Woodleyclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:06 pm

Never really given a chance to shine

beddie wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:54 pm

Because he’s not good enough.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:58 pm

Has looked a long way from being good enough to me

Alan Young wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2025 9:28 pm

I’d second that. There was a clamour of sorts for him to start at Milwall despite looking nowhere near up to it in his cameos before that. I thought Parker got it wrong that day and rightfully played Rodriguez ahead of him after that.

Hope he shows some improvement in Belgium but I suspect he might be one we don’t see in action for us again.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:58 pm

Has looked a long way from being good enough to me

ISpeds00 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2025 10:07 pm

And you can tell that can you from a few mins here and there?

ISpeds00 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2025 10:07 pm

And you can tell that can you from a few mins here and there?

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2025 10:09 pm

Yes - including his three starts

ISpeds00 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2025 11:28 pm

What a load of tosh
He's not had a full run out with us

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 6:52 am

He played the full game against Wolves in the cup.
Played 88 minutes against Sunderland
Played 64 minutes against Millwall.
He started all these games.
Aren’t these the only games we have lost these season ?

Mattster wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:12 am

Played left midfield vs Sunderland. Right midfield vs Wolves. Only played in his actual position vs Millwall in an awful team performance that can't be put down solely to him (especially since the performance didn't improve once he was taken off).

How people can judge him as not being close to good enough off the back of 1 start in his actual position and 10 minutes here and there off the bench, and this only when the team is already looking completely out of ideas in the final third, is beyond me.

123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:18 am

In the games he played left and right wing he didn’t look able to control a ball in tight spaces, win headers, play simple passes or anything. Foster is a striker but he has played both left and right wing and still looks like a footballer. Hannibal yet to play his natural position which is deeper like he did at Birmingham but has been playing wide left and still looks like a footballer.

It’s fine to accept we got it wrong and he’s not good enough

123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:18 am

In the games he played left and right wing he didn’t look able to control a ball in tight spaces, win headers, play simple passes or anything. Foster is a striker but he has played both left and right wing and still looks like a footballer. Hannibal yet to play his natural position which is deeper like he did at Birmingham but has been playing wide left and still looks like a footballer.

It’s fine to accept we got it wrong and he’s not good enough

Mattster wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:12 am

Played left midfield vs Sunderland. Right midfield vs Wolves. Only played in his actual position vs Millwall in an awful team performance that can't be put down solely to him (especially since the performance didn't improve once he was taken off).

How people can judge him as not being close to good enough off the back of 1 start in his actual position and 10 minutes here and there off the bench, and this only when the team is already looking completely out of ideas in the final third, is beyond me.

Mattster wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:24 am

Foster has been played as a wide forward, he's not been asked to play as a wide midfielder like Hountondji has in two of his starts (and when we're at the absolute bare bones). Hell, he was practically deployed as a left back vs. Sunderland.

Parker is given a pass for the Sunderland and Wolves games and rightfully so. How come a player making his first starts at a higher level (one against a Premier League side deploying a practically full strength lineup) isn't given the same?

123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:57 am

You need to get out your head that he played left back against Sunderland, he really didn’t Pires played left back.

Foster had 10 minutes left midfield and practically left back in your mind against rovers at weekend and did more than hountondji has in his 2 starts wide.

He is just not good enough

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2025 11:54 pm

Seems I’m alone in thinking he looked okay.

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:19 am

If ever we needed evidence that some folk love to argue anything, the usual posters come along to defend the performances of someone who has looked way off the level whenever hes played, yet spend their time on here moaning about Parker and his football....

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:19 am

If ever we needed evidence that some folk love to argue anything, the usual posters come along to defend the performances of someone who has looked way off the level whenever hes played, yet spend their time on here moaning about Parker and his football....

123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:41 am

Said poster is dying for Parker to fail so they can post on X and here about how Parker’s team don’t create any big chances and have low XG

ISpeds00 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2025 11:28 pm

What a load of tosh
He's not had a full run out with us

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:04 am

He’s started three games and had a number of sub appearances. Why on earth would he get more games when he’s not good enough?

