[Westbars Spireite]

The whole thing was briefly messy and Cook had seemed to me to had lost his usual clarity of thought.

[Spireite-Karl]

LosMillonarios, on 23 December 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

He's playing further back at Oldham, probably has to put in more of a shift than he did here.

More than likely, though I always thought he put in a very good shift and was nearly always back winning the ball from deep positions and for a role that's supporting the attacker is very impressive.

[Cartman]

dim view, on 22 December 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

Hee hee. Just reading the Oldham forum and some think that Johnson's inclusion has disrupted the team. He isn't in somes' best eleven.

surely not

he's the bestest loanee we've ever had according to some people and we won every game he played and lost every time Cook left him out (not true obviously but you'd think it was)

[Spireite-Karl]

Cartman, on 23 December 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

surely not

he's the bestest loanee we've ever had according to some people and we won every game he played and lost every time Cook left him out (not true obviously but you'd think it was)

And you must believe the reverse is true the way you keep going on about it.

[Cartman]

Spireite-Karl, on 23 December 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

And you must believe the reverse is true the way you keep going on about it.

not at all

he was/is an excellent player, more so now he scores the odd goal

however, the reaction on here was way over the top, we have had better and more influential loan players and we did lose several games with him in the side

[Spireite-Karl]

Cartman, on 23 December 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

not at all

he was/is an excellent player, more so now he scores the odd goal

however, the reaction on here was way over the top, we have had better and more influential loan players and we did lose several games with him in the side

If I remember rightly that wasn't the question asked if you're referring to an old thread. The question was something like 'Have we had a player on loan that’s had as much class', and I still think he's up there on that one. Influential wasn't mentioned from what I remember and the two things are different in my book; but yeah, I agree with you on on that one, he's no leader, but class wise it's hard to argue too much against in his time with us compared to others that we’ve had.

[Cartman]

Spireite-Karl, on 23 December 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

If I remember rightly that wasn't the question asked if you're referring to an old thread. The question was something like 'Have we had a player on loan that’s had as much class', and I still think he's up there on that one. Influential wasn't mentioned from what I remember and the two things are different in my book; but yeah, I agree with you on on that one, he's no leader, but class wise it's hard to argue too much against in his time with us compared to others that we’ve had.

influential meaning impact on the team, not so much as a leader or anything

from some posts you'd think we won every game he played and lost those he didn't, this was simply not the case!

and for classy, still think we've had plenty classier than him, all of whom had to play in poorer Town sides - Hitzlspurger, O'Hara and Clingan to name 3

[Spireite-Karl]

Cartman, on 23 December 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

influential meaning impact on the team, not so much as a leader or anything

from some posts you'd think we won every game he played and lost those he didn't, this was simply not the case!

and for classy, still think we've had plenty classier than him, all of whom had to play in poorer Town sides - Hitzlspurger, O'Hara and Clingan to name 3

All good players for us I agree, though in their spell with us I don't think they quite looked as classy as Johnson imo, and if you are going on 'impact on the team' then Johnson had a huge impact, and without looking I would still say he's our top assist maker even now. Clingan was influential, but not a 'real classy' player in the way of O'Hara, Thomas etc. More of a 'classy player' for what a hardworking box to box midfielder usually is). O'Hara and Hitzlsperger were definitely 'classy', though I'm still not so sure they we 'as classy' in their time with us; either way it's old hat now and everyone has very similar views on these players, but some just slightly rate these players different attributes, but i'm sure all agree that the above players were great loan signings.
So in a nutshell... All top draw quality loan signings and not a great deal to choose between them, though you seem to feel the need to repeatedly belittle those with a different opinion to yours.
I’ve not got a problem with your opinions until you start to say others are talking rubbish with theirs and not just as a 'one off' either as you repeatedly bring this up even when not prompted by another posters opinions on the player. What makes you right all the time?

