| Grant Hall 00:23 - Oct 31 with 6763 views | Dunstable_hoop |
+1 should be the CB back pairing for the next 5 years.
This guy has all the attributes of a younger, potentially better Clint Hill and that guy was a bloody good defender on his day. |  | | |  |
| Grant Hall on 00:37 - Nov 1 with 1362 views | Neil_SI |
| Grant Hall on 21:54 - Oct 31 by ingeminate |
Agree with most of that, don't see how it was good management to drop him after a clean sheet away at Huddersfield though?
I thought that was terrible management and sent a dreadful message to the squad about what you had to do to keep the Jersey.
i thought it affected defensive performance for the next few games and possibly also morale for fringe players - I know centre backs come in to their own later on and he's relatively young experience wise with about 50 games under his belt but at 24 he's no baby! |
I wouldn't have hesitated to keep him in there, but I can see why they didn't, and they already explained to him when they signed him, and said as such publicly, that the signing wasn't with the intention of him being a regular first-team player on a week-to-week basis.
The player himself understood the role and what's expected of him this season when he signed, so there isn't really a problem there. And had he been in the side when we started to struggle and things didn't quite go our way — the crowd could have easily made him one of the culprits. He was taken out after a good spell, to ensure he didn't go through a period where his form dipped.
There's always hindsight and unknowns with those things. He could well have helped us in some of those matches, or it could have gone the way as some of the others, like in that Bolton one, where he was shaky and his inexperience showed.
Personally I do think he is ready for more action, but Ramsey and Ferdinand know the player well from their time at Spurs, so you have to trust that they do know what's best for the player over the course of his first season here. Obviously at some point we had Steven Caulker here and also went after Tim Ream, and Caulker remained and we got Ream in, then Angella wouldn't be here. But you'd have had the same scenario, with Hall being groomed for a more permanent role in the future.
Going back to last season, he didn't have the greatest of times with Birmingham and had his spell terminated early. Then he went to Blackpool, which was obviously a tough gig because of what happened there. That's good experience in the end, but having been part of that, maybe the club want to make sure he is wrapped in cotton wool for a bit in what is a tricky season for us.
So while he's had 50 odd matches, he's never had a full season anywhere yet (roughly two half seasons in terms of appearances), with the most appearances coming for Swindon a couple of years back, which is no where near the level and cut and thrust nature of the Championship. Last season he played just 7 times for Birmingham between August and January. He's already featured 9 times for us by the end of October. I just see some sense in thinking that 46 Championship games will possibly be a bit much for the first season, but sure, aim higher than what he had before and try to hit 30 odd if possible.
Angella's had a shaky start, but he is a decent defender and hopefully he'll come good. He started his debut so well too, but then picked up that nasty head injury and I think that troubled him for at least another match or two afterwards.
Generally they've been very fair and open about what you need to do to keep the jersey. Karl Henry is a prime example of that, and JET more recently has found he is part of the team. I don't think there's any problems on that side of things. |  | | |
| Grant Hall on 08:25 - Nov 1 with 1308 views | ingeminate |
| Grant Hall on 00:37 - Nov 1 by Neil_SI |
I wouldn't have hesitated to keep him in there, but I can see why they didn't, and they already explained to him when they signed him, and said as such publicly, that the signing wasn't with the intention of him being a regular first-team player on a week-to-week basis.
The player himself understood the role and what's expected of him this season when he signed, so there isn't really a problem there. And had he been in the side when we started to struggle and things didn't quite go our way — the crowd could have easily made him one of the culprits. He was taken out after a good spell, to ensure he didn't go through a period where his form dipped.
There's always hindsight and unknowns with those things. He could well have helped us in some of those matches, or it could have gone the way as some of the others, like in that Bolton one, where he was shaky and his inexperience showed.
