Nathan Baker

[Lanterne Rouge]

39 minutes ago, Turbored said:

Yeah his parent club Villa look like there on there way to championship football so may not even be an option 

But if they did, his wages would presumably go down with relegation clauses and such. Means nothing I know but if we could offer something similar and he realises how well he`s thought of here you never know. It sounds like Villa fans aren`t sure about him from what I read.

If we stay up, it`s pretty obvious we`re going to have to rethink our wage structure anyway if we want to compete.

[kiwicolin]

 Brilliant loan player. Just imagine if he signed for us permanently. 

They can have  El-Abd in swap/money deal . 

[JoeAman08]

43 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

But if they did, his wages would presumably go down with relegation clauses and such. Means nothing I know but if we could offer something similar and he realises how well he`s thought of here you never know. It sounds like Villa fans aren`t sure about him from what I read.

If we stay up, it`s pretty obvious we`re going to have to rethink our wage structure anyway if we want to compete.

Agreed. I mean it would be nice if everyone on our squad settled nicely and became above average championship players but it hasn't happened. In my opinion we have only 4 quality championship players. 2 are loanees(Baker and Bennett), 1 is a new signing(Kodjia) and the other is Korey Smith. So 3 of our 4 best weren't in League One last season. We need to add more quality. I'm all for a small squad but you are going to have to pay some guys well if you truly want to compete for that top 6. 

Not saying some of ours still can't improve. I've been very pleased with Derrick Williams as well. Pack is playing much better. Think he'd be a good bench option for a good team. If our plans this summer would've worked I do think we'd be in the race for a playoff spot. So staying up is important but we have to add quality which will cost. Hopefully we can add one or two in January to help ease us in to upper mid table(16-18th) and add to that in the summer. We do look on the up as it is however. 

[Sniper]

13 hours ago, Xiled said:

Jumping in expectation of Agard's shot (and goal) was genius.  Nathan Baker has been brilliant and has helped Flint look like the classy player from last season.

If we had £9M to spend on a striker I hope we can find the money to keep Baker.

Absolutely! If we aspire to be a mid table/playoff flirts Championship team then it's players like Baker that we have to pull out all the stops to try and sign. As others have said, when he plays we do well, and Flint does well, when he's not playing we go to pot.

Maybe we do have to look at our wage structure as I don't want to ever go back to L1 ever again, and SL who pulls the money strings hopefully is thinking the same thing. 

[Olé]

MOTM for me as well, and having re watched the goal his reaction was critical to us scoring, amazing quick thinking

[RedUn]

22 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Most talented defender since Caulker - another inspired loan signing.

Reads the game so well.

And my MOTM too.

Indeed. All the more surprising that The Football Paper (Richard Latham) gave MOTM to Maguire ... who should have been sent off after ten minutes!

[RedUn]

6 hours ago, kiwicolin said:

 Brilliant loan player. Just imagine if he signed for us permanently. 

They can have  El-Abd in swap/money deal . 

I won't have a word said against El Bad, see he scored an OG against Swindle yesterday ... that is what I call an inspired loan signing! ... well done Mark Cooper (who will go on to better things at a proper club somewhere soon)

[Davefevs]

17 hours ago, JoeAman08 said:

Even if Nathan is available I think we'll find it hard to afford his wages. I've heard he is on around 20k a week. Don't think we will look at it until we know we are staying up. Think everyone would want him to stay. Also think if he is to be available, teams like Wolves, Derby, Boro, QPR, and all who aspire to go up or the ones that come down may want him. 

From what we hear £20k per week is over budget....but this would be for a player:

1. We've seen play, so not a gamble that he won't be any good

2. Is better than what we've got

3. Is bringing out the best in Flint

4. Is likely to be instrumental in keeping us out of relegation trouble 

Seems a no brainier to me.

Would also get Bennett too, no idea what money he might be on either.

[JoeAman08]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

From what we hear £20k per week is over budget....but this would be for a player:

1. We've seen play, so not a gamble that he won't be any good

2. Is better than what we've got

3. Is bringing out the best in Flint

4. Is likely to be instrumental in keeping us out of relegation trouble 

Seems a no brainier to me.

Would also get Bennett too, no idea what money he might be on either.

Yes. It is what I'm trying to say. If we stay up, we need to relook at our wage structure. 20k a week is money well spent on someone like Baker provided he can stay fit. I'd be happy for us to pay it. I'm all for paying Bennett whatever he's on(assuming it not like 30k). Not going to look at it in January I wouldn't think though as we need to stay up first. Stay up and readjust according to what we have seen. 

