Jump to content

The Jack Cork appreciation thread


Bad Wolf

Recommended Posts

Except that he never replaced any of them, he was just injured, thus making only 28 games rather than 34/35.

 

As for offering a new contract, I think that happened way before we think, but Jack Cork had a problem called Victor Wanyama. And if we only consider the characteristics of a DM, Wanyama was and is miles ahead of what Cork could offer.

 

but cork was in the side ahead of victor when his dad was on twitter bemused why the club were not offering his boy a new deal.

 

remember Vics strop when he scored the winner against Swansea away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of our better football was played in the first half of last season - we went off the boil (with the odd exception) around the time Cork left. For the money we got for him losing him was Koeman's first mistake. Just because we offered him a contract doesn't mean it was an acceptable one. My understanding from talking to people close to him was that Swansea made him a better offer which shows we weren't really bothered about losing him.

 

I was at a meeting where Les Reed was presenting - one of the things he said - but wouldnt go any further on was that we offered Cork a contract but our hands were tied by the previous regime about when we could offer a new one. Whether that meant something in his old contract I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that I believe Jack Cork would still be here had we offered him a new deal last summer, and to that end I also think he would have been a better option than Davis and JWP sat next to Vic as well. That he was willing to sign a new deal (or at least stated he was) when he was already behind Morgan and Vic for that 13/14 season speaks volumes.

 

We've missed out on keeping a player who makes 25+ appearances for us a season and, in my opinion, offers far more in the middle of the park in that deeper role than a few players who have played there for us since he left.

 

To clarify, why wasn't he prepared to sign a contract in Jan if he had been so willing in the summer? Hurt feelings? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same last game that was only one game in a 38 game season? Romeu will start more than either of JWP/Davis in central midfield this season (injuries/suspensions pending). I'm don't tend to state with certainty (because it's all conjecure), but I'm almost positive of that.

 

I suspect, had we signed cork, we would not have needed to buy Romeu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the management weren't that bothered about losing him but Poch didn't see him as a shoe in for that position either did he? If he wasn't going to get a regular game I don't blame him for moving on. I don't blame the management for not seeing him as first choice either.

 

Poch played Cork more than he did Wanyama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same Cork that was on the bench earlier this season for Swansea?

 

for a side playing a lot better than us though. and now in the side and could be picked for the england squad.

we had that player and it would have saved us money had we signed him when we were losing everyone else and signed extensions to other players

 

not hard to accept that the club should really have kept cork....it is no disgrace to admit that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for a side playing a lot better than us though. and now in the side and could be picked for the england squad.

we had that player and it would have saved us money had we signed him when we were losing everyone else and signed extensions to other players

 

not hard to accept that the club should really have kept cork....it is no disgrace to admit that

 

Oh dear, you just don't get it do you. He was offered a new contract and he decided to leave. No disgrace to admit that Caped Crusader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for a side playing a lot better than us though. and now in the side and could be picked for the england squad.

we had that player and it would have saved us money had we signed him when we were losing everyone else and signed extensions to other players

 

not hard to accept that the club should really have kept cork....it is no disgrace to admit that

Its no disgrace to admit we tried to keep him either...if he could be picked for England why wasn't he or hasn't he been? why didn't Brendan come in for him along with our other stars?

Cork was a very good player for us but he also had some shockers too. I was gutted when he left but he was no Morgan - in hindsight its easy to say he is better than Davis/JWP (he is) but JWP hasn't kicked on like they hoped.

For me Romeu is an improvement - you don't play for the clubs he has without having talent whereas Cork doesn't have anywhere near that pedigree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect, had we signed cork, we would not have needed to buy Romeu

 

Had we 'signed' Cork, I'd know to expect a lesser quality DM than Wanyama (albeit a fantastic player all the same). That we signed Romeu, means I'm anticipating an equally impressive DM (as Cork), with the addition of long shot and more attacking passing. And some rashness too :lol: Long term, Romeu looks to be a developed central midfielder, on the box-to-box spectrum, which is far more complimentary to Wanyama's style of play. It's a positive Change (imo). All that being said, who wouldn't like having Jack on the bench still? He's a great player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had we 'signed' Cork, I'd know to expect a lesser quality DM than Wanyama (albeit a fantastic player all the same). That we signed Romeu, means I'm anticipating an equally impressive DM (as Cork), with the addition of long shot and more attacking passing. And some rashness too :lol: Long term, Romeu looks to be a developed central midfielder, on the box-to-box spectrum, which is far more complimentary to Wanyama's style of play. It's a positive Change (imo). All that being said, who wouldn't like having Jack on the bench still? He's a great player.

 

Totally agree. And yes, it would have been great if he had decided to stay, but he didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify, why wasn't he prepared to sign a contract in Jan if he had been so willing in the summer? Hurt feelings? :p

 

After being treated awfully by Saints from the summer to January(no new contract, told to earn one whilst Fonte got one instantly, a mediocre loan midfielder brought in who was clearly meant to supercede him in the pecking order if not for fact that guy threw a mighty strop, I'm not surprised he was not convinced that the management or the board would give him a fair opportunities. So to me its very easy to see why his state of mind regarding a new contract could shift radically in 6 months.

Then Swansea came in and sold him on their club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After being treated awfully by Saints from the summer to January(no new contract, told to earn one whilst Fonte got one instantly, a mediocre loan midfielder brought in who was clearly meant to supercede him in the pecking order if not for fact that guy threw a mighty strop, I'm not surprised he was not convinced that the management or the board would give him a fair opportunities. So to me its very easy to see why his state of mind regarding a new contract could shift radically in 6 months.

Then Swansea came in and sold him on their club.

