Reynolds

[mio]

Looking for honest views on Mark Reynolds!!

 

Now i like the fact he's a local lad, motherwell fan etc etc therefore he'll never really get that hard a time off me.....however, totally contradicting myself here,

 

i think he is possibly the most overrated defender in the country, ok he's athletic, reasonably quick....but he cant tackle, cant head the ball, charges up the park aimlessly continually giving the ball away and is out of position a lot!! and when he plays against "proper forwards" he never shines and looks totally out his depth.(i also thought he was at fault more than Hutchison at the headed goal against Steau)

 

i'm not sure he could even cope as a full back and i doubt if he could be a midfielder.....i cant help think Gannon thinks he's not a central defender either!!

Now he keeps mentioning in papers interviews that his goal is to play in the premiership, i cant blame him for that, but i dont think he's anywhere near that standard.

i think we bombed when we didnt accept £1m from the h**s for him!!

 

or am i being harsh and talking shite?? i know what loads of you are like so i'm preparing for the "f**k off you're talking shite" ha, but there you go...devil may care!!

[DC'd]

i think we bombed when we didnt accept £1m from the h**s for him!!

 

 

Not gonna delve into a Reynolds debate myself, as my opinion changes on him regularly. Can't quite make my mind up. As his mistakes/quality interceptions is comparable.

 

But, point being I am quite sure it wasn't a million outright from Rangers for him. I am sure it was the usual penny-pinching from them. And were looking at paying between £400-£600k for him and the rest would be made up in add-ons. Such as International Appearances, Sell on fee etc. The £1m figure was top-end assuming everything went great for him and we were entitled to full whack. Whereas in reality it was around the £500k mark. Which at the time would have been foolish to accept, whereas now in hindsight (such a wonderful thing) would probably have been a decent deal for us.

[east stand loyal]

Prior to us rejecting the bid from Rangers for him I though he was shit hot!

 

Lost his way a little since then, but hes a lot better than Paul Quinn n we got a six figure sum for him so hes not exactly terrible.

 

Very overrated though.

[mio]

I'm not a huge fan of Quinn either but i can see why bigger clubs were looking at him, i think Quinn has more raw potential than Reynolds (as a defender) as he is naturally quite hard and isn't afraid to dig, that along with his height, the fact he is ok in the air, reasonably fast, i can see him becoming a good defender with proper coaching, as long as he loses the ned in him!!

 

I dont want to get too down on Reynolds cos i think he seems a decent lad, i'm just not sure of him as a player. The fact Gannon hasn't made any great noises about him either is not a good sign, i think if a bid comes in he'll be off!!

[dazamfc]

i thinkk reynolds is a decent player but i think we should have took that 1m from rangers because it is highly unlikely that we're gonny get more than that.

[DC'd]

I'm not a huge fan of Quinn either but i can see why bigger clubs were looking at him, i think Quinn has more raw potential than Reynolds (as a defender) as he is naturally quite hard and isn't afraid to dig, that along with his height, the fact he is ok in the air, reasonably fast, i can see him becoming a good defender with proper coaching, as long as he loses the ned in him!!

 

I dont want to get too down on Reynolds cos i think he seems a decent lad, i'm just not sure of him as a player. The fact Gannon hasn't made any great noises about him either is not a good sign, i think if a bid comes in he'll be off!!

 

I agree with your comments in Quinn. Can certainly see the attributes as to make him a decen Championship player and why he would be desirable to these clubs.

 

But, I wouldn't read too much into Gannon not commenting on Reynolds. Just because he hasn't tipped him to be the next Cannavaro/Maldini certainly does not mean that he doesn't rate him. As Gannon was in the papers on Thursday rating Stevie Hammell. Well if he rates Hammell that highly then why drop him from the team, yet keep Reynolds in and shift him to LB? If this was just a way of accomodating Hutch, then why not drop Reynolds and keep Hammell at his natural LB? I am sure this a sure sign of Gannon's faith in Reynolds as well. If he believes in Hammell, yet continues to play Reynolds in front of him, surely by logic this suggests that he too rates Mark?

[Bop]

I think Jim Gannon is just being cute in his interviews by giving a different player a boot up the arse/a bit of praise each time. I wouldnt be surprised to see him singing Reynolds praises after the game this thursday.

[TheLip69]

I think his ability on the ball is unquestioned, but I wouldn't mind seeing him play a wee bit further forward possibly in the holding midfielder role. He does read the game pretty well and if he can make those interceptions a wee bit further forward they can lead to attacking opportunities. I must admit I do like him and I feel he was unsettled by the Rangers approach.

[Haggischomper]

He's also played almost every game since first coming in to the team and maybe is suffering a bit in the same way Clarkson did in his first few seasons - maybe hit that wall that so many youngsters struggle with for a while. It's tough these days to nurture youngsters in the way we used to - give them a taster, rest them for a few weeks, give them another taste etc. Youngsters these days are kinda flung i there and are being left to sink or swim without their rough edges being polished smooth first. Used to be a youngster was a guy like Dolan who was on the fringes for a while until his early twenties and then makiing the breakthrough. Nowadays we just seem to chuck teenagers in there and expect them to perform at the level of experienced lads - something to bear in mind re Slane and Forbes.

