PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

  • We have been advised by our hosts there will be a period of downtime between 20:00 - 23:00 BST on Friday 14th June for server improvements.

    PNE Online and PNE Flags will be unavailable for various periods during this time.

    We apologise for any inconvenience.

CONFIRMED Robbie Brady signs New 2 Year Contract.

I've found the histrionic reaction to the news of this extension quite puzzling & amusing. It's pretty obvious Brady will be a useful squad filler. Every club has them and needs them. It is June and already people are proclaiming that next season will be a car crash. Lets see how the summer pans out & stop wetting your knickers.... FFS!

As I said earlier I don't think most folk have a problem with the renewal itself, it's the 2 year contract for a guy who performed for probably a 1/4 of the season that's baffling.
 
As I said earlier I don't think most folk have a problem with the renewal itself, it's the 2 year contract for a guy who performed for probably a 1/4 of the season that's baffling.
I wouldnt imagine its a huge contract & he will still only be 33 when it ends. Ched has proven that that isnt necessarily an issue. Maybe the security of a 2 year contract will bring the best out of him? He does have quality
 
I've found the histrionic reaction to the news of this extension quite puzzling & amusing. It's pretty obvious Brady will be a useful squad filler. Every club has them and needs them. It is June and already people are proclaiming that next season will be a car crash. Lets see how the summer pans out & stop wetting your knickers.... FFS!
We've seen this story countless times before - we sign up the second-stringers and squad filler first, always.

Then we don't get round to signing anyone better - the filler becomes the first choice by default.
 
When you look at the extensions to Woodburn, Brady and (if rumours are true) Cunningham... You're looking at three guys who weren't even in the top ten of our squad for minutes played last season.

Brady: 2099 mins
Cunningham: 1782 mins
Woodburn: 1309 mins

Riis managed more than Woodburn and he got injured Jan 2nd. Yet, we still inexplicably allowed Woodburn's extension to be triggered.

Do you think any of those three players will manage half a season of minutes played next season? Will any of them be sold for a profit down the line? If not - what exactly is the purpose here?

We've gone out and willfully hired back squad filler - when the rest of the squad is already full of the stuff.

Brady put in 196 crosses. Potts 105 crosses. No other player managed more than 86. The idea of watching another season of Lowe's 3-5-2 with Brady and Potts as the primary weapons in terms of crosses boils my piss.

We were pretty much a non goalscoring team at Deepdale last season. A large part of that was the fact our wingback options largely sucked ass.
I like the cross stats but what was the effectiveness of them? How many lead the anything ?!
 
We've seen this story countless times before - we sign up the second-stringers and squad filler first, always.

Then we don't get round to signing anyone better - the filler becomes the first choice by default.
Fundamentally it comes down to the fact the owners can't / won't spend more money and the football decision makers can't / won't do a bit more to make better use of the crumbs they are dealt.

As many have said, the "woe is us" can't compete attitude starts at the top and anyone with any significant ability or ambition gets fucked off and tunes out or leaves. The remainder chug along, often drawing a very tidy wage, happy to be here.
 
I like the cross stats but what was the effectiveness of them? How many lead the anything ?!
Six assists for Brady. Two assists for Potts. That's after a combined 301 crosses. In what led to one of our poorest goal scoring records ever.

Shots wise those two players combined for 60 shots on goal. 16 of which were on target. For a total of 4 goals (all from Potts, none from Brady).
 
On paper, I get this contract extension. Numbers wise, he was our most creative player last season. Top on assists and most of them coming from his crosses.

In practice, I'm like a few on here who have concerns over the way he was performing post-World Cup. He's not getting any younger and we're not exactly going to be able to earn any money off him.

The thing is, I think most people would be fine with the extension if everything else didn't feel so poorly handled. Grayson used to sign past their prime players who were still contributing. Brady still can. The problem is that we aren't signing players we can develop who will learn from the experienced heads who we can then make money off.

If the club can bring in players who we can develop and sell on, I'd be fine with contract extensions like this. There just doesn't seem to be a clear plan in place for how we progress. This is only a temporary fix because we'll have to replace him in a couple years anyway. Also, although he maintained fitness pretty well last season, he is someone who is notoriously injury prone so another two years is a gamble.
 
Six assists for Brady. Two assists for Potts. That's after a combined 301 crosses. In what led to one of our poorest goal scoring records ever.

Shots wise those two players combined for 60 shots on goal. 16 of which were on target. For a total of 4 goals (all from Potts, none from Brady).
This doesn't look too good on paper but without context its difficult to make sense of it?

How many crosses per goal should we expect? Are we particularly poor in this regard?

My suspicion would be that the general poor state of our attacking play might mean that the wide players are putting crosses in as a last / only resort on the basis that they aren't likely to take a player on so at least getting the ball in the mixer means something might happen. A lot of these crosses are therefore probably from positions where success is unlikely (e.g. from too deep) or where there is no-one to aim for. Its all pretty desperate stuff really and goes to show that playing with wing backs when you don't really have any decent ones is fucking madness.
 
A lot of these crosses are therefore probably from positions where success is unlikely (e.g. from too deep) or where there is no-one to aim for.
And that will continue whilst we have guys like Potts and Brady who have zero 1vs1 ability, so they have to hit crosses from deep or shoot from distance.

With our LCB and RCB options unable to offer much in terms of any attacking support, I can't see much changing.

We knew all this a year or more ago. But continue to give extensions to guys who'll never be able to offer what Lowe needs in his increasingly fantasy brand of football.
 