[Cartman]

Spireite-Karl, on 23 December 2014 - 07:45 PM, said:

All good players for us I agree, though in their spell with us I don't think they quite looked as classy as Johnson imo, and if you are going on 'impact on the team' then Johnson had a huge impact, and without looking I would still say he's our top assist maker even now. Clingan was influential, but not a 'real classy' player in the way of O'Hara, Thomas etc. More of a 'classy player' for what a hardworking box to box midfielder usually is). O'Hara and Hitzlsperger were definitely 'classy', though I'm still not so sure they we 'as classy' in their time with us; either way it's old hat now and everyone has very similar views on these players, but some just slightly rate these players different attributes, but i'm sure all agree that the above players were great loan signings.
So in a nutshell... All top draw quality loan signings and not a great deal to choose between them, though you seem to feel the need to repeatedly belittle those with a different opinion to yours.
I’ve not got a problem with your opinions until you start to say others are talking rubbish with theirs and not just as a 'one off' either as you repeatedly bring this up even when not prompted by another posters opinions on the player. What makes you right all the time?

you miss the point (again)

not belittling anyones opinion, but stating that people went way over the top about Johnson's contribution

His non-inclusion was jumped on as the reason for a dip in form, when in truth we had lost games and played badly with him in the side

Quality player yes, but 'huge impact' as you put it, no chance

He was lucky enough to be in a good side who could quite easily of won the games we won with him without him - we have plenty of players capable of playing the position Johnson did and contributing equally as well - he simply wasn't that integral to the squad we have

Whereas take Clingan/O'Hara out of the town sides they played in and you left a massive hole

[Spireite-Karl]

Cartman, on 23 December 2014 - 07:58 PM, said:

you miss the point (again)

not belittling anyones opinion, but stating that people went way over the top about Johnson's contribution

His non-inclusion was jumped on as the reason for a dip in form, when in truth we had lost games and played badly with him in the side

Quality player yes, but 'huge impact' as you put it, no chance

He was lucky enough to be in a good side who could quite easily of won the games we won with him without him - we have plenty of players capable of playing the position Johnson did and contributing equally as well - he simply wasn't that integral to the squad we have

Whereas take Clingan/O'Hara out of the town sides they played in and you left a massive hole

I'm not missing any point as you've been repeatedly making it since Johnson's loan ended

I can't think of many (if any) poor performances as you put it, with Johnson in the side (not until he started to get messed about or right at the beginning of his loan before he was deployed behind the striker); and we played fantastic football, but conceded for fun.

You’re looking at it in black and white terms and that's not the way to do it. We conceded goals as quick as we scored then back then (and we scored them with ease at that, mostly down to Johnson's through balls to Doyle). It was the defence that was the problem to your reasoning of calculating the success of Johnson and that in itself is madness. We've sorted this problem to some degree and IF we had done so back then our points return would probably have been far superior and you wouldn't have an argument. The inclusion of Raglan is as much to do with this as anything imo as is the less gung-ho tactics.
I fail to see how you can lay a good percent of the blame on a player that plays 'in the hole behind the striker' when we scored at least two goals more or less every game and conceded as many at the other end, surely he was doing his part, and as far as balance of the team goes his position is about the least likely position you could pick on for us not doing our defensive duties correctly and losing points hand over fist. For what it's worth I thought he did more than his fair share of defending for the team (much better than Roberts), kept possession really well (again, far better than Roberts) and used the ball very efficiently and creatively (once more, far better than Roberts and I like Robo), which the stats will prove (what he probably hasn't got though is Roberts will to win and high regard from the rest of the players that comes with his experience. I still think you are barking up the wrong tree and IF Johnson had still been in the team the results would have improved with defending... much like it has now, imo.

[Cartman]

Spireite-Karl, on 23 December 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

I'm not missing any point as you've been repeatedly making it since Johnson's loan ended

I can't think of many (if any) poor performances as you put it, with Johnson in the side (not until he started to get messed about or right at the beginning of his loan before he was deployed behind the striker); and we played fantastic football, but conceded for fun.

You’re looking at it in black and white terms and that's not the way to do it. We conceded goals as quick as we scored then back then (and we scored them with ease at that, mostly down to Johnson's through balls to Doyle). It was the defence that was the problem to your reasoning of calculating the success of Johnson and that in itself is madness. We've sorted this problem to some degree and IF we had done so back then our points return would probably have been far superior and you wouldn't have an argument. The inclusion of Raglan is as much to do with this as anything imo as is the less gung-ho tactics.
I fail to see how you can lay a good percent of the blame on a player that plays 'in the hole behind the striker' when we scored at least two goals more or less every game and conceded as many at the other end, surely he was doing his part, and as far as balance of the team goes his position is about the least likely position you could pick on for us not doing our defensive duties correctly and losing points hand over fist. For what it's worth I thought he did more than his fair share of defending for the team (much better than Roberts), kept possession really well (again, far better than Roberts) and used the ball very efficiently and creatively (once more, far better than Roberts and I like Robo), which the stats will prove (what he probably hasn't got though is Roberts will to win and high regard from the rest of the players that comes with his experience. I still think you are barking up the wrong tree and IF Johnson had still been in the team the results would have improved with defending... much like it has now, imo.

