys a player with a clear set of abilities and then tries to reshape him. It was a bizarre decision by GJ. GJ's recently said about playing players in their best positions and round peg and holes..so why he doesn't actually do that is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropicalsurfer Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Whilst on the Ajax game, I couldnt make it last night, but from the report, it says Hartley came on after 82 mins....anyone know why he only played 8 mins ?? He came on way before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFCfan Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Hartley didnt look to trim himself, got about well though. First 30 seconds in a City shirt and he's firing up some dutch diving offal based ball of meat. Fair play that man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.