 

So, hurt feelings? (I canny be bothered to address the hyperbole :p) At any rate, it seems to me that Taider was brought into the fold as a make-weight in the Osvaldo deal. As for whether it was intended for him to supersede Cork by default, meh, that's pure speculation. You're suggesting that Cork couldn't stomach having the competition though :thumbup: (...which I don't believe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After being treated awfully by Saints from the summer to January(no new contract, told to earn one whilst Fonte got one instantly, a mediocre loan midfielder brought in who was clearly meant to supercede him in the pecking order if not for fact that guy threw a mighty strop, I'm not surprised he was not convinced that the management or the board would give him a fair opportunities. So to me its very easy to see why his state of mind regarding a new contract could shift radically in 6 months.

Then Swansea came in and sold him on their club.

 

So despite the fact that two people have mentioned that there seemed to be a legal reason why the club couldn't offer Cork a new contract earlier, you still insist that he was treated badly. Fair enough, perhaps you should drop Saints and follow Swansea instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can round this one off for good.

 

We all agree that Jack Cork is a decent player

We all agree that we would have wanted him to stay

We all agree that he was offered a new contract

Some think it wasn't a decent contract and some think it was good

Some think it should have been offered earlier

Some think there was a legal reason from his existing contract that made that difficult

Some think he was treated badly by the club

Some think if he wanted to stay he could have done

We all agree that he now plays for Swansea

Some find it hard to let go.

 

Next...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the one getting upset about discussing what a good player Jack Cork is, you wally.

 

Wally lol. I am not upset about discussing what a good player he was for us (he has moved on now you know). I am fed up with the way some posters seem to need to find ways of knocking the club when the club have done nothing wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wally lol. I am not upset about discussing what a good player he was for us (he has moved on now you know). I am fed up with the way some posters seem to need to find ways of knocking the club when the club have done nothing wrong.

 

That's one thing, but the other line of your argument is that he wasn't really that good and a fringe/bit part player which he really never was for us. All in a desperate attempt to defend something which you know little about, like everyone else. The fact is that we lost a good player (for what I'm sure are a number of reasons) to a rival for peanuts who is excelling and possibly on the brink of an England call up. You might be fed up but others may find it interesting to talk about this on a forum, particularly when measured against the discussions around our strength and depth in that position. If you don't, fair enough, no one has said you have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one thing, but the other line of your argument is that he wasn't really that good and a fringe/bit part player which he really never was for us. All in a desperate attempt to defend something which you know little about, like everyone else. The fact is that we lost a good player (for what I'm sure are a number of reasons) to a rival for peanuts who is excelling and possibly on the brink of an England call up. You might be fed up but others may find it interesting to talk about this on a forum, particularly when measured against the discussions around our strength and depth in that position. If you don't, fair enough, no one has said you have to.

 

No I never said that he was never that good for us. But clearly two managers didn't see him as the main man (why buy Vic?) and he wasnt always an automatic starter. Perhaps, if he had of been, he would have signed a new contract? I have said many times I was sorry to see him go and the club wouldn't have offered him a new contract if they didn't want to keep him. That is a bit of a leap from the posters who suggest that he was badly treated and driven out of the club.

Edited by sadoldgit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And don't get me wrong Dig Dig, Swansea are a decent side and it is a good move for him But he hasn't gone to Manchester United or Liverpool has he?

 

Not really sure what that has got to do with anything? Isn't it a negative that he went to a direct rival for only a couple of million thus strengthening them?

 

Regarding your other points (which I've already responded to on this thread)

 

- We signed Wanyama because we needed more than just two players capable of playing that role in our system

- Its not correct that two managers preferred Wanyama over Cork. Cork played more games under Poch than Wanyama did. Choice was not always determined by injury, although Wanyama did make that position his own last season but Cork would have got a lot of games.

- For any position in the prem (especially CM) you need quality and depth. Regardless of whether he was a guaranteed first team player, he always has and would have played plenty of games for us. We get plenty of injuries and suspensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can round this one off for good.

 

We all agree that Jack Cork is a decent player

We all agree that we would have wanted him to stay

We all agree that he was offered a new contract

Some think it wasn't a decent contract and some think it was good

Some think it should have been offered earlier

Some think there was a legal reason from his existing contract that made that difficult

Some think he was treated badly by the club

Some think if he wanted to stay he could have done

We all agree that he now plays for Swansea

Some find it hard to let go.

 

Next...

 

He was offered a contract that would have doubled his wages. He turned it down because he wanted to play football and he felt he'd get more of a chance to do that at Swansea than at Saints. The deal he got at Swansea is actually worse than what we offered, but he wanted to play football. You can't blame the lad for that. Some players would have taken the money and sat on the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was offered a contract that would have doubled his wages. He turned it down because he wanted to play football and he felt he'd get more of a chance to do that at Swansea than at Saints. The deal he got at Swansea is actually worse than what we offered, but he wanted to play football. You can't blame the lad for that. Some players would have taken the money and sat on the bench.

 

Well there we go then. If the club were prepared to double his wages they clearly valued him and tried to keep him and he left to get regular football rather than feeling pushed out. Fair play to him and to the club. Perhaps now those who were using Jack's departure as a stick to beat the club with will find another reason to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there we go then. If the club were prepared to double his wages they clearly valued him and tried to keep him and he left to get regular football rather than feeling pushed out. Fair play to him and to the club. Perhaps now those who were using Jack's departure as a stick to beat the club with will find another reason to do so.

 

Yea, there we go then. A post from from one of the forum lunatics settles the score alright.

 

I heard that we actually offered to slash his wages in half and told him he'll be playing in the U21's. Shocking treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...