and breath

Johnson better than Roberts? Can't see it

Don't understand your or anyone elses infatuation with a player who had a few (literally 2 or 3) good games for us

[lindave]

Cartman, on 23 December 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

surely not

he's the bestest loanee we've ever had according to some people and we won every game he played and lost every time Cook left him out (not true obviously but you'd think it was)

What is true is that he supplied doyle with some quality balls that brought him goals

[sophocles]

Cartman, on 23 December 2014 - 10:15 PM, said:

and breath

Johnson better than Roberts? Can't see it

Don't understand your or anyone elses infatuation with a player who had a few (literally 2 or 3) good games for us

Your use of the word ' infatuation ' indicates an excessive reaction to anyone who praises Johnson, and makes me wonder what you have against him. IMO he is an excellent player at L1 level who did really well for us, and clearly made a significant contribution to our attacking potency in general, and to Doyle's goal tally in particular. I don't believe we will see him here again , but I would welcome him if a return became possible.

[Mr Mercury]

Cartman, on 23 December 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

not at all

he was/is an excellent player, more so now he scores the odd goal

however, the reaction on here was way over the top, we have had better and more influential loan players and we did lose several games with him in the side

Touché

[Cartman]

sophocles, on 23 December 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

Your use of the word ' infatuation ' indicates an excessive reaction to anyone who praises Johnson, and makes me wonder what you have against him. IMO he is an excellent player at L1 level who did really well for us, and clearly made a significant contribution to our attacking potency in general, and to Doyle's goal tally in particular. I don't believe we will see him here again , but I would welcome him if a return became possible.

another one who misunderstands

I have posted nothing but praise for Johnson's ability, he is a very good player, especially since he started scoring a few for Oldham

My issues have always been with the over playing of his contribution by some fans

Yes he delivers a good pass, so do a lot of our other players, yes he assisted goals, so do a lot of our other players

Simple facts are he had 2 or 3 very good games for us, yet some believe him to be our best loan player ever and the sole reason we won a few games

I'd love to have him back and get a longer look at him to see if he could sustain his form and kick on from a few good games, but people are forgetting the games he played when we lost and the fact that the odd game he looked a bit lost

Good player yes, but I believe we would be in a similar position in the table whether we had him this season or not as we have plenty of other talent that can do his job

The reaction when Cook left him out was ridiculous, you'd think we'd signed Messi and not played him!

[Spireite-Karl]

Cartman, on 23 December 2014 - 10:15 PM, said:

and breath

Johnson better than Roberts? Can't see it

Don't understand your or anyone elses infatuation with a player who had a few (literally 2 or 3) good games for us

You must have been watching a different game to me in that case. I've lost count of the games in which the opposition fans said he was the best player on the park for either side. His goal assists must still have to be 'far higher' than any of our players have got even now and he was unlucky not to add a goal or two to his impressive performances. The reason Cookie ditched him was more political than anything else and things really went pear shaped for a good fair few games afterwards as well. Yes we've got a good balance now to the team (probably more so than then, but imo this has nothing to do with Johnson not being in the side). Anyway, enoughs enough, we both know what each other thinks and I can't be bothered boring the rest of the board members with this any more, merry christmas to ya

[Cartman]

Spireite-Karl, on 23 December 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

You must have been watching a different game to me in that case. I've lost count of the games in which the opposition fans said he was the best player on the park for either side. His goal assists must still have to be 'far higher' than any of our players have got even now and he was unlucky not to add a goal or two to his impressive performances. The reason Cookie ditched him was more political than anything else and things really went pear shaped for a good fair few games afterwards as well. Yes we've got a good balance now to the team (probably more so than then, but imo this has nothing to do with Johnson not being in the side). Anyway, enoughs enough, we both know what each other thinks and I can't be bothered boring the rest of the board members with this any more, merry christmas to ya

you've lost count?

considering he only played around 10 games for us in total then I wouldn't admit that!

Merry Xmas

[Search & Destroy]

Read these exchanges with interest, I'm with you Karl, he was for the most part, when played higher up the pitch, excellent.

[Westbars Spireite]

Oldham, and Johnson, have now lost four games in a row by an aggregate score of 13-0.

[Spireite82]

Is welcome him back for the rest if the season if he becomes available...especially of we sell Morsey or Ryan (or both...gulp!)