I know some will argue that others could get "jealous" of the wages but players like Baker and Bennett have earned it through their careers. Ours need to aspire to getting to that level. Play well, get paid well. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

I`ve said earlier, it`s inevitable that we will rethink our wage structure in the summer otherwise at best we`ll be fighting this battle at the bottom until we inevitably fail one season and go down. If we stay up this year it`s a given that we`ll need to offer more to prospective signings and if that means we have to increase the wages of the players we`ve got to avoid dressing room discontent then so be it. The end more than justifies the means although saying that`s easy when it`s not my money.

[Dolman Block B]

Immense 

 

Need him in on a permanent 

[Red-Robbo]

5 hours ago, RedUn said:

Indeed. All the more surprising that The Football Paper (Richard Latham) gave MOTM to Maguire ... who should have been sent off after ten minutes!

Baker made the Sunday Mirror's team of the day at least. Someone was paying attention. 

[Spike]

The only issue with these great loans is that they go back leaving us with very big holes to patch again. There are obviously great reasons to use the loan system but unless you loan with an option to buy it really is a lose lose situation because if the player does well he becomes out priced and gathers interest from others and if he's a waste then we pay wages for a bad player.

Obviously on the positives Baker very well could be the difference between us remaining in the Championship and going back down, it really is a tough situation but my main concern is when we can bring these great players in on loan but can't keep them here or make any quality additions when needed. Kodjia is obviously a quality player and an amazing signing but he seems to be the only permanent addition that we've made of the quality we need. I just hope if we remain a Championship team players like Baker will become permanent signings rather than loanees.

 

[22A]

Following all the negative comments today regarding his performance v Blackburn, I went back just two weeks to find all these positives about the same player.

[Berts city]

Haha yeah was thinking about this thread I commented that we should try and buy him and I still stand by that, good player, he just tries to win the first ball all the time and lives on the edge in games every now and then he will mistime one and get in trouble but it doesn't make him a bad player.

[Nogbad the Bad]

4 minutes ago, Berts city said:

Haha yeah was thinking about this thread I commented that we should try and buy him and I still stand by that, good player, he just tries to win the first ball all the time and lives on the edge in games every now and then he will mistime one and get in trouble but it doesn't make him a bad player.

It's his character that's in doubt after today.

[Berts city]

8 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

It's his character that's in doubt after today.

Yep you could be right.

[22A]

43 minutes ago, Berts city said:

he just tries to win the first ball all the time and lives on the edge in games every now and then he will mistime one and get in trouble but it doesn't make him a bad player.

Just like Gow, Kellard, Kurilla and Thresher etc.

[RedM]

I'm sure he has saved us more points/goals than he cost us today. Saying that he was all over the place today, maybe he has history with Blackburn or their players, he certainly didn't seem himself.

I'm in no was excusing his clumsy challenges today, but I  think we are blinded by the lack of bookings Flint had last season. In the past I always expected one or another of our defenders being suspended every few weeks. It's his job, bookings go with the territory, but today he let himself, the team and the fans down. He wasnt unlucky, he was stupid.

[Donkeeebles]

My take is this. I think both Baker and Cotterill were at fault.

Baker does have a tendency to dive in, great when it comes off which to be fair to him it often does but not so great if you mistime it which he did today. After the first booking he should have realised that by diving in he's increasing his chances off another booking and stayed on his feet. The second challenge was stupid to say the least. I didn't actually see the tackle that he eventually got booked for so can't comment on that one but as he was 1 foul away from a card the severity of it didn't matter by that point. 

As for  Cotterill, well I am absolutely tamping that he failed to take the lifeline that had been given to us and sub Baker while he still could. This was not a ordinary taking a player off who's on a booking scenario. When Baker picked up his 1st booking I didn't think oh Cotts should take him off, why would I. Players get booked all the time,you can't take them all off. No this was a player who wasn't another "bookable challenge", another "bad foul" away from a red, this was a player who thanks to a diabolical piece of refereeing and probably the grace of God was allowed to stay on the pitch when he had no right too. He was on last chance saloon,final final warning,call it what you like and how Cotts failed to see that when me and most people around me managed too is beyond me

And before anyone says hindsight yes I did say he should be subbed both at the time of the second foul and at half time. 

Basic errors proving costly again.

[Super]

1 minute ago, Donkeeebles said:

My take is this. I think both Baker and Cotterill were at fault.

