So CP has said its a shame he has to go back, our captain says he will miss his banter (which may be sarcasm, but may be true) and Man City are woefully short on midfielders right now, but because he wasn't a world beater in 45 minutes on his debut, he is a lazy, uninterested player on too much money who disrupted the squad, fell out with Powell and its a good thing he's gone?
Based purely on 45 mins v Barnsley I'm really not unhappy. He appeared to be strong with "good feet", capable of getting out of tight situations with a quick shuffle, yet got involved about three times in the half, dropping his shoulders and looking peed off when he felt a tream-mate had let him down. Perkins - the oppo player most consistently in the area he'd presumably been designated to operate - controlled the game, unhindered by our "all action midfielder" whom I understand was supposed to form the link between midfield and attack.
Will he one day play regularly for City? Possibly, if his attitude improves markedly, but then again they appear content to let overpaid prima-donnas play when they fancy, whilst being comfortably outplayed by better-knit sides in Europe. Personally I really don't care. For all his lack of experience Alex Song always appeared to have the hunger to match his obvious ability when playing for a smaller less glamorous club. Razak didn't.
Bloody hell, he only played 45 minutes at The Valley.
Yup, think I might've mentioned that Tom. Plenty enough to see how interested someone is sometimes. Not claiming to know him inside out.
He very nearly scored with a great free kick and had a couple of promising runs a the defense when he got himself on the ball. Not really sure how you can make such a judgement on someone's "attitude" from what they do on a football pitch over 45 minutes personally. If we're going to be that quick to judge players then no wonder half the time they try and avoid too much interaction with supporters from time to time.
Based purely on 45 mins v Barnsley I'm really not unhappy. He appeared to be strong with "good feet", capable of getting out of tight situations with a quick shuffle, yet got involved about three times in the half, dropping his shoulders and looking peed off when he felt a tream-mate had let him down. Perkins - the oppo player most consistently in the area he'd presumably been designated to operate - controlled the game, unhindered by our "all action midfielder" whom I understand was supposed to form the link between midfield and attack.
Will he one day play regularly for City? Possibly, if his attitude improves markedly, but then again they appear content to let overpaid prima-donnas play when they fancy, whilst being comfortably outplayed by better-knit sides in Europe. Personally I really don't care. For all his lack of experience Alex Song always appeared to have the hunger to match his obvious ability when playing for a smaller less glamorous club. Razak didn't.
Bloody hell, he only played 45 minutes at The Valley.
To be fair he only played for about 10 minutes of that 45 .
Based purely on 45 mins v Barnsley I'm really not unhappy. He appeared to be strong with "good feet", capable of getting out of tight situations with a quick shuffle, yet got involved about three times in the half, dropping his shoulders and looking peed off when he felt a tream-mate had let him down. Perkins - the oppo player most consistently in the area he'd presumably been designated to operate - controlled the game, unhindered by our "all action midfielder" whom I understand was supposed to form the link between midfield and attack.
Will he one day play regularly for City? Possibly, if his attitude improves markedly, but then again they appear content to let overpaid prima-donnas play when they fancy, whilst being comfortably outplayed by better-knit sides in Europe. Personally I really don't care. For all his lack of experience Alex Song always appeared to have the hunger to match his obvious ability when playing for a smaller less glamorous club. Razak didn't.
Bloody hell, he only played 45 minutes at The Valley.
To be fair he only played for about 10 minutes of that 45 .
And yet probably accomplished more in that supposed 10 minutes than just about every single one of his team mates could muster.
He's been Charltoned. He will now go on to score a hatful of goals for Man City - that was their aim all along the cunning swine! I can see it now, Hayes, Clarke, Razak......Michael Slater organised all to get Man City out of the terrible slump they are in, blah blah blah...
City mate reckons he is better off in the city reserves than not starting every game at charlton... when they realised he wasn't then they pulled him back
City mate reckons he is better off in the city reserves than not starting every game at charlton... when they realised he wasn't then they pulled him back
Reckon your mate is right.
