A point worth considering is that Langstaff is 27 in under three weeks and, this season, is his first ever playing at Football League level.Anyone suggesting him as a signing has ZERO knowledge of tactical nuance in football. Just because a player scores goals, creates assists etc at one level in one system in one tactical set up doesn't mean he will replicate it anywhere chuba/Giles etc etc
I'd absolutely love to be wrong and langstaff bang 20 a season at championship level bit i can't see it.
League 1/2 poacher at best
At 22!!! Slightly differentWhat league was craig hignett playing in when we signed him?
My comment has absolutely nothing to do with the original post. Nor does your reply. Your comment just reflects your absolute lack of footballing knowledge.I’d be very disappointed if we signed a striker from league two.
Eh?My comment has absolutely nothing to do with the original post. Nor does your reply. Your comment just reflects your absolute lack of footballing knowledge.
Being disappointed with signing a league 2 player? Just, why? It doesn matter what league they are playing in. Like the old saying about young players. The same goes for what league they are in surely?
From what I have seen I’d be disappointed with signing Langstaff as I would with signing Paul Mullin.Being disappointed with signing a league 2 player? Just, why? It doesn matter what league they are playing in. Like the old saying about young players. The same goes for what league they are in surely?
You said, you'd be disappointed in signing a league 2 player. You didn't say anything about who that player was.From what I have seen I’d be disappointed with signing Langstaff as I would with signing Paul Mullin.
We need to be aiming a hell of a lot higher.
I would be yes, unless they were very young with bags of potential which isn’t going to be Langstaff.You said, you'd be disappointed in signing a league 2 player. You didn't say anything about who that player was.
Which is why I said my reply had nothing to do with the original post, nor did yours.I would be yes, unless they were very young with bags of potential which isn’t going to be Langstaff.
I thought my post would be obvious as to who I was referring to considering this is a thread about Macauley Langstaff.
Strange post to dig up considering it’s from November and not have anything to do with the thread at hand.Which is why I said my reply had nothing to do with the original post, nor did yours.
Oh, I do apologise. I'm not on here every day and don't tend to look at dates. I just read it today and thought what you posted was very strange. The first one I disagreed with on the thread and felt the need to comment. I'm sorry, I'll refrain from posting unless what I'm reading is posted that day from now on. It's not like it wasn't at the top of the board or anything like that.Strange post to dig up considering it’s from November and not have anything to do with the thread at hand.