Injured Players

[Ian Royal]

If McAnuff is still with us. QPR friend of mine thinks they will sign him next week.

If they do we ought to be able to siphon off enough of that to get a decent replacement at the price they'll have to give us. Even taking into account a lot will go into our £3.5m hole.

If McAnuff leaves (which I doubt/hope he won't) then there's not much point in signing another winger, is there?
Henry, Robson-Kanu, Antonio, Baggie... I suppose we could do with an experienced winger, but then when will Henry/Robson-Kanu get their chance?

Baggie should be out on loan getting first team experience IMO, much in the same way as all our younger players coming through have done. Robson-Kanu I think could do with more loan time as well. Impressive on his last spell, but couldn't quite step it up for us last season.

Henry is a possible as is Antonio, but I'd feel we lacked a little on the wings with those two stepping up for McAnuff.

[Sun Tzu]

Not often a player loses a 1-11 squad number.

I was a bit surprised by that comment.

It would be interesting (well a bit !!) to look at squads over the years and see whether players do change numbers that often.

I don;t think numbers mean an awful lot these days. Plenty of players seem quite happy to have numbers other than 1-11 and i wouldn;t think players are that fussed. Howard is taking 34 for instance !!

I don't think Armstrong's number tells us anything at all - we know he wouldn't be first choice left back even if fit , and having a number is better than NOT having a number. It certainly tells us he's not being forced to retire in the foreseeable future.

[Isaac Hunt]

Not often a player loses a 1-11 squad number.

I was a bit surprised by that comment.

It would be interesting (well a bit !!) to look at squads over the years and see whether players do change numbers that often.

I don;t think numbers mean an awful lot these days. Plenty of players seem quite happy to have numbers other than 1-11 and i wouldn;t think players are that fussed. Howard is taking 34 for instance !!

I don't think Armstrong's number tells us anything at all - we know he wouldn't be first choice left back even if fit , and having a number is better than NOT having a number. It certainly tells us he's not being forced to retire in the foreseeable future.

Understand what you're saying, but i meant that it's unusual for a player to change numbers unless it's into the (traditional) 1-11. For example, Sig taking the 8, Long getting the 9 last year and so on. Howard might have a prefered number that isn't available and has decided to stick with 34.

I still think Armstrong moving for Williams is (largely/partly) due to Stretch being unlikely to feature for us for some time, if ever again. I didn't say anything about RFC forcing him out. Of course he'll have a squad number. IMHO it looks (to me) like that might be it for him. I hope that i'm wrong.

[Ian Royal]

Not often a player loses a 1-11 squad number.

I was a bit surprised by that comment.

It would be interesting (well a bit !!) to look at squads over the years and see whether players do change numbers that often.

I don;t think numbers mean an awful lot these days. Plenty of players seem quite happy to have numbers other than 1-11 and i wouldn;t think players are that fussed. Howard is taking 34 for instance !!

I don't think Armstrong's number tells us anything at all - we know he wouldn't be first choice left back even if fit , and having a number is better than NOT having a number. It certainly tells us he's not being forced to retire in the foreseeable future.

It tells us no such thing, unless the forseeable future is about 2 weeks. He's obviously not making a decision on retiring yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't potentially going to happen soon. When the squad numbers get done, any player still on the books will get one.

They aren't going to not give one to Armstrong just until they know if he'll retire in the next month or two.

[Sun Tzu]

It tells us no such thing, unless the forseeable future is about 2 weeks. He's obviously not making a decision on retiring yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't potentially going to happen soon. When the squad numbers get done, any player still on the books will get one.

They aren't going to not give one to Armstrong just until they know if he'll retire in the next month or two.

Arguement for the sake of it Ian....

It would kind of be an obvious milestone wouldn't it ? After 12 months (or is it longer) of injury you'd think the player and club would highlight the start of preseason for a pretty big sense check of how things were going. If it was looking bleak then just maybe they'd agree that they should call it a day. by giving him a number they quite obviously HAVE NOT reached that conclusion. So, using a sensible definition of 'forseeable future' which I'd suggest is probably between now and the start of the season, i'd say he's still in with a chance of going back.