Personally I do think he is ready for more action, but Ramsey and Ferdinand know the player well from their time at Spurs, so you have to trust that they do know what's best for the player over the course of his first season here. Obviously at some point we had Steven Caulker here and also went after Tim Ream, and Caulker remained and we got Ream in, then Angella wouldn't be here. But you'd have had the same scenario, with Hall being groomed for a more permanent role in the future.
Going back to last season, he didn't have the greatest of times with Birmingham and had his spell terminated early. Then he went to Blackpool, which was obviously a tough gig because of what happened there. That's good experience in the end, but having been part of that, maybe the club want to make sure he is wrapped in cotton wool for a bit in what is a tricky season for us.
So while he's had 50 odd matches, he's never had a full season anywhere yet (roughly two half seasons in terms of appearances), with the most appearances coming for Swindon a couple of years back, which is no where near the level and cut and thrust nature of the Championship. Last season he played just 7 times for Birmingham between August and January. He's already featured 9 times for us by the end of October. I just see some sense in thinking that 46 Championship games will possibly be a bit much for the first season, but sure, aim higher than what he had before and try to hit 30 odd if possible.
Angella's had a shaky start, but he is a decent defender and hopefully he'll come good. He started his debut so well too, but then picked up that nasty head injury and I think that troubled him for at least another match or two afterwards.
Generally they've been very fair and open about what you need to do to keep the jersey. Karl Henry is a prime example of that, and JET more recently has found he is part of the team. I don't think there's any problems on that side of things. |
As always fair points.
Suppose from my side I'm not a massive fan of the way Ramsey unveiled the signings - hall isn't a washed up injury riddled 38 yr old so I don't know why Ramsey said from the off that Hall was coming in as a reserve. For me it should have been more ''this is an important point in his career we are giving him a chance and now it's up to him like every other member of the squad to win a place in my starting eleven".
Likewise with Angella - who I think will come good- instead of spending ages on signing day explaining exactly where he would fit in to the team and how he was going to revolutionise how QPR played before parachuting him straight in I would have preferred a touch more reserve.
Get to know the players etc, kept a clean sheet so you are starting on the bench,sure you will come in soon show what you can do in training etc. It is not like playing for QPR was his dream - he was fully expecting to be a perm player so he had that psychological baggage to cope with too and at 26 only slightly older than Hall albeit played a lot more.
Lots of this is with the benefit of hindsight but I did say pretty strongly when Hall was dropped - and before kick-off- on here that I thought this was a a really bad move. |  |
| |
| Grant Hall on 08:43 - Nov 1 with 1300 views | CHUBBS |
Hall is steadily improving into a quality ball playing centre back.
He looks the best option in that position since the departure of Dunne who's quality and leadership we've missed badly.
God only knows what's happened to NO who looks like he's lost confidence now he's expected to be the experienced leader.
I'd give the captaincy else where and allow these two an uninterrupted run at centre half to develop an understanding and belief in each other. |  | | |
| Grant Hall on 22:04 - Nov 1 with 1211 views | richpr |
couldn't disagree more - he will never be better than Hill. Hill comes back and we let in 1 goal in 3 games. Hill is a bit past it but he is an improvement on any of the 3 other alternatives (Onouha, Hall and Angella)
Hall looks weak to me, falls over alot and has no pace - not someone we should be building a team around | | | |
| Grant Hall on 07:16 - Nov 2 with 1151 views | CHUBBS |
Hill is still easily our best defender but that's really a sad indictment on the rest of them however Hall is potentially a very good player.
I don't see him being particularly weak but he still has a lot to learn.
I really don't understand CR saying he wanted to use him sparingly as he already looks good enough in comparison to the other options in his position.
Brentfords back four were aged 21,22,22 and 24 so that just doesn't add up because if you're good enough you're old enough.
Letting the two right backs go out on loan looks silly now when you look how crap Perch is playing whilst not playing our own left back to accommodate some one else's has been is hard to understand.
I'd have played them all and let them learn here just like Brentford are.
Ps obviously I rate Hill as no.1 however he's now gonna be out and Hall looks next best [Post edited 2 Nov 2015 12:50]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
