Lundstrum criticism

Again, it's not about what Lundstram is giving us now or gave us previous. We're not giving him 4 years for the 3 months purple patch two years ago or the few months under Phil. We'd be giving him £30k a week until he's 34 on the basis he's going to be one of our best and important players over the next 4 years. The one who is going to dominate midfields, put Celtic in their place and lead us to multiple trophies. I think it's absolute madness if we do it.

Is giving Lundstram a huge(and it'll be unshiftable) deal at the age of 30 until he is 33 or 34 the best use of resources ? How does it affect us long term ?

We're already seeing the sheer folly of giving Goldson the similar deal. Less than halfway into it and we're already at the stage where there is serious talk about dropping him for the run in. Him being subbed at the weekend just wouldn't have happened previously. Now we've got a guy on the slide on an unshiftable contract for the next 2 years. We can't sell him, if he goes on a free I suspect we'd need to either subsidise the wages or give him a hefty pay off.

Can we afford to pay big money for 4 years is the player is already approaching or already on the down turn ? Are we going to get 4 years worth of top performances considering we've had about 8 months of good form in three years ?

He likes it under Phil now. But he liked it under Gio for a bit and then chucked it when he didn't anymore. Lundstram hasn't given us anywhere near enough over 3 years to justify making him one of the highest paid players especially until his mid 30's. No one thinks he's a dud or rubbish but is he consistent enough to pay him big bucks not just for a few weeks or months at a time ? What happens if Phil leaves in the next 18 months and he doesn't fancy the next manager or vice versa ? I'm sure Phil wants him to stay but we have to do what's right for the club and not just him. Just because Phil wants him doesn't mean we pay him £6m over the next 4 years

We've got far too many veterans on huge money. We'll at least get Roofe off the books this summer and if we've got a brain we'll do likewise with Lawrence next summer.

Someone will pay him this summer. It shouldn't be us. Going into next season with him, Goldson, Tav and Lawrence already taking home £6m of the wage budget between them is absolutely nuts.

Let him go, thank him for the three years and give Sterling his role. Use the £30k a week elsewhere and start getting some long term value back into the squad.
 
Our support are great at judging goalkeepers but I get more convinced a large chunk aren’t great at judging midfielders.

Raskin is one example. Those aware of him prior to signing thought he’d be exceptional for us and then a large chunk of our support joined in despite his performances last season not rising above mediocre….and this year following off a cliff to rotten.

Lewis Ferguson….many fans ridiculing the idea of signing him, nowhere near good enough etc etc.

Cifuentes….less extreme but similar to Raskin, those that had seen him play were excited and then after he signed mediocre to woeful displays were praised as man of the match chatter.

Lundstram along with Butland and Tav is top three player of the year contender. He was one of our best players on Sunday and certainly our best midfielder by some distance. The manager is desperate to see him sign a contract.

I do see the argument of is he worth the money….30/35/40k. But the criticism of him is not centred on that, it’s centred around an ignorance re what he offers the team and what makes a good midfield player. If that chunk of our support were in charge we’d probably have sold Lundstram in the summer and have Raskin and Cifuentes starting as they were both held up as shining examples of what we should be going after.
 
SDF said:
Again, it's not about what Lundstram is giving us now or gave us previous. We're not giving him 4 years for the 3 months purple patch two years ago or the few months under Phil. We'd be giving him £30k a week until he's 34 on the basis he's going to be one of our best and important players over the next 4 years. The one who is going to dominate midfields, put Celtic in their place and lead us to multiple trophies. I think it's absolute madness if we do it.

Is giving Lundstram a huge(and it'll be unshiftable) deal at the age of 30 until he is 33 or 34 the best use of resources ? How does it affect us long term ?

We're already seeing the sheer folly of giving Goldson the similar deal. Less than halfway into it and we're already at the stage where there is serious talk about dropping him for the run in. Him being subbed at the weekend just wouldn't have happened previously. Now we've got a guy on the slide on an unshiftable contract for the next 2 years. We can't sell him, if he goes on a free I suspect we'd need to either subsidise the wages or give him a hefty pay off.

Can we afford to pay big money for 4 years is the player is already approaching or already on the down turn ? Are we going to get 4 years worth of top performances considering we've had about 8 months of good form in three years ?

