Luke Summerfield

He played a cracking ball to dembele for his goal at port vale, one that a lot of players in the league wouldnt be capable of. I dont think his stats matter too much when you consider how bad the team last season was.

Quoted from Mariner55

In what way is this anything other than offensive?  

Every way ?

We really missed him when he was out injured last season...  And I'll never forget the corner he put in for Matt's winner against County. Get him signed, happy with 2 years.

I would be happy with Summerfield as the holding midfielder, the one who lets the others push on and create.  Unless you're going to get two quality players who can do it all from midfield, the likelihood you'll need someone who's willing to sacrifice them for the good of the team.  This is even more applicable if you've got full-backs who push on.  Naturally, these tends to be players who are less technically gifted.

Let's just say Jolley recruits the next Shaun Cunnington/John Cockerill or Paul Groves/Wayne Burnett pairing, that's a different ball game altogether.  At this level it's more likely to pair a more creative, technical and attack minded midfielder with one who is more willing and capable of doing the dirty side of the game.

If I had the choice of Summerfield in that role or Mitch Rose, I would opt for Summerfield every time.

Two year deal doesn't bother me at all.  If we have a successful season, players at this club will be in decent demand from others even if they haven't featured on a regular basis.  It'll be much easier to move players on than the situation we have at the minute with the likes of Dixon and Kelly.  I think giving longer deals also sends a message out that Jolley isn't interested in short-term thinking and he wants to build something for two, three, however many years.

Quoted from diehardmariner

I would be happy with Summerfield as the holding midfielder, the one who lets the others push on and create.  Unless you're going to get two quality players who can do it all from midfield, the likelihood you'll need someone who's willing to sacrifice them for the good of the team.  This is even more applicable if you've got full-backs who push on.  Naturally, these tends to be players who are less technically gifted.

Let's just say Jolley recruits the next Shaun Cunnington/John Cockerill or Paul Groves/Wayne Burnett pairing, that's a different ball game altogether.  At this level it's more likely to pair a more creative, technical and attack minded midfielder with one who is more willing and capable of doing the dirty side of the game.

If I had the choice of Summerfield in that role or Mitch Rose, I would opt for Summerfield every time.

Two year deal doesn't bother me at all.  If we have a successful season, players at this club will be in decent demand from others even if they haven't featured on a regular basis.  It'll be much easier to move players on than the situation we have at the minute with the likes of Dixon and Kelly. I think giving longer deals also sends a message out that Jolley isn't interested in short-term thinking and he wants to build something for two, three, however many years.

And maybe a bit more necessary with him wanting players to live more locally. Players less likely to want to uproot family for a one year deal.

Quoted from jonnyboy82

For me its a not arsed if he does not arsed if he doesn't situation.

What is it with you and bottoms Jonnyboy ?

Quoted from diehardmariner

I would be happy with Summerfield as the holding midfielder, the one who lets the others push on and create.  Unless you're going to get two quality players who can do it all from midfield, the likelihood you'll need someone who's willing to sacrifice them for the good of the team.  This is even more applicable if you've got full-backs who push on.  Naturally, these tends to be players who are less technically gifted.

Let's just say Jolley recruits the next Shaun Cunnington/John Cockerill or Paul Groves/Wayne Burnett pairing, that's a different ball game altogether.  At this level it's more likely to pair a more creative, technical and attack minded midfielder with one who is more willing and capable of doing the dirty side of the game.

If I had the choice of Summerfield in that role or Mitch Rose, I would opt for Summerfield every time.

Two year deal doesn't bother me at all.  If we have a successful season, players at this club will be in decent demand from others even if they haven't featured on a regular basis.  It'll be much easier to move players on than the situation we have at the minute with the likes of Dixon and Kelly.  I think giving longer deals also sends a message out that Jolley isn't interested in short-term thinking and he wants to build something for two, three, however many years.

Ha ha Diehard. I agree with nearly everything you say, but football is a game of opinions isn't it.