[Bill Bones]

Hmmmmm. Sound good points raised. Does Reynolds need a wee break? Quite possibly would help the lad. The Clarkson comparison is a good one. Although I've alwyas thought youngsters in this country aren't given enough games and 'nurtured' along too slowly. He has some very good attributes( pace,great leap) but also seems to lack that bit of meanness required at centre half. Hard to judge him against Steaua or Flamurtari at left back. The Romanians were excellent and the Albanians were poor so not sure how much to read into his performances in those games

 

Selling him to Rangers may look good now but at the time the fee offered was poor,considering Mark's displays and potential. It's a big season for him,I think. Does he improve and kick him from here or 'just' become an SPL/Championship level player. Given his early displays I'd be dsappointed if it was the latter.

[El Grew]

Whatever else Mark Reynolds is, he is most certainly not central defender material. He lacks the height, build and strength to play there and his passing is woeful. He is useless in the air and is too easily bullied around by powerful strikers.

 

Mind you he did begin his career with us as a left back and landed the left central defender role by accident through injuries.

 

I think he is perhaps another example of a young Scottish footballer, to use horse racing parlance, who has not trained on.

 

I think it has been a breath of fresh air to hear Jim Gannon stating the truth that British players lack the techncial skills, tactical awareness, fitness and athleticism of their continental counterparts. So questions should be asked of Reynolds (and those who were previously at the club) as to what he has been doing to improve himself as a player. Because I see no physical improvements in him never mind playing improvements. Its simply not good enough to do training, play a game then slouch around the rest of the time. Maybe if he listens to Gannon and puts some work in then he might improve.

[weeyin]

I think it has been a breath of fresh air to hear Jim Gannon stating the truth that British players lack the techncial skills, tactical awareness, fitness and athleticism of their continental counterparts.

To be fair, the Scottish managers trot out that line every year our teams get papped out in the early stages. We never do anything to address it, though. The French had a 10 year plan which they stuck with even though it cost them World Cup qualification early on. They were smart enough to see the big picture and remain patient. As a result they managed to develop players capable of winning the 1998 World Cup and Euro 2000.

[Lobey_Dosser]

Taking last Thursday out the equation, i think Reynolds looks like he has rekindled his old form since Gannon has arrived.

 

I'm interested to see where Reynolds plays this season. If it wasn't for the emergence of Forbes, i think we would have seen Mark lining up in front of the defence.

 

Gannon seems to be keen on him driving forward with the ball.

 

Personally, I think his finest attribute is his ability to read the game and I think he will be a tremendous asset this season.

[Haggischomper]

The French had a 10 year plan which they stuck with even though it cost them World Cup qualification early on. They were smart enough to see the big picture and remain patient.

 

 

Instead, we had Ernie Walker's vaunted Think Tank which achieved....erm...uhm....

 

It's just no' fair!

[FJ-94]

a think dundee utd have taken a step forward have they not to get more technical players

[Malky79]

To be fair, the Scottish managers trot out that line every year our teams get papped out in the early stages. We never do anything to address it, though. The French had a 10 year plan which they stuck with even though it cost them World Cup qualification early on. They were smart enough to see the big picture and remain patient. As a result they managed to develop players capable of winning the 1998 World Cup and Euro 2000.

 

And they weren't ever half as ganting as us at our worst. There 94 team missed out on qualification by a bawhair, Houllier famously blaming Ginola for cheap loss of possession that allowed a very good Bulgarian team to pip them. Also don't think you can blame whatever long term plan they had for them missing out short term. They were probably a bit embarrassed at us and Yugoslavia knocking them out in 90, but again they still weren't shabby and Yugoslavia were quality.

[Gromit]

Is there any player we have who is considered to be of acceptable quality? You know, good enough to be playing for Real Madrid/Milan/Man Utd but has decided that would be mental when he could play for Motherwell.

 

Think some folk need a reality check. We are a small Scottish club, with a very limited budget and that means that our central defenders are not going to be Canavaro or Terry, our midfielders are not going to be Kaka or Gerrard and our strikers certainly won't be Ronaldo or Torres.

 

Seems to be an obsession on here with discussing how shite our own players are, when if fact they have managed to get us a 3rd place finish and just missed out on a top 6 finish in the past 2 years, and provided us with European football these past 2 seasons as well (all accomplished with a prick as a manager ).

 

This might suggest that at least some of our players are half decent, but you would never guess from reading the opinions of some on here.

[fatcalf]

I intended answering that by naming a guy who's been missed out but you know what there isn't anyone. Reckon you're spot on. What a team we're gonnae be when we get some half decent players in considering the 'shite' that's got us this far.