If the signs were bad for him I reckon we'd have had the announcement that he was packing in. But who knows. None of us, that is for sure !!!!

[Ian Royal]

Right, you're use of forseeable future was rather misleading I feel, given most people were saying this told us nothing and we'd find out for real whether he was likely to retire in the next month or so. Hence the squad numbers telling us very little.

It certainly makes perfect sense not to make a decision until preseason assessments and training has been done after a holiday period.

[Sun Tzu]

Right, you're use of forseeable future was rather misleading

I think it was your interpretation, not my usage.

To be fair.....

[Hoop Blah]

I'd say most players who are forced to retire through injury do it after a number of failed attempts to get fit and prove they can play again. That can only really happen during the season, or at worst during pre-season.

It's also pretty rare for a player to give up his squad number to move to a less desirable one.

The club always give players a squad number even if they know they're not going to be here for the season (Hunt and Doyle last year for example, Cisse this season) so Armstrong having the 33 shirt isn't a positive sign he's going to fit and involved really.

I'd say the signs aren't good for Armstrong, but at the very least Williams is now our first choice left back.

[Forbury Lion]

Maybe he only made it to the 31st beep and thought that was level 31?

[Sun Tzu]

I'd say the signs aren't good for Armstrong, but at the very least Williams is now our first choice left back.

I still don't get this !!

The signs are at worst neutral !

Everyone assumes the shirt numbers have a significance (which I don;t think they do these days) and we have this idea that 'no one gives up a number' when there is no research to back that up ! Armstrong is clearly not first choice left back so it seems utterly logical for Williams to have the LB shirt (if you believe players care about it)

I suggest that there is still a belief that he can return. If there wasn't he'd have packed up by now. He's had a long time out and would get substantial payout if he had to quit. I hope he does play again, but I can;t see why the signs (as they are) are being looked at so negatively when they are nothing of the sort !!!

[Ian Royal]

You're in a pretty small minority on your interpretation.

We'll just have to wait and see over the next month or two.

[Archie's penalty]

Sad news re:Armstrong but Hunt back is superb news. Hope his fitness holds!

[Hoop Blah]

Not all players care much about their numbers, but most very rarely change and if they do its for a number that means something to them. Hunt swapped his number to get the 10 off of his brother last year (because they knew he was going and Noel wanted it before anyone else came in). Long made a deal of getting the number 9, and Newcastle the opposite by keeping it free to make someone earn it (because it means something to them).

Federici swapped his old 20'odd for the number 1 shirt. Beckham made a big deal about getting the Utd 7 shirt (instead of the 10 he previously had) because it meant a lot to him. Rooney wanted the 10 when it was made available at both Utd and England.

Other Reading players have changed their squad numbers over the years too. If it didn't mean anything to themwhy would hey bother and why wouldn they just give the new guys the vacant number? Why wouldn't Williams just take the 33, or why wouldn't Sigurdsson keep his number instead of taking the 8 or whatever it is he now has?

[Sarah Star]

Karacan was wearing number 4 at F'boro. What does that mean then?

[Upper West Ginger]

Karacan was wearing number 4 at F'boro. What does that mean then?

... and Howard was wearing 20, not 34.
Presumably Karacan has taken the 4 vacated by Cisse, and in turn Howard has taken 20 vacated by Karacan.

[Rex]

Locke was wearing the number 13. Should have scored TBH.

[The Rouge]

The Black Smoke wearing 13?? Unstoppable.

[Ian Royal]

Karacan was wearing number 4 at F'boro. What does that mean then?

... and Howard was wearing 20, not 34.
Presumably Karacan has taken the 4 vacated by Cisse, and in turn Howard has taken 20 vacated by Karacan.

Or they weren't using squad numbers?

[Sarah Star]

Everyone else was.

[Hoop Blah]

The original list is only the provisional one. When Cisse left they may well have offered up his number and Jem claimed it, or was encouraged to swap it for his by someone else...

Howard may quite like the 20 too, afterall I think it was his number at Sheff Utd. Apparently though players don't care about number so who knows?