Charlie Taylor

[Goliath]

Just spotted he hasn't actually signed for Hull, thought that was a done deal. Surely this is a no brainer of a loan signing. Parker clearly isn't happy with either left back at the moment, Pires was much better second half and looked a real goal threat by the end which is good but not sure we really have the time to be patient with him, we need results.

Taylor is the middle ground between Pires and Humphreys that we desperately need.

[Woodleyclaret]

Good idea

[fidelcastro]

Desperately need?

If we were conceding a shed load of goals down that side then maybe, but since the opposite is true...

[Rileybobs]

Jesus Christ...

[boatshed bill]

Humphreys is an excellent footballer.

[fidelcastro]

Jesus Christ...

Good on crosses, I believe!

[123EasyasBFC]

Pires just isn’t a good footballer

[jojomk1]

Pires just isn’t a good footballer

Scotty thinks he is

[GetIntoEm]

Absolutely not

[Goliath]

Jesus Christ...

Please elaborate. He is better than our current left backs, a 6 month loan deal for a good character that goes straight into our first 11 and is 'only' 31. What's not to like?

[helmclaret]

Absolutely not what we need.

[fidelcastro]

Please elaborate. He is better than our current left backs, a 6 month loan deal for a good character that goes straight into our first 11 and is 'only' 31. What's not to like?

He isn't any better though.

[beddie]

He’s not as good a footballer as Humphrey’s.

[Burnley1989]

This boards difficult tonighf

[123EasyasBFC]

Absolutely not

I don’t understand why Parker thinks Pires is better against lower table sides. Pires poor against Plymouth in a 5-0 result and again today.

[Bosscat]

This boards difficult tonighf

No idea why

[Milltown1882]

2 starts for Southampton, they’ve conceded 10 in the last two games he’s played in. Left for a reason, please no.

[GetIntoEm]

I don’t understand why Parker thinks Pires is better against lower table sides. Pires poor against Plymouth in a 5-0 result and again today.

It's clear to me we are playing pires against sides we plan to beat, and Humphreys against sides we need to be more defensive

[Goliath]

Because Humphreys is too negative in possession. He doesn't carry the ball and tends to be extremely negative with his passing. I got absolute pelters for suggesting that Pires will start today after Humphreys most recent display.

Turns out Parker was in agreement. People just dont see it because they think Humphreys' occasional good crosses mean he's good on the ball.

Taylor carries the ball forward and is more progressive with his passing. There's a reason a Premier league team snapped him up on a free.

[123EasyasBFC]

It's clear to me we are playing pires against sides we plan to beat, and Humphreys against sides we need to be more defensive

Doesn’t make any sense, I can’t remember a single game this season where I thought, Pires had a really good game there, maybe first half against Plymouth at home that’s it

[123EasyasBFC]

Because Humphreys is too negative in possession. He doesn't carry the ball and tends to be extremely negative with his passing. I got absolute pelters for suggesting that Pires will start today after Humphreys most recent display.

Turns out Parker was in agreement. People just dont see it because they think his good crossing means he's good on the ball.

Taylor carries the ball forward and is more progressive with his passing. There's a reason a Premier league team snapped him up on a free.

Can you admit after watching today that Pires is no good

[Row x]

Because Humphreys is too negative in possession. He doesn't carry the ball and tends to be extremely negative with his passing. I got absolute pelters for suggesting that Pires will start today after Humphreys most recent display.

Turns out Parker was in agreement. People just dont see it because they think Humphreys' occasional good crosses mean he's good on the ball.

Taylor carries the ball forward and is more progressive with his passing. There's a reason a Premier league team snapped him up on a free.

Humphreys is a better crosser than Taylor or Pires

Yes a premier league team snapped him up.......do they play him?

[GetIntoEm]

Premier league team. It's a team who didn't want to invest to stay up. He might as well have gone to another championship side

[Goliath]

Can you admit after watching today that Pires is no good

He was poor first half and much improved second half. Offers much more width on that side and had 2 of our best chances near the end with his positioning high up the pitch.
I think there's a player in there but in a team that needs to win nearly every game it's a bit of a risk. I'd play him against Oxford, give him a bit of consistency and see how he does.
I'd prefer to just stick Taylor there though tbh.