Mattster wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 12:27 pm

2 of those starts were out of position when the team was an absolute state and everyone unanimously gives Parker a pass for those games/losses. The sub appearances are mostly in the 5-10 minute range, most often in games where we've been clueless and toothless in the proceeding 80+ minutes (QPR, Hull, Derby, Oxford)

Worth noting during his 7 sub appearances (totalling 75 minutes) the team has scored 4 goals which is some going if we were effectively playing with 10 men (especially when our usual scoring rate is 1.2 goals per 90). Doesn't mean much, but further up the thread someone has made a link between his 3 starts being our 3 losses - this is as valid/invalid an observation.

I'm not saying he's good enough, just that he's not had enough time to show whether he is or not. That so many have made their minds up definitively from such a small amount of playing time is disappointing.

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 12:53 pm

Who exactly has made their mind up definitively ?

What point are you even trying to make on this thread ?
If you think he should be playing and you have seen things that suggest he is good enough then by all means share it with us.

You do realise that irrespective of whether you play left back, left wing, centre forward or anywhere on the pitch there are some things you need to be able to do irrespective of where you play ? What is it have you seen to think we should have not loaned him out ?

Do you think that Parker and the rest of the coaching team make him play left back in training every week ?

Mattster wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 12:27 pm

2 of those starts were out of position when the team was an absolute state and everyone unanimously gives Parker a pass for those games/losses. The sub appearances are mostly in the 5-10 minute range, most often in games where we've been clueless and toothless in the proceeding 80+ minutes (QPR, Hull, Derby, Oxford)

Worth noting during his 7 sub appearances (totalling 75 minutes) the team has scored 4 goals which is some going if we were effectively playing with 10 men (especially when our usual scoring rate is 1.2 goals per 90). Doesn't mean much, but further up the thread someone has made a link between his 3 starts being our 3 losses - this is as valid/invalid an observation.

I'm not saying he's good enough, just that he's not had enough time to show whether he is or not. That so many have made their minds up definitively from such a small amount of playing time is disappointing.

dvalley69 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 1:11 pm

He's had enough time to prove the player he is! Because who matters most, who sees him every day in training and in the brief appearances on the pitch, has clearly come to the conclusion he isn't ready for us and not good enough at this present time. So, those fans saying he probably isn't good enough are probably right at this moment in time.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 1:15 pm

Good luck to the lad. He clearly needs first team football and hopefully he'll be getting it at a standard not dissimilar to the Championship in the Belgian top flight.

I'm slightly surprised at some of the definitive "he's not good enough" statements from people who have at other times rightly pleaded for patience with young players.The idea that we've seen enough of him (one start in his favoured position - on a day when the team as a whole was dreadful and the service and support to him was non-existent - plus a couple of games out of position on the wing, both in makeshift teams, and a handful of short substitute appearances) to make strident judgements, feels to me at odds with the principle that you should give new signings, particularly young new signings, time.

My own view is that he's shown glimpses of quality - he's quick when he gets moving, his a strong and imposing unit, and he's shown flashes of good movement and a reasonable touch to get into goalscoring positions. The problem is that he hasn't done that consistently and he's not looked extremely raw. However, he's a young player who was asked to make a huge step up his season, whilst also adapting to a new country and a much more physical style of football in the Championship. That might have been feasible in a mid-table team without expectations and who could invest a few games in getting him up to speed. But we haven't been in that position and so he's only had scraps of game time. Egan Riley is proof that a young player who hasn't necessarily suggested high quality in limited and sporadic appearances can suddenly blossom with a run of games.

Hopefully he'll go to Liege, get football at a good standard and prove that he was worth the relatively modest price tag we paid for him. But when we're looking for under the radar value that we can develop and sell on there is always risk - we had plenty of hits from Kompany's first season, but you are always going to have some misses as well. I hope dislike of the bloke who seemingly signed him isn't colouring perspectives on both what Hountondji might yet offer, and irrespective of that, the strategy of looking for rough diamonds.

Mattster wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:12 am

Played left midfield vs Sunderland. Right midfield vs Wolves. Only played in his actual position vs Millwall in an awful team performance that can't be put down solely to him (especially since the performance didn't improve once he was taken off).

How people can judge him as not being close to good enough off the back of 1 start in his actual position and 10 minutes here and there off the bench, and this only when the team is already looking completely out of ideas in the final third, is beyond me.