Mild Rover wrote:Dowes (ooc, I know) and O'Meley both turn 30 next year. I think it unlikely we'd sign both Radford and Mason and we certainly haven't yet. Mason looks more and more to be trying to persuade (or 'strong-arm', if you prefer
) The Cowboys to offer him a better deal. We'll see.
Anyway, tbh if you are willing to discuss a top
eleven for missed tackles, I'm not above using 31, 32, 33 or 34+, as suits.
I don't care much how old our squad is (our most famous team was pretty 'experienced'), within reason, and any references to yours are tongue in cheek. Yours does (present tense) have more... let us say veterans - and I was just correcting a statistical misrepresentation. I'd have thought you'd have been all for that.
Mild Rover wrote:The thing is, if Rovers load their squad with as many Aussies as they can, within the rules, in place of Brits trained at other clubs, this reflects our opinion of the systems of the British clubs that produced those Brits, not the strength of Rovers set-up. Either way it represents 'buying in' talent, rather than producing it. The only real virtue is in producing your own - with maybe a bit of credit for giving a player from the championship a shot. Signing players, including Brits, from other clubs to fill in the gaps in the stuttering production line is just churn and adds nothing to the system - unless perhaps they will play a more prominent role in your squad.
Unfortunately, it is a subtle and maybe even counter-intuitive point, so for purely political reasons, it might well be wise to not max ourselves out - then again I don't see much self-denial going on elsewhere.
Have you taken to posting in a secret code known only to you and The Pea Berry Lady?
Does she know which sentences to omit/mix in order to make a coherent statement?
Does your wife know you are conducting a secret relationship with Madam Dowe Egberts?
Did Clint Newton put you up to it?
I think we should be told.