[123EasyasBFC]

He was poor first half and much improved second half. Offers much more width on that side and had 2 of our best chances near the end with his positioning high up the pitch.
I think there's a player in there but in a team that needs to win nearly every game it's a bit of a risk. I'd play him against Oxford, give him a bit of consistency and see how he does.
I'd prefer to just stick Taylor there though tbh.

TBH for how poor Pires is, he isn’t the reason we don’t win games, shouldn’t be on the left back. It’s the midfield and wide players

[boatshed bill]

Taylor carries the ball forward and is more progressive with his passing. There's a reason a Premier league team snapped him up on a free.

I wouldn't mind a tenner for every time Taylor carried the ball up the left touch line and then passed it backwards. In that sense he'd be perfect for us now

[Goliath]

Humphreys is a better crosser than Taylor or Pires

Yes a premier league team snapped him up.......do they play him?

Is he or did he just make 2 good crosses to the back post that we scored from when he was given space. Regardless we aren't really a big crossing team so I definitely wouldn't be selecting him based on that.
Pires being on corners and sometimes free kicks tends to suggest he's much better technically than Humphreys, we just haven't had much chance to see it as of yet. (Bar the excellent pass for Brownhill v Luton)

[Goliath]

I wouldn't mind a tenner for every time Taylor carried the ball up the left touch line and then passed it backwards. In that sense he'd be perfect for us now

That initially carry is a pretty important part of that though. It means the whole team has pushed up the pitch behind him and suddenly we are playing from a higher Base whilst the opposition has to drop back into their shape.

[Jakubs Tash]

Charlie Taylor would still be HEAD AND SHOULDERS above any other left back we currently have at the club.

I like Humphreys. And, in his defence, he’s a left sided centre half playing out of position but has done well at times filling in.

Pires is just a poor footballer. I lost count of the amount of times he gave the ball away today. And full back should be one of the easiest positions for having a successful pass rate.

Surely nobody really thinks that Taylor would be worse than Pires?!! He’s played most of his career in the Premier League and still finds himself at a Premier League club even though he isn’t playing much.

[Row x]

Is he or did he just make 2 good crosses to the back post that we scored from when he was given space. Regardless we aren't really a big crossing team so I definitely wouldn't be selecting him based on that.
Pires being on corners and sometimes free kicks tends to suggest he's much better technically than Humphreys, we just haven't had much chance to see it as of yet. (Bar the excellent pass for Brownhill v Luton)

Come on...we've had plenty of chances to see Pires, and he hasn't impressed

[Goliath]

Come on...we've had plenty of chances to see Pires, and he hasn't impressed

He's been in and out of the side, is relatively young and in a completely new country whilst learning the managers approach along with getting used to a league that is completely alien to him.

Give him a chance, he hasn't been great but I don't think he's done anything to be as widely slated on here as he is as of yet.

[Row x]

He's been in and out of the side, is relatively young and in a completely new country whilst learning the managers approach along with getting used to a league that is completely alien to him.

Give him a chance, he hasn't been great but I don't think he's done anything to be as widely slated on here as he is as of yet.

One minute you're saying he should be in the team, the next you're saying he's not been great, which is it?

[Goliath]

One minute you're saying he should be in the team, the next you're saying he's not been great, which is it?

Both. It's called giving him a chance.

[Rileybobs]

Please elaborate. He is better than our current left backs, a 6 month loan deal for a good character that goes straight into our first 11 and is 'only' 31. What's not to like?

He's less athletic than our current left backs. He may have the edge defensively (or did in his prime), but we are having absolutely no problem keeping goals out. He offers less than both of our current left backs in attack. He's absolutely not what we need, wouldn't improve the squad, and certainly wouldn't help to address our glaring deficiencies.

[Goliath]

He's less athletic than our current left backs. He may have the edge defensively (or did in his prime), but we are having absolutely no problem keeping goals out. He offers less than both of our current left backs in attack. He's absolutely not what we need, wouldn't improve the squad, and certainly wouldn't help to address our glaring deficiencies.

Fair enough, we clearly have differing opinions on our current left backs.

[warksclaret]

These posts certainly bring out the nostalgists. As a free transfer you would expect people to be queing up for him. I suspect no one will take him in the next few days of the window. Very resticted player in this modern age of full backs with zero attacking capabilitied