Baker does have a tendency to dive in, great when it comes off which to be fair to him it often does but not so great if you mistime it which he did today. After the first booking he should have realised that by diving in he's increasing his chances off another booking and stayed on his feet. The second challenge was stupid to say the least. I didn't actually see the tackle that he eventually got booked for so can't comment on that one but as he was 1 foul away from a card the severity of it didn't matter by that point. 

As for  Cotterill, well I am absolutely tamping that he failed to take the lifeline that had been given to us and sub Baker while he still could. This was not a ordinary taking a player off who's on a booking scenario. When Baker picked up his 1st booking I didn't think oh Cotts should take him off, why would I. Players get booked all the time,you can't take them all off. No this was a player who wasn't another "bookable challenge", another "bad foul" away from a red, this was a player who thanks to a diabolical piece of refereeing and probably the grace of God was allowed to stay on the pitch when he had no right too. He was on last chance saloon,final final warning,call it what you like and how Cotts failed to see that when me and most people around me managed too is beyond me

And before anyone says hindsight yes I did say he should be subbed both at the time of the second foul and at half time. 

Basic errors proving costly again.

Totally agree. Braindead from Baker but everyone in the ground knew he would commit another foul and get a red.

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, Donkeeebles said:

My take is this. I think both Baker and Cotterill were at fault.

Baker does have a tendency to dive in, great when it comes off which to be fair to him it often does but not so great if you mistime it which he did today. After the first booking he should have realised that by diving in he's increasing his chances off another booking and stayed on his feet. The second challenge was stupid to say the least. I didn't actually see the tackle that he eventually got booked for so can't comment on that one but as he was 1 foul away from a card the severity of it didn't matter by that point. 

As for  Cotterill, well I am absolutely tamping that he failed to take the lifeline that had been given to us and sub Baker while he still could. This was not a ordinary taking a player off who's on a booking scenario. When Baker picked up his 1st booking I didn't think oh Cotts should take him off, why would I. Players get booked all the time,you can't take them all off. No this was a player who wasn't another "bookable challenge", another "bad foul" away from a red, this was a player who thanks to a diabolical piece of refereeing and probably the grace of God was allowed to stay on the pitch when he had no right too. He was on last chance saloon,final final warning,call it what you like and how Cotts failed to see that when me and most people around me managed too is beyond me

And before anyone says hindsight yes I did say he should be subbed both at the time of the second foul and at half time. 

Basic errors proving costly again.

I wouldn't personally have taken my best defender off and replaced him with someone inferior for 45 minutes.

Congrats to all you mystic megs who foresaw that challenge - which of course the Blackburn player made a complete meal of - but I would have had faith he would have shown the same discipline that he has in other matches. 

[Donkeeebles]

7 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I wouldn't personally have taken my best defender off and replaced him with someone inferior for 45 minutes.

Congrats to all you mystic megs who foresaw that challenge - which of course the Blackburn player made a complete meal of - but I would have had faith he would have shown the same discipline that he has in other matches. 

Once he'd committed the 2nd foul he could no longer play his normal game and therefore becomes less effective IMO 

oh and congrats on failing to see the blindingly obvious 

[Red-Robbo]

5 minutes ago, Donkeeebles said:

Once he'd committed the 2nd foul he could no longer play his normal game and therefore becomes less effective IMO 

oh and congrats on failing to see the blindingly obvious 

Congrats for the patronising post. Now perhaps you can tell me next week's lottery numbers.

I didn't say it would be unreasonable to have subbed him, just that Cotts showed faith by keeping someone who had hitherto been a model professional. 

As the second half showed, we don't have a wealth of defensive talent at the club and I personally would have made the same call.

Of course had Williams made the challenge to the player, knowing that the man behind him was on a yellow,  this wouldn't have happened. 

[Donkeeebles]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

Congrats for the patronising post. Now perhaps you can tell me next week's lottery numbers.

I didn't say it would be unreasonable to have subbed him, just that Cotts showed faith by keeping someone who had hitherto been a model professional. 

As the second half showed, we don't have a wealth of defensive talent at the club and I personally would have made the same call.

Of course had Williams made the challenge to the player, knowing that the man behind him was on a yellow,  this wouldn't have happened. 

You do realise my response was to your patronising comment do you or are you only able to see when others do it? I will remind you..... "Congrats to all you Mystic Megs"...... Remember? 

No I can't tell you next weeks lottery numbers, that's just stupid so grow up. However had you been sat next to me today I would have told you Cotts is making a big mistake not subbing Baker which is why I'm annoyed at him. It's just my opinion,doesn't  make me mystical does it? 

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, Donkeeebles said:

You do realise my response was to your patronising comment do you or are you only able to see when others do it? I will remind you..... "Congrats to all you Mystic Megs"...... Remember? 