Our crosses aren't helped by our lack of numbers in the box. Ched is our best forward in the air and if he does win the ball from the cross, he normally only has the option to shoot. He can't even pass it to the other striker because they're normally being marked
 
This doesn't look too good on paper but without context its difficult to make sense of it?

How many crosses per goal should we expect? Are we particularly poor in this regard?

My suspicion would be that the general poor state of our attacking play might mean that the wide players are putting crosses in as a last / only resort on the basis that they aren't likely to take a player on so at least getting the ball in the mixer means something might happen. A lot of these crosses are therefore probably from positions where success is unlikely (e.g. from too deep) or where there is no-one to aim for. Its all pretty desperate stuff really and goes to show that playing with wing backs when you don't really have any decent ones is fucking madness.
If your wingbacks are your only form of width, really you need ones with pace and 1v1 ability to try and dribble past a man. He'd be fine as a LWB with a winger ahead of him, or being in midfield (as long as it's not the horrible miss passing Brady we got for last 1/3 of the season)

However if we do continue with the 352 for most of our games, we can't be persisting with Brady and Potts. Although we likely will...
 
I've found the histrionic reaction to the news of this extension quite puzzling & amusing. It's pretty obvious Brady will be a useful squad filler. Every club has them and needs them. It is June and already people are proclaiming that next season will be a car crash. Lets see how the summer pans out & stop wetting your knickers.... FFS!
Very well said!!

This is exactly what I'm thinking
 
If your wingbacks are your only form of width, really you need ones with pace and 1v1 ability to try and dribble past a man. He'd be fine as a LWB with a winger ahead of him, or being in midfield (as long as it's not the horrible miss passing Brady we got for last 1/3 of the season)

However if we do continue with the 352 for most of our games, we can't be persisting with Brady and Potts. Although we likely will...
Doesn't help we're pretty rubbish playing through the middle too. We normally end up with our centre mids drifting wide to support the wing backs. Then when we lose possession, we have huge gaps in the middle. Having them drift wide doesn't really help our attack much either because our strikers just end up isolated
 
If your wingbacks are your only form of width, really you need ones with pace and 1v1 ability to try and dribble past a man. He'd be fine as a LWB with a winger ahead of him, or being in midfield (as long as it's not the horrible miss passing Brady we got for last 1/3 of the season)

However if we do continue with the 352 for most of our games, we can't be persisting with Brady and Potts. Although we likely will...
From all of Brady and Potts deep balls into the box (i.e. 18+ yards from touchline) we scored precisely one goal.

Which was Potts volley at Luton. So we just needed a few more once in a lifetime strikes and we'd have sailed up the table.

Of Potts' two assists only one was actually even a cross. The other was when he nodded it on to Storey to equalise Vs Burnley.
 
Our crosses aren't helped by our lack of numbers in the box. Ched is our best forward in the air and if he does win the ball from the cross, he normally only has the option to shoot. He can't even pass it to the other striker because they're normally being marked
And our situation is now complicated by us having no clue who our starting strikers will be come August 5th.

The problem with Brady's 6 assists is, yeah, it's the highest in our squad (where Fernandez with 4 and DJ with 3 came 2nd and 3rd).

But it's a mediocre total for the Championship - all the clubs above us bar Millwall (and quite a few below us) had a player who chipped in more than 6 assists, and some had multiple.

We know it isn't good enough, yet we sign it up for 2 more years anyway, because we probably can't find any better. That's the PNE philosophy.
 
And our situation is now complicated by us having no clue who our starting strikers will be come August 5th.

The problem with Brady's 6 assists is, yeah, it's the highest in our squad (where Fernandez with 4 and DJ with 3 came 2nd and 3rd).

But it's a mediocre total for the Championship - all the clubs above us bar Millwall (and quite a few below us) had a player who chipped in more than 6 assists, and some had multiple.

We know it isn't good enough, yet we sign it up for 2 more years anyway, because we probably can't find any better. That's the PNE philosophy.

You're probably right in that we can't find better- we certainly won't find better twice. Of all the shite decisions the club makes, I can't think of this one as being objectionable at all. Brady played around half the minutes for the season, and got 6 assists- so it's reasonable to assume if he was the regular starter he'd have been around double figures?

There are far worse players who have regular starting places in this squad, not least our option on the right.

And 2 years on a 31 year old is hardly splashing out- it's the bare minimum security for a player who was largely able to prove both fitness and championship ability.
 
You're probably right in that we can't find better- we certainly won't find better twice. Of all the shite decisions the club makes, I can't think of this one as being objectionable at all. Brady played around half the minutes for the season, and got 6 assists- so it's reasonable to assume if he was the regular starter he'd have been around double figures?

There are far worse players who have regular starting places in this squad, not least our option on the right.

And 2 years on a 31 year old is hardly splashing out- it's the bare minimum security for a player who was largely able to prove both fitness and championship ability.
Despite claims that Brady is over all his fitness issues, the fact is he isn't going to be starting enough games to get into double figures with his style of assist.

Lowe's system relies on wing backs for its creativity, so if they're like ours and demonstrably uncreative, you have to upgrade them, not lock them in for 2 more years.

Saying we have far worse players than Brady in the squad is undeniably true (and they also got 2 year extensions), but that's a reason for wanting a wider upgrade in quality across the board, not a reason to complacently settle for the mediocrity we've got.
 
The moral of the thread is that Potts & Brady need to be back up next season if we're going to be a better attacking outfit.
Also we need our central midfielders to chip in some more with goals and assists. Our highest scoring midfielder in the league was Whiteman with 3 goals, and our midfielder who provided the most assists was DJ with 3.

7 of our 45 league goals, and 10 of our 30 league assists came from the midfielders.
 
Top