What was the point of Kazim-Richards?

[Geoff Parkstone]

The question is, prove himself to who? He's clearly not good enough in the minds of those who select the team, not proved himself in training. Or does he have to prove himself to you personally before he is deemed a busted flush??

[ramAnag]

The question is, prove himself to who? He's clearly not good enough in the minds of those who select the team, not proved himself in training. Or does he have to prove himself to you personally before he is deemed a busted flush??

You do talk some nonsense, GP. Is Bielik rubbish, because he hasn’t been picked recently? Are Shinnie and Davies garbage? Many seemed to think they were doing okay, but they’ve lost their places too.
It’s self evidently got absolutely nothing to do with proving himself to me and as I said in my original thread...who knows why he hasn’t had a look in...certainly not me and for that matter, not Swale either...but until he does I’ll reserve judgement and not take too much notice of decisions taken by a ‘management team’ who most on here appear to have very little confidence in.

[swaledale]

You do talk some nonsense, GP. Is Bielik rubbish, because he hasn’t been picked recently? Are Shinnie and Davies garbage? Many seemed to think they were doing okay, but they’ve lost their places too.
It’s self evidently got absolutely nothing to do with proving himself to me and as I said in my original thread...who knows why he hasn’t had a look in...certainly not me and for that matter, not Swale either...but until he does I’ll reserve judgement and not take too much notice of decisions taken by a ‘management team’ who most on here appear to have very little confidence in.

Bloody hell this is the pot calling the kettle black! GP makes a perfectly reasonable point as I did (and incorrectly you said it was criticism) and you respond with irrelevant *******s about 3 other players and say he is talking nonsense!

For a start, nobody and certainly not me said Kazim Richards was garbage, it was you who implied criticism, you often seem to read into posts meanings that aren't there. I mean its difficult to tell seeing he hasn't played much.

The current management team have only been in charge for 3 games, Richards hasn't been picked before that and if its one thing Derby lack at the moment is goals, yet he still doesn't start and is hardly used as a sub. So its a perfectly reasonable question to ask why did we bother signing him?

So by your logic if he doesn't play much for Rams this season, it isn't because he isn't up to it? Yet if we are needing goals why wouldn't we select him? I mean it doesn't add up does it, even you and your "I'll reserve judgement" point of view must wonder why this is the case?

You still haven't even addressed the question was what was the point of signing him? because at the moment it just looks like a desperation move to get a body into the squad.

However, I can see as you were so effusive about him when he was signed (despite his previous track record being iffy) I can see why admitting that he wasn't a wise signing would be hard for you, seeing as you rarely admit to being wrong.

[swaledale]

The question is, prove himself to who? He's clearly not good enough in the minds of those who select the team, not proved himself in training. Or does he have to prove himself to you personally before he is deemed a busted flush??

rA thought he was a good prospect when signed and reeled off the list of clubs he had played for, while failing to mention his goalscoring record was less than impressive! Logic would suggest that given we need goals, if he was any good he'd ahve been given a chance by now. But no apparently not, no doubt at the en dof the season when the guy has hardly played for us and scored zero goals rA will still be defencing him on the basis of the clubs he played for previously!