Br 1st ol Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 That was his biggest problem: 1. He played 2. He played too often! 3. He was never subbed. If DW had rested him for a few games last season we might have seen a hungrier player. (NB Didn't he play 160 odd games in 4 years? That is 40 per season on average...that is far too many!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elko Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Maybe Steve L was trying to say he didn't play enough quality football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Peacock was out injured on several occaisions,often for several games with "minor" injuries.Maybe Steve Landsdown was reffering to that. And...40 games a season is not that many when most clubs play around 55-60 with all the cup games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Peacock was out injured on several occaisions,often for several games with "minor" injuries.← Not forgetting that awful stomach bug he picked up. Poor lamb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bristolbred Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 It's true though, if he was rested when his form wasn't brilliant, then maybe he would of been more hungrier for goals?, but does the blame for this lay with the player?, the coach?, or the manager?. Goals aside, he did create a few assissts last season, so we shouldn't blame him 100% for his failings, (can't believe i just said that!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.