You're ridiculously blinkered on this issue. When we debated it before, you even conceded his set piece delivery is excellent. We scored a couple of goals from his corners. I'll agree there were games when he was deservedly substituted, and he sometimes struggled to influence the game, but he's a young player (only 20) adjusting to a new league and culture. The fact that he can create goals at the top level (as he did with us and with Sevilla when he actually played) shows that he's got potential.

Yep, I agree we have definitely been better since Pulis came in and he hasn't played. But I don't think we're better BECAUSE he's not in the team - that's simply down to us appointing Pulis and getting rid of Holloway. He was hardly a regular before, and he never had a settled position. I definitely think he had something different to offer us though, and would be disappointed if we didn't try and keep him and develop him into a top quality player at our club. Disappointed he didn't go to a Championship club like Pulis had suggested previously.

Would definetly like to see us try and keep him. Like Gayle, just don't think he's the type of player in terms of assets that is needed for the kind of season we were bound to endure this season.

He could well benefit from this loan spell but once we're able to be more creative and productive on the ball he would be a bonus. If we were to go down that could be next season, if we stay up it could be a couple of years until we see what a good and technically gifted player he is. Whether he wants to hang around that long is a different matter.

Edited by Stuart Shave (06 Feb 2014 10.22am)

O.k firstly you mentioned freedman, holloway playing K.g but surely we've moved on when has Sok let us down, his work rate tackles and drive even getting into the oppos box creating chances.

Look at Gayle last week was a perfect chance to play against a footballing side,but no C.J was preferred
yes he's got heart but he cant score,and why bring Gayle on for 8mins.

Also at home have we had more possession against lower half teams??

Can you describe this brand of football you mentioned that he's associated with.

I'd suggest us 'moving on' is one of the main factors in our use of two defensive midfielders. We are trying to establish ourselves in a higher league, that's more easily done with a solid foundation. Should we successfully make the transition, a few seasons in, I would expect to see more creative players gradually introduced to the side.

Similarly, Jerome's inclusion over Gayle is more based around playing styles than ability to score goals. I agree that Gayle would score more goals given the same amount of time, but I also feel that's a very simplistic way to judge a forward. Jerome offers a lot more to the side IMO.

For me, the correlation between possession and what is considered 'good football' is overstated. We are set up as a counter attacking side, hence our lower possession, but we also string together some superb passing moves on the break, far superior to any I saw under Holloway. The home game to Hull was a good example of this, they certainly controlled the game in terms of possession, but we looked a far more dangerous side in the final third, and consequently won the game.

The very brand you eluded to in your first post, long ball football based around a team of giants, but from what I've seen of this Pulis team so far, I consider that as big a myth as the suggestion that Holloway's sides play good football.

Ok so what did you mean by "my dislike for pulis brand of team selection,and football." ?

O.k. EDN you was spot on,maybe that brand stuck with him.
Thinking about it Ronseal comes to mind.

Any way here's to 3 pts on sat.