Sam Osborne

[optipez]

He was not Ardleys signing, thats why... He prefers to play with geriatric journeymen, or have loan players who are useless..

He was offered a contract and chose to leave. Either way, he's not as good as Roberts.

[optipez]

Let's assume we had never heard of Osborne - he was an unknown - would you be happy to sign him? Or would you be looking for someone with a higher pedigree than ex-National League, now National League North?

Like Cal Roberts?

[Notts78]

Like Cal Roberts?

No comparison. Cal Roberts was at Newcastle less than a year before we signed him.

[jackal2]

Sam Osborne showed in his infrequent appearances last season that he is a good player with a fair degree of skill, an eye for a goal and a willingness to work back when required. In my opinion he offered more in many games than we were getting from Enzio. We should not have let him go, and I fear he will prove to be another of a number of young ex-players who in due course prove their worth and our mistake.

It goes without saying that when some players drift into part-time football they never do make it back to a higher level. Sometimes this is because their talented really is limited, but sometimes it's because the rigours of combining a "real" job with a part-time football career restrict the time and coaching they have available to fully develop that talent and realise their true potential.

You also get those who are offered opportunities to go back into full-time football but don't want the risk, because they have developed careers or businesses outside the game which they feel offer more security than a short-term professional contract, especially if they have been scarred by past experience. I remember we had to work very hard to persuade Paul Harding to sign for us, because he already had a successful building business and a decent part-time salary at Barnet. In the end he chased the dream and made a decent professional football career for himself in his late twenties and early thirties, but when we first approached him his response wasn't automatic.

[durhampie]

He was offered a contract and chose to leave. Either way, he's not as good as Roberts.

But he is far better than any of those loan players we have recently signed. Inc some of the permanent signings..

[jackal2]

But he is far better than any of those loan players we have recently signed. Inc some of the permanent signings..

I wouldn't compare him with the new players we signed in the summer, because I think they will all prove to be decent acquisitions over the course of time.

I think the most relevant comparison is that we released a young talent like Osborne while giving a new contract to Michael Doyle, who is touching 40 years of age and is nowhere near as influential and important to the team as Neal Ardley pretends he is.

I don't blame Doyle for trying to play as long as possible, and I must say his fitness levels relative to his age are a credit to him, but he wasn't and isn't what we needed as we build for the future, especially when his wages take up money we should have been investing in young talent like Osborne and Crawford.

[matt_magpie]

Ardley gave him quite a lot of game time last season and he was decent in patches, I saw him for the reserves a few times too and he wasn’t pulling up trees. Sometimes a player just needs a change, it was his choice not the clubs.

[jackal2]

Ardley gave him quite a lot of game time last season and he was decent in patches, I saw him for the reserves a few times too and he wasn’t pulling up trees. Sometimes a player just needs a change, it was his choice not the clubs.

I think if I (finally) got picked in the first team, played well, perhaps scored a goal and came off the park as part of the winning team, only to find myself kicked out of the team the following game to accommodate some "senior pro" who gets picked regardless of their performance levels, I might "need a change" too!

[matt_magpie]

I wouldn't compare him with the new players we signed in the summer, because I think they will all prove to be decent acquisitions over the course of time.

I think the most relevant comparison is that we released a young talent like Osborne while giving a new contract to Michael Doyle, who is touching 40 years of age and is nowhere near as influential and important to the team as Neal Ardley pretends he is.

I don't blame Doyle for trying to play as long as possible, and I must say his fitness levels relative to his age are a credit to him, but he wasn't and isn't what we needed as we build for the future, especially when his wages take up money we should have been investing in young talent like Osborne and Crawford.

If Doyle’s as fit and focused as last season I would have him over them 2 any day of the week as he produced game after game, sometimes you need players for the here and now.

[jackal2]

If Doyle’s as fit and focused as last season I would have him over them 2 any day of the week as he produced game after game, sometimes you need players for the here and now.

Doyle was a player for the here and now about ten years ago. I failed to see his overwhelming, game changing influence on the team when it mattered most in the play-off final or in some of our other recent poor performances. In fact, he sometimes looks like a helpless passenger akin to Ian Hamilton a few years ago. Even yesterday's turnaround could be credited more to Ruben and Sam than to Doyle, who was on the pitch when we gave away a one-goal start.