Dougie Freedman explains why French striker Basile Camerling was not for him

Dougie Freedman has explained why he passed up on the chance to sign French striker Basile Camerling.

Wanderers took a close look at the former Nancy front man a fortnight ago but declined to offer him a contract after feeling he was not ready for first-team football.

“He did quite well but fitness was an issue,” Freedman said. “We need someone who can step straight into the team right now.

“He is a good player but he’s probably a couple of months away from fitness and in the end that’s exactly why we couldn’t sign him.”

After leaving Wanderers Camerling returned for a second spell at Charlton but has left The Valley and is searching for another English club.

Freedman is on the lookout for signings, however, and wants to bolster his ranks by at least another two bodies by the end of the loan window on November 28.

“We can’t leave ourselves short,” he said. “I think we paid a price for doing that at this stage last year.”

Elsewhere, a striker linked with Wanderers earlier this season, Sunderland’s Connor Wickham, has rejoined Championship rivals Sheffield Wednesday on loan.

The England Under-21 forward spent a spell with the Owls last season, playing six times.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

“He did quite well but fitness was an issue,”

It's always an issue with you, twat.

Dougie Freedman wrote: We need someone who can step straight into the team right now.

That's worked well with Moritz so far.

kennster wrote:

“He did quite well but fitness was an issue,”

It's always an issue with you, twat.

Ye better off forgetting fitness like Coyle did.

Can an unfit player go for 60 minutes? .....  I can't see why not.... or come on as a sub for 15 minutes.

So better to have 11 fit lads at 21st in the table than rotating a few not quite fit lads in and out.  It will be next year before we see Holden and Mavis under those conditions.

The thing is that how unfit can these really be?

It's not like they are your average bloke who has a bit of a beer belly and hasn't been for a jog since high school is it?!

terenceanne wrote:Can an unfit player go for 60 minutes? .....  I can't see why not.... or come on as a sub for 15 minutes.

So better to have 11 fit lads at 21st in the table than rotating a few not quite fit lads in and out.  It will be next year before we see Holden and Mavis under those conditions.

There are varying levels of fitness, it's not as black and white as fit or unfit. If the man who sees them every day in training says they're not fit then I'm more inclined to trust him than a poster on the internet.

We saw the impact of poor fitness under Coyle, we conceded late goals for fun and never nicked them ourselves. Don't underestimate how important it is.

Some are fit enough to sit on the bench....it doesn't make sense to me.

bwfc1874 wrote:

terenceanne wrote:Can an unfit player go for 60 minutes? .....  I can't see why not.... or come on as a sub for 15 minutes.

So better to have 11 fit lads at 21st in the table than rotating a few not quite fit lads in and out.  It will be next year before we see Holden and Mavis under those conditions.

There are varying levels of fitness, it's not as black and white as fit or unfit. If the man who sees them every day in training says they're not fit then I'm more inclined to trust him than a poster on the internet.

We saw the impact of poor fitness under Coyle, we conceded late goals for fun and never nicked them ourselves. Don't underestimate how important it is.

I must have missed somat ......are we worse right now than under OC?

We're discussing fitness, not the overall team performance.

So in terms of fitness we are far better, the players can actually last a full 90 minutes now.

bwfc1874 wrote:We're discussing fitness, not the overall team performance.

So in terms of fitness we are far better, the players can actually last a full 90 minutes now.

Aye.... you said under Coyle we were conceding and not nicking goals because of fitness ..... we are still not doing either and now fit ? so what's the diference?

I can't believe I need to explain this to you.

Consistently under Coyle the lack of fitness was evident in our inability to hold a lead, conceding late on in games and rarely nicking goals ourselves. We'd always end games on the backfoot because players were nackered after an hour.

Im not pretending there's no issues now, all Im saying is I don't think poor fitness is one of them.

Also depends on the role the manager wants the player to play. Ngog only played for an hour today, but was at both ends of the pitch when it mattered. If Ngog was ever a striker (which I don't believe) he certainly wasn't asked to play that role today - he was a box to box midfielder.

Dougie's next striker target will be unmasked in the Sunday People tomorrow.

Culcheth_White wrote:Dougie's next striker target will be unmasked in the Sunday People tomorrow.

Not sure if this a wind up or not?

karlypants wrote:

Culcheth_White wrote:Dougie's next striker target will be unmasked in the Sunday People tomorrow.

Not sure if this a wind up or not?

Not a wind-up, I tweeted Nixon earlier, who writes for the People and he said, Dougie's striker target will be named. My Dad buys the People, I have better ways of spending my money though.

I'll ring my Dad tomorrow morning and let you know who the mystery striker is.(should be around 9 am ish)

Culcheth_White wrote:

karlypants wrote:

Culcheth_White wrote:Dougie's next striker target will be unmasked in the Sunday People tomorrow.

Not sure if this a wind up or not?

Not a wind-up, I tweeted Nixon earlier, who writes for the People and he said, Dougie's striker target will be named. My Dad buys the People, I have better ways of spending my money though.

I'll ring my Dad tomorrow morning and let you know who the mystery striker is.(should be around 9 am ish)

 

I already know who it is.

Theirry Henry ITK Fact.

No, it's not him, but he's played for us before.