He likes it under Phil now. But he liked it under Gio for a bit and then chucked it when he didn't anymore. Lundstram hasn't given us anywhere near enough over 3 years to justify making him one of the highest paid players especially until his mid 30's. No one thinks he's a dud or rubbish but is he consistent enough to pay him big bucks not just for a few weeks or months at a time ? What happens if Phil leaves in the next 18 months and he doesn't fancy the next manager or vice versa ? I'm sure Phil wants him to stay but we have to do what's right for the club and not just him. Just because Phil wants him doesn't mean we pay him £6m over the next 4 years

We've got far too many veterans on huge money. We'll at least get Roofe off the books this summer and if we've got a brain we'll do likewise with Lawrence next summer.

Someone will pay him this summer. It shouldn't be us. Going into next season with him, Goldson, Tav and Lawrence already taking home £6m of the wage budget between them is absolutely nuts.

Let him go, thank him for the three years and give Sterling his role. Use the £30k a week elsewhere and start getting some long term value back into the squad.
Click to expand...

This nonsense cracks me up, round pegs square holes approach.
 
I thought Lundstrum was the only one from our midfield who was up for it but he was up against it with Lawrence and Diomonde being off it along with the guys behind him and in front of him that full first half. It’s extremely harsh singling a guy out who was doing his best with the shit show that was going on around him.
 
GeeSpot said:
Neither is Lundstram. Point stands.
Click to expand...
He's up against better players than Brown ever was. I don't see how that can be denied. As soon as we managed to get a semi decent team together he was a passenger and we bossed them, sending Lennon and Brown on there way. He was fine when he was up against Holt, Goss , Halliday etc
 
He looks good against mediocre teams and slightly not as good against decent teams.

I appreciate his contribution during his time here but he mustn’t be given a new contract and should be moved on.
 
cloodie said:
He's up against better players than Brown ever was. I don't see how that can be denied. As soon as we managed to get a semi decent team together he was a passenger and we bossed them, sending Lennon and Brown on there way. He was fine when he was up against Holt, Goss , Halliday etc
Click to expand...
Look, the point is not about who Brown played against, it is that Rangers should and hopefully will in future buy better players than John Lundstram, pay them less money and get more out of them than we do currently.

That is what that lot did with Brown as per my example. Irrespective of the opposition they were worried about who would replace him.

Also, Hatate is also up against better players than Brown was and still contributes more to their team in these games. If anything you're illustrating my point even more.
 
Doesn't turn up in old firm games. If you're on his money it's a must to perform in those games. He is a good player but doesn't do enough for me.
 
Thought he was poor first half. Sure he ran along side O’Reilly at one point and got brushed off and gave up and O’Reilly ran away from him. Not what you expect from our main midfielder who is bigger physically than all their midfielders. Did also feel he and Diomande got exposed because Lawrence, Silva and Wright were poor in front of them and then Tav and Goldson weren’t exactly solid behind them

He did improve in 2nd half and he has been one of our best players since Clement came in. BUT I would only offer him maybe a 2 yr deal on reduced terms going forward. We just can’t pay big money and a long contract for an ageing player who will probably decline over next few years. Goldson is the example for that.

Just think we can’t afford a big outlay on Lundstrum and we need to probably buy in at least another quality midfielder for there since Raskin and Cifuentes haven’t been the quality we hoped!
 
Look, the hate Lundstram narrative came early in his time with us and those who promoted it continue now. The fact that he’s been pivotal to taking us from nowhere this season to being in reach of CL gold seems lost on those who will not just accept they were wrong.
 
SDF said:
Again, it's not about what Lundstram is giving us now or gave us previous. We're not giving him 4 years for the 3 months purple patch two years ago or the few months under Phil. We'd be giving him £30k a week until he's 34 on the basis he's going to be one of our best and important players over the next 4 years. The one who is going to dominate midfields, put Celtic in their place and lead us to multiple trophies. I think it's absolute madness if we do it.

Is giving Lundstram a huge(and it'll be unshiftable) deal at the age of 30 until he is 33 or 34 the best use of resources ? How does it affect us long term ?

We're already seeing the sheer folly of giving Goldson the similar deal. Less than halfway into it and we're already at the stage where there is serious talk about dropping him for the run in. Him being subbed at the weekend just wouldn't have happened previously. Now we've got a guy on the slide on an unshiftable contract for the next 2 years. We can't sell him, if he goes on a free I suspect we'd need to either subsidise the wages or give him a hefty pay off.

