You've just randomly said that he wasnt interested just because he had a quiet game as if it is an indisputable fact. Bennett did nothing either, was he not trying and displaying a bad attitude? No. He just had an anonymous game. I don't dispute his wage demands but that doesnt mean that he has a terrible character, everyone is somewhat motivated by money and theres nothing wrong with trying to get a better contract for yourself. I havent seen any specific comments about his work rate or attitude though, if you have them to hand then please show them, else I will continue to be of the opinion that everything regarding his attitude being the reason that we didnt want him has snowballed from a baseless bassumption and is now being used to defend our lack of transfer activity. I wouldnt want a chairman like that no, just desperate for attention. 2.5m was more than we had. If you dont have anything further to add of value that is constructive that you havent already then I shan't be continuing the discussion, its infuriating with you never directly addressing the points at hand and indeed it cant be pleasant for other users to read these debates between the 2 of us!

I am not sure about that. The league to be fair is littered with poor keepers and he certainly isnt one of the very worst (Sluga and Camp possibly the main 2) plus he isnt the worst player in our team hence my insistence that goalkeeper wasnt a priority in January but there have been plenty of goals in which he carries the main portion of the blame. The last 2 goals that we have conceded have both been his fault, palming the ball straight out v Boro and Mitrovics shot was saveable too. Hes a totally different style to Raya, far more conservative. Rayas errors were usually blatant and obvious ones, whereas Walton does let in saveable shots more. He also pulls off less brilliant reflex saves although v Gestede it was a great save. Distribution, Raya kicked it out of play quite a lot, Walton doesnt but his kicking is often inaccurate in terms of things like floating towards a Dack or Armstrong when Gallagher or Graham are playing and Rayas distribution was sometimes an asset on the counter attack whereas Walton is poor and reluctant doing that which I think Mowbray recently touched on. I think the main bug bear has always been about selling a keeper and loaning one who is the same age to be fair though. I would want a permanent upgrade in the summer to Walton.

To be honest, he often doesnt bother!

But even his work rate, I doubt people have seen him play very much, me included, which is why I have never said he WILL be a good signing for us, I just think his record is impressive, I have seen him a couple of times and hes technically good and he gets goals and assists. I think you are massively over exaggerating what I and others are saying in terms of his ability. I dont think that "he is so good." Like I said, Peterborough were unwilling to budge on his release clause, 2.5m is quite a lot of money, and I have never said that teams at the top of the league should or will have been interested, and teams a bit further down may struggle to pay that sort of money. Its a similar amount to what we were reportedly quoted for Ronan Curtis whose record is far less impressive. In regards to our team in that position, I think it is our weakest area (along with maybe left back) and when we have strikers playing there, the benchmark for improvement is very low there and I feel that he may have been one potential option to do that and said that prior to him going to Hull. I am not going to start making wild exaggerations and assumptions now to justify not signing us by making out that we dont need him or shouldnt want him.

You havent answered my question. If there is suggestions that Maddison is a bad character, he doesnt work hard etc, these assumptions surely have some sort of foundation. At the moment, they seem like wild assumptions made to justify not signing him, even though it was specifically Maddison that was suggested, we just needed a couple of attacking players notably a wide man in general.

What word? What specific thing did their chairman say that indicated that he had a really bad attitude? He might well do, but it just seems to be unsubstantiated myth that has escalated from very little. The only thing was an insinuation that his choice of Hull over Charlton was partly down to money as well as location. Is that a particularly bad thing? Do you think most footballers or indeed people in general are not influenced by money? If I had the choice of 2 lower Championship sides that I had no affiliation to, money would be a big deciding factor in my choice too. Doesn't affect the effort that I would go on to put in. I dont think that Maddison was necessarily a specific individual that had to be signed, we just needed general reinforcements especially capable of playing in wide areas. But his track record albeit at a lower League is very, very impressive. He has struggled to get a move away from Peterborough because he had a clause of 2.5m in his contract and their chairman refused to budge, and that is quite a lot of money for a League 1 player especially considering that the best teams in the League possibly would look elsewhere rather than into League 1. There seems to be a lot of revisionism and desperation to justify not signing anyone, not even specifically him. Not only are you not assuming that he can make the step up (undoubtedly a big unknown at this point, I have never said otherwise) but now he also wouldnt be willing to put effort in either, and could be even less effective (I am not sure that its possible) than the likes of Bennett and Gallagher out wide, especially the latter who is being shunted there even though he is a striker, when neither offer any attacking threat at all, pretty important as a wide man. If their chairman has specifically said that he had a bad attitude then please feel free to show me the tweets, or alternatively wherever else you have seen that he has attitude problems, and it isnt just an assumption. He was publically delighted when he ended up staying in the summer, saying how good he was, so you have to appreciate that he always has a PR spin in mind anyway, but I am still in the dark as to why he has this reputation as this disinterested, unmotivated coaster that we did well to avoid.

