[K-9]

boboisared, on 10 February 2010 - 11:27 AM, said:

Fair point.


I'm actually glad you've said that because as you know I very rarely agree with your opinion when discussing football so IMO that proves my point further.

"Lets have a sh*t footballer who doesn't score much goals rather than a good footballer who doesn't score much goals".

I would have the one who is best value for money. If both producing pretty much the same then whichever one is much cheaper is the one i would go for.

If that person is less talented but tries much harder and has potential to score much more if playing much more and also taking penalties which weren't before then just adds to arguement of which to choose!!

[boboisared]

K-9, on 10 February 2010 - 11:50 AM, said:

I would have the one who is best value for money. If both producing pretty much the same then whichever one is much cheaper is the one i would go for.

If that person is less talented but tries much harder and has potential to score much more if playing much more and also taking penalties which weren't before then just adds to arguement of which to choose!!

Lee Miller in a team playing attacking football on the ground at this level would be a huge asset. I've never looked at him as a goal scorer, he brings others in to the game. Ideally I'd have loved MacLean and Miller together, see what they could do. Two intelligent guys playing off of each other.

Nish is just a lump of wood. Scores roughly the same amount of goals but brings nothig else to the table, flick ons apart.

This post has been edited by boboisared: 10 February 2010 - 01:12 PM

[K-9]

boboisared, on 10 February 2010 - 12:11 PM, said:

Lee Miller in a team playing attacking football on the ground at this level would be a huge asset. I've never looked at him as a goal scorer, he brings others in to the game. Ideally I'd have loved MacLean and Miller together, see what they could do. Two intelligent guys playing off of each other.

Nish is just a lump of wood. Scores roughly the same amount of goals but brings nothig else to the table, flick ons apart.

Lee Miller giving 100% and working hard would most definitely have been a huge asset for us but sadly we saw over the years this was never going to be the case.

[boboisared]

K-9, on 10 February 2010 - 12:30 PM, said:

Lee Miller giving 100% and working hard would most definitely have been a huge asset for us but sadly we saw over the years this was never going to be the case.

Won't argue there as I never saw Lee giving his maximum nearly as much as he should have.

However Mackie does and so does Nish. Would still have Miller over the two.