The signing of Declan John

A

Angrybluebear

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
This isn't a John bashing thread, Who was actually responsible for his signing.

I remember early on Pedro telling us he wasn't a defender and needed to learn to defend.

Tonight again showed that, for the second goal he was no where near his man for the whole of the build up he was in no mans land marking fresh air.

So why did we sign him and to play where ?
 
I would question more why the ball was not cleared twice before this when we had the chance and why 3 players allowed SA to run in front of our defence and pass the through ball without one tackle

DJ sums up our current team, could not get in the Cardiff team but looks one of our best players going forward ???
 
We actually need defenders who CAN DEFEND ; Being good going forward is an added bonus .......
But defend , first and foremost , like the good old days - as it should be ....
( This has been the case for years now , not just this season ) .
 
thetoptier said:
never a full back in a million years

same on the other side with tavernier
Click to expand...

Of our four defenders tonight only McCrorie enjoys defending and gettng stuck in, the other three don't. That's a negative right away and a major cause of our problems.
 
Houst. said:
We actually need defenders who CAN DEFEND ; Being good going forward is an added bonus .......
But defend , first and foremost , like the good old days - as it should be ....
( This has been the case for years now , not just this season ) .
Click to expand...
Just what we need more Lee Hodson's
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mez
Probably signed to play in front of Wallace and balance that side of the pitch and offer competition to Windas. The DOF will of recommended him I think. A good signing I think.
 
I like him. He was definitely at fault for their second but I'd have him in the squad for sure.

And he's only "on loan" at the moment.
 
He is our main attacking threat. The only player we have willing to take responsibility and take the ball and run with it. That’s how bad we are where our on loan left back is the only player willing to do it.
 
EC54 said:
Sure he could have been sharper at the goal, but the guy has done far more good things than bad since he came, on the basis we can't get rid of everyone he is one I would keep.
Click to expand...
Yes, he could have but, we cannot continue to castigate players, more so, young players for every mistake they make, regardless of how important it was or turned out to be.
There were a number of players more worthy of criticism tonight than this kid.
 
Declan John is a good player. Looked probably our most dangerous player today. Some excellent runs and it's just unfortunate a couple of goals didn't come at the end of them. I really like him as an attacking force - I do wonder how he'd be at left wing.
 
One of if not our best player tonight
Play him on the wing/left mid in front of a proper left back and he’ll do fine
 
He's not a defender. Far too much of a soft touch to ever be one.

That said, I've not seen an actual defender in a Rangers shirt for a long, long time.
 
I really like him. Okay he defended horribly at the goal but going forward he’s very dangerous.

In fact it reminds me of Bale’s situation, he started as a left back even though he wasn’t a great defender but had obvious attacking qualities.

When Wallace is fit i’d play him left mid ahead of Windass.
 
Macky1986 said:
You are slating the wrong player. He was better than the vast majority on that pitch tonight.
Click to expand...

Who is slating him ?

It just seemed a signing from nowhere, a bit like Nemane.

I just wonder how many signings were actually identified by Pedro.
 
pitch_geography1872 said:
The amount of people that think attacking full backs just translate into midfield players amazes me, totally different idea. A 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 would ease the defensive responsibility on tav and DJ without making them play with back to goal.
Click to expand...

Exactly that, it’s an entirely different game when you’re coming onto the attack overlapping and having a run on the defender than being marked by the opposition full back and having to take him on
 
The sooner John is playing in front of Wallace and Windass is out the team the better.
And I know Windass scored our goal !!!
 
Have a look on the Cardiff City forum and you'll see what their supporters think of him. Not good reading...
 
pitch_geography1872 said:
The amount of people that think attacking full backs just translate into midfield players amazes me, totally different idea. A 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 would ease the defensive responsibility on tav and DJ without making them play with back to goal.
Click to expand...

Been saying this for a while now we have fullbacks that can’t defend while we’re struggling use the 352 or similar to offer a bit more protection it’s not rocket science it’s simple tactics
 
I like him he was effective mainly 1st half going forward and creating chances unlike others,he was more subdued 2nd half and didn't go forward as much,tactical decsion at ht? but his costly mistake was for their goal.
I definitley would not drop him at this time, if and when Wallace comes back he should play in front of him.
 
Is it just me who feels Beerman at left back and John in front of him would be more preferable to John and Miller on left hand side?
 
Much of the problems last night arose from a non existing shape in midfield and attack. Holt was tied in chasing down the ball that was hurriedly punted forward and instantly returned, Windass and Miller were all over the place and our striker isolated up front. The interchanging of Windass and Candeias only worsened it for both Tav and John.
If Murty jumps over his shadow he'll swap it around against the Sheep (can't become any worse) and play 3 in defence, drop Tav and have 2 strikers up front.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top