There are a lot of assumptions about Maddisons personality which seem to have snowballed from very little. His former big mouthed chairman was very stubborn about his price for a while and 2.5m is quite a lot for a League 1 player, think thats the reason why he didnt move. Lots of wild speculation but aside from aforementioned attention seeking chairman suggesting that part of his move choice was financial (as if thats a unique and dreadful thing!) I have not seen anything else to suggest he has such a disruptive personality. All wild fabricated speculation unless i have missed something? Im glad he didnt do anything yesterday and dont think hes going to be the second coming or replace a player like Bowen but he would have almost certainly improved us in a weak area. Theres no need to go out of your way to try and exaggerate and speculate to defend our lack of signings by making him into this lay about with a terrible character constantly causing disruption!

He didnt do much but to say he didnt look interested is just going out of your way to try and justify the non signing. Lets not pretend that he wouldnt be an improvement on Bennett or a striker in a wide role. Not even necessarily saying that we should sign specifically him in the summer. If we start playing 433 it opens up the possibility of strikers regularly shunted out wide. 442 (with Downing and Rothwell wide from next week) just gives us the rigidity of 2 banks of 4, and it gives us the chance to play a second central striker in the absence of our number 10s and give Armstrong a freer role. Last night we had Elliott Bennett on the left hand side, lets not pretend that a player with the statistical output of goals and assists that Maddison has consistently had wouldnt improve on him. It remains to be seen whether he will make the step up and I dont think hes going to tear up the League but youd rather see him wide than Bennett, than Samuel, than Brereton, than Gallagher.

Mowbray said that Gallagher (and Rothwell and Rankin Costello) are unlikely to make this weekend, more likely next. No doubt Gallagher will be back in the team soon, I just really hope hes not just shunted back wide again. If we stick to a 442, it allows us to have obviously 2 natural strikers, Armstrong alongside someone, and there is no need for wide forwards. Indeed you can play say Downing who obviously wouldnt be able to play wide in a front 3 due to his age. Regarding Saturday, I dont feel comfortable with Bell or Bennett but unsure theres an alternative, Rothwell could come in for the latter next weekend. The question would be who to partner Armstrong. Graham is our best option but away from home you might want Samuel or Breretons mobility. Samuel might feel aggrieved after his goal but id be tempted by the latter as with Samuel I suspect he will be moved on in the summer anyway.

Unsure, I think going forward for us 4-3-3 means that we have to play Armstrong wide because we only have him, Rothwell and maybe Chapman that can do that role. I don't want to see Gallagher shunted back there when he returns, which he will, nor Brereton and Samuel regularly in the wide positions. I thought that Brereton last night was more involved overall, but obviously Samuel got his goal but I dont think I would want him wide right from the start of a game. I think with the 442, we can play Armstrong up top still and then pick either the experience of Graham or the mobility of one of the other 3, baring in mind none of them have worked out so far, but at least they would be playing in their natural position. Maddison didnt really do much in a shocking Hull side but yeah I certainly would. He would have easily got into our side still looking at his track record, Bennett offered nothing from a natural wide role yesterday and really needs moving on. I am sure we will revert back to 4231 next season with Holtby and then Dack back, and he can easily slot into a wide role far more naturally than the usual suspects that play there, and also play as a 10. No way that Armstrong is better than Dack, Dack has a consistently better goal record. Armstrong has really stepped up though and I hope it is more than an extended run of form similar to last January. I think it is too. He needs to add the goals that Dack has as bread and butter, scrappy goals, tap ins, he was put through in the first minute and his finish was poor, then obviously scored an absolute screamer. Has the attributes to go far though and very good to watch at the moment. Our defence is obviously better than last season but there are still 10 teams in the League with better defensive records than us, we are only the 11th best defence so we still need improving. Lenihan is our main man back there and has been very assured.

