Becchio gone

[Tomasz Blazak]

On loan to Rotherham, confirmed on their official twitter. 

Good riddance.

 

[Surgeryman]

Disagree KIO. Proven Championship scorer that never got given a proper chance. When he did come on the pressure was immense to perform so not sure we can judge based on 3 or 4 performances. If anything to criticise it was Hughton for panic buying him in when he did not really rate him.

 

[Tomasz Blazak]

There's a reason Adams didn't fancy him either. He either has an attitude issue or doesn't train very hard.

Either way, was never going to contribute this season.

 

[Canaryboy]

Is a strange one because we twice rejected the opportunity to send him back to Leeds on loan, if he had a bad attitude then we wouldn't have done would we?

 

[Warren Hill]

It was never about Becchio, it was always about getting rid of Morison and Luciano facilitated that move. I don't believe we, or Hughton, ever wanted him but he was the makeweight and it's been an unfortunate episode for all concerned.

When given opportunities he's never really impressed me and I'm sure this suits all parties - he departs with less City goals then RVW and exactly the same amount as I've got... :mellow:

 

[Din]

Couldn't care less about Becchio going. Maybe if he was given a run of games in this league he might show what he can do a bit, but during his time with us in the Premier League, although he was given limited opportunities, he looked awful. Would come far too deep to collect the ball and then not get into the box when we got into a good attacking position. If he tried to go round someone he would lose it, and just in general he didn't offer us anything going forward. Any attacking threat or tempo we had (which admitedly was rare under Hughton) would be drained out of the game as soon as he came on. We now have Grabban, Hooper, Lafferty and Jerome as our striking options, as well as Loza, Redmond or the Murphys should we need it, so he's not really needed here at all.

I do feel a bit sorry for him, because as people have said, the only reason he was bought in was so we could get rid of Morison. But the fact is that so far he hasn't proved that he's good enough, and doesn't seem to have the best attitude.

 

[KeiranShikari]

Good job in sending him to a team that will probably not be challenging the top 6.

 

[BarclayBoy88]

Really not too fussed about this at all, I don't think he is a terrible player but he was never going to get a game here outside the Carling Cup. Wish him well and no reason to have any negative attitude towards him. 

 

[Watling the Gnome]

This one is like when Sharon left Eastenders to try and do better for herself. Everybody benefits, especially the viewers.

 

[Wiz]

I can only wish him well.

 

[lyb]

Very best of luck to him. Don't think we ever gave him an adequate chance to prove himself.

 

[ncfcvet]

Based on watching him at half time he was not very mobile, not very skilful and appeared rather overweight. Good luck Luciano, I feel sorry that you were used in order for us to get rid of Morison. That said you probably made a few quid more than you would of at Weeds for the experience.

 

[yellowarmy]

Going by what leeds fans believe Warnock jumped at the chance to swap him for Morrison, so there might be something in this attitude suggestion

 

[Robert Brompton]

Going by what leeds fans believe Warnock jumped at the chance to swap him for Morrison, so there might be something in this attitude suggestion

It is in the public domain, at least Warnock's version.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/latest-whites-news/leeds-united-axed-boss-says-want-away-becchio-put-gun-to-his-head-1-5746699

 

[ncfcvet]

Thinking about it....who did who? Weeds did us with Becchio or we did Weeds with Morison. Think we were both losers.  .

 

[kirku]

Good luck to him. He was never given a fair crack of the whip here but also never showed anything to suggest he should have been played ahead of our other players.

 

[Boyerboy]

Good luck to him. He was never given a fair crack of the whip here but also never showed anything to suggest he should have been played ahead of our other players.

I think that that is the oxymoron at the heart of this. Becchio had such a pedigree that we expected him to contribute. There is a sense of unease that he so rarely appeared because we felt he should have been there.

But, he showed very little when he did play just ambling round and making no impact. The notion that he was somehow overlooked just doesn't hold up. Football above all else is about results. No manager facing relegation would wilfully not pick a match winner and goal scorer. If Becchio was the way for Hughton to keep us up and keep his job then he would have played him. He wasn't stupid. Any conspiracy as hinted at by so many just doesn't make sense.

Becchio was not unfairly treated. For whatever reason, he could not replicate his Leeds form here either in trying or play and it didn't work. Sad but it happens.

 

[Watling the Gnome]

This does raise an issue in that we now have no unproven and untried senior players that we can pretend are as good as Sergio Aguero because they never play and so never prove us wrong.  I swear some people I "work" with think we'd have finished mid-table if Becchio had played last season and "that was all Hughton's fault, he don't know what he's doing, I mean Becchio, he's an Argentinian goalscorer, mutter mutter Russell Martin mutter mutter park the bus".

Mind you, Gary Hooper's been sitting on the bench recently so in a few games time he should be at least as good as Shane Long.

 

[Gaffer]

If he scores 10+ for Rotherham do we take him back and play him in January?

 

[Gaffer]

If he scores 10+ for Rotherham do we take him back and play him in January?