What worries me, if some posters are right that he was not as good as we already had, is that we should identify a weak central midfield, bring in a player but one who is not good enough to be added to the existing unit. If this is the case then why would Powell do it?
With the resources they have there he must be better off with their development side than on our bench.
Also if we've not used him for two games we can hardly claim that he is necessary.
Long term loans (a season) help players with other life skills, but a reserve at Man City on a three month loan must play or there is no point in him being there.
I fully understand both Powell's decisions but also City reluctance for him to sit on our bench - especially when we bring in a centre back to play midfield.
Hopefully both clubs will not find this a stumbling block to City loaning us players in the future.
Rate him or not his departure leaves our central midfield exactly where it was at the start of the season. Woefully short of pace, guile and quality. That to me is a major worry.
This is my theory - Could it be that Powell was not the one who 'signed' Razak, others may have had a part. So Powell played him for one half at the Valley, knowing full well that if he excluded Razak from the starting 11 for a few games then he would be recalled!
This is my theory - Could it be that Powell was not the one who 'signed' Razak, others may have had a part. So Powell played him for one half at the Valley, knowing full well that if he excluded Razak from the starting 11 for a few games then he would be recalled!
Would mean that Powell saying that he hoped Abdul would stay for three months is a lie. Can't see him lying over it.
This is my theory - Could it be that Powell was not the one who 'signed' Razak, others may have had a part. So Powell played him for one half at the Valley, knowing full well that if he excluded Razak from the starting 11 for a few games then he would be recalled!
That would be a very dangerous game to play with your employers
He played in a five man midfield at Blackpool (subbed after 80 mins). His role was to support Fuller up front and I thought he did pretty well for a young guy, plenty of energy, good vision and hard to knock off the ball. His first touch wasn't always great and he missed a reasonable chance six yards out in the first half. I wasn't at the Barnsley match so can't comment on his performance. I think he could have been a real asset pity it didn't work out.
This is my theory - Could it be that Powell was not the one who 'signed' Razak, others may have had a part. So Powell played him for one half at the Valley, knowing full well that if he excluded Razak from the starting 11 for a few games then he would be recalled!
Powell already said he wanted to keep the lad, so no... dont go with that theory. The fact most people here think he is shocking, means he will go on to be a world class player.
Based purely on 45 mins v Barnsley I'm really not unhappy. He appeared to be strong with "good feet", capable of getting out of tight situations with a quick shuffle, yet got involved about three times in the half, dropping his shoulders and looking peed off when he felt a tream-mate had let him down. Perkins - the oppo player most consistently in the area he'd presumably been designated to operate - controlled the game, unhindered by our "all action midfielder" whom I understand was supposed to form the link between midfield and attack.
Will he one day play regularly for City? Possibly, if his attitude improves markedly, but then again they appear content to let overpaid prima-donnas play when they fancy, whilst being comfortably outplayed by better-knit sides in Europe. Personally I really don't care. For all his lack of experience Alex Song always appeared to have the hunger to match his obvious ability when playing for a smaller less glamorous club. Razak didn't.
Bloody hell, he only played 45 minutes at The Valley.
Yup, think I might've mentioned that Tom. Plenty enough to see how interested someone is sometimes. Not claiming to know him inside out.
He very nearly scored with a great free kick and had a couple of promising runs a the defense when he got himself on the ball. Not really sure how you can make such a judgement on someone's "attitude" from what they do on a football pitch over 45 minutes personally. If we're going to be that quick to judge players then no wonder half the time they try and avoid too much interaction with supporters from time to time.
