Cooke is far more productive than Dobson?

Creative? yes, but productive? Don't think so. Subtle difference between the 2.

I would imagine that if someone went thru the games and worked out a try assist/creation to possession received ratio then Cooke would indeed be streets ahead of Dobson. Dobson gets every scrap of ball yet our attacking stats are very poor....and thats without just the mechanics of getting the team to a good field position...

As i see it Cooke has the superior vision/game reading/handling and , Dobson is the superior attacking kicker and "zippier" player, cannot see why a coach would not try to maximise both players strengths(and try to minimise some major flaws..) for the benefit of the team.....but then again we know why...

And if JM persists with Dobson defending alongside Welham, then teams are going to just flood thru that area every week (and Jason Netherton and Galea when hes back are going to be cream crackered every week..)

You are John Kear, and I claim my £5

=#FF0000Thinly-veiled references to drug use - just say no. MR

Morgan has a habit of signing poor players and turning them into good players.
In Cookes case he has done the opposite

What about this "thinly veiled drug reference" then?

Grange Hill

Way wide of the mark there friar. Cooke is by no means a poor player. The trick is in utilizing him correctly.

think you should read the other post again !

Genuine question.
Do you believe Justin Morgan wanted Cooke in the first place,or was it a case of the chairman says "Yes"
As was the case at Chelsea when Abramovitch wanted Chevchenko,but Mourinho didn`t.

Probably.

Don`t know if you are being sarky or not.


Not trying to stir it,I am just wondering ,thats all.

Does he? Can't really think of many

Thats because Morgan doesnt sign poor players. He has though got a good record of getting the best out of the players that he signs.

Does he? I can think of plenty who have been shipped on quietly when they've failed. Mostly seem to be props which is interesting as he used to be a prop.

Name a poor player that Morgan has signed, in relation to the level that we were playing at the time of their signiture.

David Mills on a 2 year deal, 2008.

Mills was signed on a one year contract and went on to be a 30 game everpresent.
He was RE- signed on a 2 year contract so i win that on a technicality.

Fair enough. Still not great business though - 33 games into his contract and he's made 4 appearances.

Not including Challenge Cup games, play offs or friendlies? You are slacking Mrs B.

paul cooke

nick fozzard

davis mills

None of the above were classed as "poor players" at the time of their signature. Mills was no world beater, but I suspect his initial contract value reflected that. He has since gone on the become a right cart-horse, that I'll give you!

Poor Morgan signings are more widespread than many on here would have you believe, but as a % of total signings, I imagine its still quite low. The following are examples of poor signings (IMO of course!):

Desi Williams
Gareth Price
Garrett Crossman
David Mills

Interesting (as you have alluded to) that 3 of the above are indeed, props.

All coaches will have a poor signing or 2 to their name. The biggets from the list you have above was Crossman. He came with great raps from the aussie press and his coach. He turned up and was really poor, maybe it was settling abroad and adapting to a different rules and styles of play.

Paul Cooke has not been a poor signing, he just hasn't hit the same levels of influence on our team as he did for FC. If he wasn't an ex FC player who came over acrimonioulsy he would even be getting discussed.

In our initial SL year Cookie was the difference that kept us up and for that his signature was very valuable.

I thought Fozzaard did a very good job for us at the start of last season , and was the seasoned campaigner who led from the front , particularly when Vella was out injured.