Going forward I think Mitch Rose has much more scope for improvement and could be more effective than Summers with new signings under the tutelage of MF and with increased confidence gained from the end of last season.

Happy for Summers to be a dependable squad member, but I think we may improve immensely without Summers being the regular fulcrum of the team. The most common comment that fans can say about him is he "puts a shift in". Under Jolley every player will be doing exactly that. There is and always has been something missing out of his game in my opinion. Like someone at work who looks busy all of the time but you get to the end of the week and there's little end result. Pretty much any League Two footballer can get on the ball and knock it side to side all of the time and chase around and stick their foot in. Excuses have been made for Summers about assists and scoring, but at the end of the day, the facts don't lie and in truth are an accurate reflection of the fruits of his labour.

Summers looks industrious and he is industrious but his output to the team in effectiveness falls short. It's been the same for two seasons and at 30ish I can't see him improving. His ceiling level is mid table League Two and we need better if we are looking to push on further than that. I'm a fan of his attitude but I think we definitely need to change things up, and with Clifton, Woolford, Rose, Kelly already signed up, if Summers signs, having five squad members from last seasons midfield doesn't give great enough leeway for signings to improve us in that position. The euphoria of staying up has seemed to rose tint the team performance over those last half a dozen games. We had to fight and scrap for every point in that period. We didn't dominate any games and playing with that intensity in tight matches accumulating that kind of points in the last six games cannot be sustained over a season with the same players. We will need an upgrade in CM to dominate in more games which will push us further up the league.

Summers > Woolford, but as Woolford has already signed, I'm not sure we need both..

Rose doesn't have the 'engine' that Summerfield does. He looked worn out after an hour most games last season though this did improve right near the end (possibly due to the new training regime?). Regardless, he isn't capable of carrying out the same role as Summerfield, though he obviously has his own strengths - not least of which is, well, strength!

Despite the improvement to Rose's stamina late in the season, you can't make somebody as athletic as Summerfield just by training them better - it's a natural genetic ability to be able to keep running for 90 minutes. Once he had established himself in the team last season, I seem to recall that Summerfield played pretty much every minute that he was fit. Having such great workrate and energy is an asset in itself and it must be helpful to managers to know that they have a player who will always keep on going to the end - gives other options for substitutions.

This 'living locally' thing is going to be very interesting.

Based on very little evidence, I do feel like it'll make a positive difference. The thing that most great teams (at any level) have is a strong bond and great camaraderie. Didn't McKeown say there's still a WhatsApp group with most of the 15/16 promotion team on it?

That's an example in the social world, but to replicate that in the physical world will be fascinating to follow. If a few players fancy a night out up Meggies, it'll be much easier for everyone else to tag along if they live here.

It might seem a small part but I believe it's a significant part - and I'm glad to see the manager leading it from the front.

Quoted from Bigdog

Ha ha Diehard. I agree with nearly everything you say, but football is a game of opinions isn't it.

Be a dull old game if we all thought the same.

Interesting that you point out about rose-tinted glasses as that's exactly how I view Mitch Rose at the minute.  Don't get me wrong, we needed someone to stand up and be counted when it counted and boy did he stand up.  But I don't actually think his performances were great.  His fitness did, which just highlights how poor things were under Slade but take away the long throw we discovered he had and his penalties, I'm not sure he offered a great deal.  Definitely not anywhere near as much as Summerfield.  Again, opinions.

What I do agree with is the point about Woolford re-signing and Rose already here plus Summerfield potentially re-signing leaves us with 3 players who were part of the problem for long parts of the season.  I think we've all identified the root cause was Slade and there's no doubt that collectively the side improved beyond belief under Jolley.  But you can only polish for so long and I'd be amazed if we're not looking for some greater quality in that area.  But with those 3 plus Clifton (who Jolley has stated is a player he sees moving into a central role) that doesn't leave a lot of room for too many coming in.  If we start the season with a first choice midfield of the one that ended the season, I'll be surprised and probably a little bit disappointed.  I was surprised that he offered both Woolford and Summerfield new deals for that reason, however we have to trust Jolley.