Don't want a long drawn out disagreement on this one Tom as it gets v boring for other readers, but I hope most of my posts over the years reflect that I'm usually keen to give new players every chance, eg. Lawrie Wilson threads. Had he stayed and played I'd have given him every opportunity to impress but I just felt - like several others - that he didn't do himself justice in terms of drive and hunger, and am therefore not unhappy that he's gone back. No idea what his attitude is like behind the scenes. His departure does however leave us one physically strong midfielder short. Just a personal view on one short appearance but no-one appears to be too upset. Perhaps it's just for the best this time. Let's hope we soon find the right balanced eleven for this level asap.
Powell can be, er, 'economical' with the truth sometimes.
What would he gain from being 'economical with the truth', about a player that isnt even ours ?
If it wasn't him that wanted him in the first place, if he was having a disruptive effect on the squad, if he was costing us too much money as a loanee.
Just because it says Man City called him back, doesn't mean that the two clubs didn't come to an agreement. Just speculation on my behalf of course though.
Based purely on 45 mins v Barnsley I'm really not unhappy. He appeared to be strong with "good feet", capable of getting out of tight situations with a quick shuffle, yet got involved about three times in the half, dropping his shoulders and looking peed off when he felt a tream-mate had let him down. Perkins - the oppo player most consistently in the area he'd presumably been designated to operate - controlled the game, unhindered by our "all action midfielder" whom I understand was supposed to form the link between midfield and attack.
Will he one day play regularly for City? Possibly, if his attitude improves markedly, but then again they appear content to let overpaid prima-donnas play when they fancy, whilst being comfortably outplayed by better-knit sides in Europe. Personally I really don't care. For all his lack of experience Alex Song always appeared to have the hunger to match his obvious ability when playing for a smaller less glamorous club. Razak didn't.
Bloody hell, he only played 45 minutes at The Valley.
Yup, think I might've mentioned that Tom. Plenty enough to see how interested someone is sometimes. Not claiming to know him inside out.
He very nearly scored with a great free kick and had a couple of promising runs a the defense when he got himself on the ball. Not really sure how you can make such a judgement on someone's "attitude" from what they do on a football pitch over 45 minutes personally. If we're going to be that quick to judge players then no wonder half the time they try and avoid too much interaction with supporters from time to time.
Don't want a long drawn out disagreement on this one Tom as it gets v boring for other readers, but I hope most of my posts over the years reflect that I'm usually keen to give new players every chance, eg. Lawrie Wilson threads. Had he stayed and played I'd have given him every opportunity to impress but I just felt - like several others - that he didn't do himself justice in terms of drive and hunger, and am therefore not unhappy that he's gone back. No idea what his attitude is like behind the scenes. His departure does however leave us one physically strong midfielder short. Just a personal view on one short appearance but no-one appears to be too upset. Perhaps it's just for the best this time. Let's hope we soon find the right balanced eleven for this level asap.
Comments
What worries me, if some posters are right that he was not as good as we already had, is that we should identify a weak central midfield, bring in a player but one who is not good enough to be added to the existing unit. If this is the case then why would Powell do it?
Also if we've not used him for two games we can hardly claim that he is necessary.
Long term loans (a season) help players with other life skills, but a reserve at Man City on a three month loan must play or there is no point in him being there.
I fully understand both Powell's decisions but also City reluctance for him to sit on our bench - especially when we bring in a centre back to play midfield.
Hopefully both clubs will not find this a stumbling block to City loaning us players in the future.
Could it be that Powell was not the one who 'signed' Razak, others may have had a part. So Powell played him for one half at the Valley, knowing full well that if he excluded Razak from the starting 11 for a few games then he would be recalled!
The fact most people here think he is shocking, means he will go on to be a world class player.
What would he gain from being 'economical with the truth', about a player that isnt even ours ?
altho i do believe powell told a porky about not knowing fuller was available.
Just because it says Man City called him back, doesn't mean that the two clubs didn't come to an agreement. Just speculation on my behalf of course though.
As it happens I do as I was sitting next to Chris when he mentioned the Rochdale budget. That wasn't what he said.