Phil Guliver..
-
ron manager
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:09 pm
Re: Phil Guliver..
Good squad player possibly :lol: was he not part of the K L team that lost 5-1 at home to Cambridge City recently :?: how have Cambridge City got on since then :?: played anyone useful :lol:
Re: Phil Guliver..
If he's interested then he can get in contact with the backroom staff and attend training. If he can show something to add then it can be discussed with Starms/other backroom staff about joining.
He's a legend for his season with the old club despite the relegation, but let's not forget when he came back he looked like Hereford had put him in a basement for a year and beat him with sticks. He wasn't the same player. It would be quite the story though if he could rediscover his ambition and motivation and get himself in to good fitness and levels of performance again with the new club...
That said to have a chance he has to prove he is better than 2 of the 3 very good centre backs we currently have fully fit.
Nobody waltzes in to the side on name, they have to prove their ability.
He's a legend for his season with the old club despite the relegation, but let's not forget when he came back he looked like Hereford had put him in a basement for a year and beat him with sticks. He wasn't the same player. It would be quite the story though if he could rediscover his ambition and motivation and get himself in to good fitness and levels of performance again with the new club...
That said to have a chance he has to prove he is better than 2 of the 3 very good centre backs we currently have fully fit.
Nobody waltzes in to the side on name, they have to prove their ability.
-
Three Nips
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 7:17 pm
- Been Liked: 3 times
Re: Phil Guliver..
It wouldn't take a great deal to make the side as a centre half to be honest. Aside from Parkinson (who has only started one game for us this season) the rest have been shaky at best. Despite the good results we've been having, no-one can argue that we've conceded a lot of avoidable goals this season. I think 'very good' is rather wide of the mark, 'adequate' is probably a more accurate description.
Not having a go at anyone really, just when you compare the quality of our defence to the other positions, it seems that they are acceptable for this level rather than having the ability to progress further, which I would say some of our more attacking players (midfiled and forwards) seem to possess the attributes to perform further up the ladder.
To say Phil Gulliver wouldn't be an upgrade on Jamal or Deaks would be just plain wrong given what he has achieved in his career. It would depend solely on the desire he may still harbour to perform on the pitch which is an unknown to everyone apart from Mr Gulliver himself.
Not having a go at anyone really, just when you compare the quality of our defence to the other positions, it seems that they are acceptable for this level rather than having the ability to progress further, which I would say some of our more attacking players (midfiled and forwards) seem to possess the attributes to perform further up the ladder.
To say Phil Gulliver wouldn't be an upgrade on Jamal or Deaks would be just plain wrong given what he has achieved in his career. It would depend solely on the desire he may still harbour to perform on the pitch which is an unknown to everyone apart from Mr Gulliver himself.
Everywhere we go....