|
Post by klr on Jul 8, 2009 11:48:03 GMT
Well, I personally thought Ledesma was a good player that we should have persevered with. Ledesma wasnt a failure at QPR, he just wasnt allowed to be a success! Faurlin, I have a good feeling about!
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Jul 8, 2009 11:49:43 GMT
Could be another Parejo!
The difference is that he's a signing; not a loan. So we can give him time to develop.
|
|
|
Post by klr on Jul 8, 2009 12:00:59 GMT
Could be another Parejo! The difference is that he's a signing; not a loan. So we can give him time to develop. Agree. Parejo just didnt want to be here, but Ledesma had a big smile on his face ( at least at the start ), its a shame we didnt persevere with him a little bit more as opposed to Lee Crock, sorry, Cook.
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Jul 8, 2009 12:01:13 GMT
Another difference and great sign IMO, he was scouted/chosen by Jim and Gormless. Good news the club disclosed the overall deal but the big money spin could lead to huge expectations. I really hope that he is given time by the fans. Does anyone really believe we paid £3.5m for an unproven foreign div 2 player? I can't wait to see him play and have fingers crossed we get the ManU lad on loan...now where are those strikers?
|
|
weareqpr12
Ian Holloway
** Banned user **
Posts: 308
|
Post by weareqpr12 on Jul 8, 2009 12:22:49 GMT
I don't think he has the body of a 12 year old boy so I actually think he will do much better than Ledesma and will be able to cope with the physical approach and lack of time on the ball in the championship. Good luck to the lad and I think he will be a success. Onwards and upwards!
|
|
|
Post by scarletpimple on Jul 8, 2009 13:22:37 GMT
I liked ladesma, but after he was sent off against Bristol city he never seemed to be the same player after that.
Should have kept him, dont really know why he was sent back, he had potential and was young.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jul 8, 2009 14:01:26 GMT
I think the price of the impending deal scared them off him. Or he simply got homesick, who knows. He wasn't treated the best in my opinion. Played with a smile and wanted to do everything, penalties, free kicks etc. Not sure but he certainly seemd to lose a lot of the early enthusiam and effort. Jim and John should hopefully look after Alex a tad better as they should be playing football if all the rumours are true. Not quite sure if klr is quite won over by his signing yet though.
|
|
|
Post by eusebio13 on Jul 8, 2009 20:20:28 GMT
There is the opportunity cost here....£3.5m would have bought you Cox & McGoldrick plus £1m change
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Jul 8, 2009 22:22:16 GMT
Is it something about watching almost any player? They all seem to look promising when they start. The first game, the first few games if they aren't already injured, of course.
Do we make allowances for players in their first few games the way we make allowances for managers in their first few months?
Then suddenly, and quite abruptly, we're not interested in potential any more. We expect the passes not just to look as though they might amount to something, but to arrive. And the results to be good, not just a sign that winning ways are around the corner.
Do they look good at first because we have an 'ideal' version of them in our mind - what we hope they'll become - and we try to discover the building blocks of that idealized player in the bloke we're looking at.
Otherwise, it's remarkable how quickly we lose interest.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Jul 8, 2009 23:54:23 GMT
Tell me this someone, Why do we have to go to the ends of the earth to spend 3 million on a 2nd division midfielder WHEN WE NEED A STRIKER THAT CAN SCORE GOALS. Have they all lost their minds.
Even Polonius wouldnt see method in this madness. It is pure unadulterated common or garden madhouse madness.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Jul 9, 2009 17:06:55 GMT
There is something disturbing in all this, londonranger. The striker issue is alarming, granted. But there's something more unnatural. Identity.
First 'he could be another Ledesma ....'. So that's two Ledesmas, only one of whom is Ledesma, the other is someone else.
But we also have 'Ledesma never seemed to be the same player after that'.
So Ledesma isn't Ledesma. Not any more. But as there are two Ledesmas, only one Ledesma isn't Ledesma. The other one is. Unfortunately, the one who isn't Ledesma any more is the one who was Ledesma in the first place.
While the one who is 'another Ledesma' is the only Ledesma now.
Seriously.
|
|