Can we afford to pay big money for 4 years is the player is already approaching or already on the down turn ? Are we going to get 4 years worth of top performances considering we've had about 8 months of good form in three years ?

He likes it under Phil now. But he liked it under Gio for a bit and then chucked it when he didn't anymore. Lundstram hasn't given us anywhere near enough over 3 years to justify making him one of the highest paid players especially until his mid 30's. No one thinks he's a dud or rubbish but is he consistent enough to pay him big bucks not just for a few weeks or months at a time ? What happens if Phil leaves in the next 18 months and he doesn't fancy the next manager or vice versa ? I'm sure Phil wants him to stay but we have to do what's right for the club and not just him. Just because Phil wants him doesn't mean we pay him £6m over the next 4 years

We've got far too many veterans on huge money. We'll at least get Roofe off the books this summer and if we've got a brain we'll do likewise with Lawrence next summer.

Someone will pay him this summer. It shouldn't be us. Going into next season with him, Goldson, Tav and Lawrence already taking home £6m of the wage budget between them is absolutely nuts.

Let him go, thank him for the three years and give Sterling his role. Use the £30k a week elsewhere and start getting some long term value back into the squad.
Click to expand...
This for me, the boy has all the attributes to be a very very good CDM for us.
 
RangersUK said:
I think it is because he has such a high wage and he is not worth it.
Click to expand...
First reply definitely doesn’t nail it.
Unless your reasoning that Lundstram’s salary caused shocking displays from Lawrence, Wright, and, despite his involvement in winning the penalty, Silva, is correct.
This on top of causing major errors by Tavernier and Goldson and some dubious play by Butland.
You might be right of course.
 
Highway Star said:
On a side note, his mum and dad were in the Grapes for a good few hours post match and certainly embraced the atmosphere.

Lundstram now bleeds red white and blue and loves the club, according to them.

I thought at times on Sunday, he was playing their midfield on his own, tbh.
Click to expand...

I was chatting away to them in there too, nice people.
 
bringbackmols said:
Out of every post match reaction or analysis, the Lundstrum criticism from some quarters confuses me the most. I'd go as far as saying i'm bemused.

Not saying for a second that he had a "great" game. I don't think anyone did.
But he, alongside Sterling and probably Dessers (not counting the subs who came on), i'd have thought would have escaped any / most criticism. Apparently not.

I can't tell if i'm in the minority or the majority tbf, but I really can't get my head around people picking his name out for slander considering the majority of performances around him.
Click to expand...
Maybe I need to rewatch the game, as watching live at no point do I remember thinking Lundstram specifically was the problem
 
bringbackmols said:
That's an overarching view though eh? Not an actual critique of that specific performance in comparison to others.

It would also be fair to say he's one of a short list of players who have been our player of the season under Clement?

He's played almost every minute under Clement too, so I presume he feels like he's adding value.

But more about the game itself - are you one who thinks he should be criticised for that game?
Click to expand...
People use poor games/results to grind their personal axes
 
paphosranger said:
He never put a foot wrong unlike the other two in the first half. The players in front of him were awful, I'm not actually sure what folk think he done wrong or even expected him to do better. He is there to let the creative players create and he never left the defence exposed through the middle.
Click to expand...

He played the ball straight out the park just before halftime under zero pressure.

For me there’s not value in keeping jl at the wage he’s on.
 
tazzabear said:
First reply definitely doesn’t nail it.
Unless your reasoning that Lundstram’s salary caused shocking displays from Lawrence, Wright, and, despite his involvement in winning the penalty, Silva, is correct.
This on top of causing major errors by Tavernier and Goldson and some dubious play by Butland.
You might be right of course.
Click to expand...
"First reply nails it" if you don't want to give a player you don't like a fair crack and want to apply confirmation bias
 
I think the thought was that with McGregor not playing, John Lundstram would grab the game by the scruff of the neck and dominate the midfield, unfortunately that early goal seemed to spook the whole team for about 30 minutes.
 
John Lundstram has never controlled a game in his life the way Steve Davis used to most weeks for us.

That’s why we need better.

Would love you know how many passes we had in old firm games with the Davis jack kamara midfield compared to now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top