No I can't tell you next weeks lottery numbers, that's just stupid so grow up. However had you been sat next to me today I would have told you Cotts is making a big mistake not subbing Baker which is why I'm annoyed at him. It's just my opinion,doesn't  make me mystical does it? 

No, but I don't think anyone could know that that would happen,  hence the comment. 

Being cautious would clearly have been wise here but had Baker not have made that unforeseeable tackle then Cotts would  have erred on the side of caution by subbing him and everyone might now be posting "why the f did he take Baker off!"

 

[Davefevs]

I thought the second foul in the first half on Rhodes was a tight call....looked like he got the ball, but it might've been he kicked Rhodes leg onto the ball.  He got a stern warning.

I wonder what happened down in the corner two minutes before he was sent off, when the Rovers player was mounting him whilst he was on the ground.  Was it the same player he fouled?

He certainly let us down and cost us a point, but he's also played really well in most games.

Im sure plenty of us thought he might be treading a fine line, and an option was to take him off...but actually following through with that thought is a different matter.

Having said that Liam Moore looked very assured when he came on, and looked confident on the ball, unlike his earlier appearances (when he may've been nursing his hernia).  He sprayed a couple of Pack-esque (OK bad analogy) out to Ayling late on and was sharp in the tackle.

The ref was right re Baker but had a poor game.  It seems the Rovers players could pull and foul us and get away with it...and they could dive and get a free kick.  How their player didn't get booked in the second half for a foul I don't know.  Equally Korey should have been too.  Bad referee....again....and that's not because we lost.  I was a very angry supporter today

 

[Donkeeebles]

5 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

No, but I don't think anyone could know that that would happen,  hence the comment. 

Being cautious would clearly have been wise here but had Baker not have made that unforeseeable tackle then Cotts would  have erred on the side of caution by subbing him and everyone might now be posting "why the f did he take Baker off!"

 

Ok you're right, I didn't "know" it was going to happen, not for sure,not 100%

However what I did know was that Baker IMO was a lucky lucky lucky boy to stay on the pitch after the 2nd challenge which incidentally I thought was worse than the first. So I came to the conclusion that because he was already on a booking and that the referee had taken him aside and spoke to him again he was walking a very thin tightrope. I personally thought that the chances of him then being sent off were extremely high and very very foreseeable and I am annoyed that Cotts failed to act on what I thought was a massive risk. Like I said above I didn't see the final costly tackle, I don't know how bad it was, maybe it was a red card offence on its own but for me it's irrelevant because I felt that Baker was in a situation where the next foul no matter how severe was going to bring the 2nd yellow. 

Now im not trying to be wise after the event or claiming to have mystical powers I'm just stating what I felt at the time and how I feel about it now. 

You don't agree, Cotts clearly didn't agree, no problem

[Red-Robbo]

3 hours ago, Donkeeebles said:

Ok you're right, I didn't "know" it was going to happen, not for sure,not 100%

However what I did know was that Baker IMO was a lucky lucky lucky boy to stay on the pitch after the 2nd challenge which incidentally I thought was worse than the first. So I came to the conclusion that because he was already on a booking and that the referee had taken him aside and spoke to him again he was walking a very thin tightrope. I personally thought that the chances of him then being sent off were extremely high and very very foreseeable and I am annoyed that Cotts failed to act on what I thought was a massive risk. Like I said above I didn't see the final costly tackle, I don't know how bad it was, maybe it was a red card offence on its own but for me it's irrelevant because I felt that Baker was in a situation where the next foul no matter how severe was going to bring the 2nd yellow. 

Now im not trying to be wise after the event or claiming to have mystical powers I'm just stating what I felt at the time and how I feel about it now. 

You don't agree, Cotts clearly didn't agree, no problem

No problem Don. It's a judgement, and like all else in the inexact sciencent that is football you can sometimes get 'em wrong.

My first post was an admission  that I too may have kept Baker on  calculating that the risks of replacing him might have outweighed the risks he got sent off.

Fair play if you voiced your opinion for a substitution at half-time: the genius's sat near me only said that after the sending off.

[Frenchay Red]

It seemed to me that with the rash challenges he had made, together with what appeared to be his final warning from the ref, that Blackburn would be doing everything they could to draw him into a situation which would only have one outcome. For that reason it seemed the only course of action to ensure we retained 11 on the pitch was to sub him at half time.

IMO Cotts got it badly wrong there. To seriously believe that he could play another effective 45 mins without making another strong challenge which might go wrong was very optimistic and poorly judged.