They want top 6, down in 15th, 13 points off the play offs, 4 losses in 5, signed plenty of players too, clearly not working out for him.

True. Either that or it was pre Gallagher injury.

Not only does Lambert deserve the sack but Grayson might not be far behind in the dole queue.

I think he meant that there only 21 fit players available. Can only think of Mulgrew and Smallwood outside of todays 18.

Be interesting to see what team we go with on Saturday. I think a 442 is the way to go for the rest of the season, although I appreciate we changed more to a 433 towards the end. Shame Rothwell wont be back as he could have slotted in for Bennett but a blessing that Gallagher wont be as he would have been put back on the wing. The dilemma would be whether to keep Graham in or put in either Samuel or Brereton with Armstrong.

Comfortable performance against a decimated and absolutely dismal Hull side. Our side had far more balance to it with players in their actual positions although Downing and Bennett were on the wrong sides which was stupid. Lenihan man of the match for me, colossal and deserved his goal. Adarabioyo very comfortable next to him against an impotent attack. Nyambe very impressive, couple of superb balls, Bell the weak link, so cautious and careless but fairly untested. I thought Johnson was much improved, far more influential and less loose with his passing and Travis was his usual bundle of energy next to him. Downing was composed although handicapped on his wrong side, Bennett did very little bar a few needlessly rash fouls. Buckley is so lightweight, can barely get any power when he kicks the ball! Graham was a little rusty, Armstrong as he has been was again our main outlet, absolutely superb goal, should have scored in the first minte, would love to see some scruffier goals too to get the numbers up but a threat throughout. The myth can again be dispelled that people want anything but the best for Brereton. He certainly had an impact, full of energy and involvement, very ungainly, made the wrong choice going for the near post with a shot, potentially should have won a penalty but he took far too long to make his mind up. But far more influential than usual. I dont suddenly think Samuel is the answer but superbly taken goal from a laughable mistake and pleased for him.

I dont think he offers anything going forward to justify playing in those positions. But to be fair that is his natural position. What about if he plays as a right or left back for example, when he is "showing his versatility?"

I think he usually get it wrong when he predicts his team, just a guess. Would be very surprised personally. To play devils advocate, if we did, neither Williams or Mulgrew are great but the latter would give us a goal threat and is better on the ball to play through the lines. He would also have the safety net of 2 other centre backs. Should he be preferred?

They are indeed, and have been for ages, regardless of personnel. Very peculiar really.

He is just a generally obnoxious and eccentric personality, he was banned for 3 games for throwing coins in the Blackburn End when he was on loan at Shrewsbury and I think he has made the news once or twice more for minor incidents.

Everyone gives 100% but thats not enough to warrant a place and although he is willing he is a liability in the vast majority of those positions. Versatility often is a player unable to nail down a spot in his actual position.

We cant complain about injuries tonight too much considering that Hull are without a series of players through injury themselves. De Wijs, Burke, Pennington and Tafazoli are all out at CB. Lichaj is out at RB. Stewart and Kane are 2 important central midfielders that are out, their new signing Scott is out and a few other less influential players too. Throw in the loss of Bowen and Grosicki and they really are heavily depleted and nothing less than a win is acceptable. You do wonder if its a perfect night for Graham, horrible weather, go a bit more direct and take advantage of their heavily depleted defence. Maddison is their stand out player now, they have a couple of big lumps in Eaves and Magennis and Wilks who scored at the weekend couldnt really get much game time at Barnsley earlier in the season.

Makes a mockery of his constant insistence of only signing the right characters when he signs someone who he already knows well and leaves him out for that very reason.

Hate to say it but it would be between Henderson and Pope for me, ones a knobhead and ones a Burnley player. Would probably go for Henderson although he does have a rick in him, hes better than Pickford. Doubt he will change Pickford now though.

Waggott said last year that we were mid table last season in terms of wages, and thats prior to adding Johnson, Downing, Gallagher, Holtby and the 2 loans, losing barely any senior players. Add that to the favourable net spend you mention and as you suggest its certainly nothing to complain about.