lildave3 Posted 25 July 2007 Posted 25 July 2007 More importantly, why has Ricky all of a sudden become Reneil?
gosfox Posted 25 July 2007 Posted 25 July 2007 Does the absence of anyone in the 26,27,28 shirts suggest that three more players may be on the wanted list??
Stevosevic Posted 25 July 2007 Author Posted 25 July 2007 More importantly, why has Ricky all of a sudden become Reneil? I guess thats his name but everyone calls him Ricky.
Bluefoxtim Posted 25 July 2007 Posted 25 July 2007 Does the absence of anyone in the 26,27,28 shirts suggest that three more players may be on the wanted list?? You may well be right.
David Villa Posted 25 July 2007 Posted 25 July 2007 Does the absence of anyone in the 26,27,28 shirts suggest that three more players may be on the wanted list?? I dont think it does at all, loads of squads have a gaps in the squad numbers.
Thracian Posted 25 July 2007 Posted 25 July 2007 Just to confirm Dodds has got a squad number dsespite having a year long loan to Lincoln which should be announced later in the week.
Blue Bob Posted 25 July 2007 Posted 25 July 2007 Just to confirm Dodds has got a squad number dsespite having a year long loan to Lincoln which should be announced later in the week. That is a nice touch by the manager to still include him even if he knows he is off on loan - good man management skills. Worth 0.5 of a point Thracian???
Thracian Posted 26 July 2007 Posted 26 July 2007 That is a nice touch by the manager to still include him even if he knows he is off on loan - good man management skills. Worth 0.5 of a point Thracian??? It's as you say but not of any particular benefit to us like a win, new signing, inspired training sessions etc. Also giving points for anything in respect of Dodds would probably bring criticism although some would say +something was justified for the fact that he's gone. It remains extraordinary to me that a guy who scored some 65 goals in three seasons should not get the hint of a chance in the first team during a time when our goalscoring level has been so low. But he's into his first season of League football at Lincoln and it's up to him now tio make his point in the only way that might count, by scoring goals. I can only wish him the very best of luck even even though a few others (and it is a few) will plainly hope he falls flat on his face for reasons I'll never understand except to prove their viewpoint right.
Fox in a Box Posted 26 July 2007 Posted 26 July 2007 1. Jimmy Nielsen 1. The amount of $$$$$$$ millions he blew KERRCHING!
Thracian Posted 26 July 2007 Posted 26 July 2007 Sheehan, Dodds & Gradel all had numbers last season, dodds and sheehan were still sent on loan, as i think gradel will be this year, short term 1 to let MA see him without risking him fooking up in our side Although we have a reserve team to re-establish, it is quite possible some of our fringe players may go on loan - but not to avoid risking them "fooking up" our side. I could write a long list of people who've helped "fook up" our team and none would be Academy youngsters. Logan, Stearman, Mattock, Sheehan, Wesolowski, Porter, and Odhiambo haven't "fooked us up" and I can see no reason whatsoever why Max Gradel, Andy King, Bill McKay, or Ashley Chambers should do so either. There youngsters aren't vulnerable novices plucked off the streets six months ago. They've spent years in Academy football and frequently play/train with the first team and have had the additional benefit of top class coaching with their youth international groups. If they go on loan it will be to toughen up and increase their experience. To get themselves some flying hours if you like. But these kids are demonstrably winners, to a man part of the champion youth team in all England. Yes they still have things to learn but they don't do "fooking up" as you call it and could play in any of our teams, any day, without letting anyone down.
Thracian Posted 26 July 2007 Posted 26 July 2007 http://www.thebluearmy.co.uk/details.asp?k...672007281072231 Perhaps I'm missing something but I cannot understand Bill Anderson's thinking on this. "It is the top 11 which looks like forming the basis of the new side, and there is always a psychological boost for any player in that bracket." Is that so?. Well is the guy seriously thinking we'll start without a specialist left-back? Or that MA will be daft enough to play McAuley there or Kisnorbo?. I don't think so. At least I damn well hope not cos I had enough of that nonsense last season. Basically MA seems to have put his senior new signings at the top of the list with Kisnorbo, McAuley and Hume from the old team and then included other signings. Perhaps the top 11 are on the highest salaries. But Bill Anderson has been around the City boss often enough to know that MA won't regard the list in any way as best to worst - because his whole aproach is one of "squad", at least that's what he said and emphatically so. Is Carl Cort seriously lined up to be our starting striker and what about Wesolowski? If that's in any way a 1-11 playing list he'd be at the top or in the top three at worst. Nielsen number one goalkeeper, Kaebi below Newton, Mattock at number 23 and three slowish centre-halves in the same side? I can't see it. There will undoubtedly be some of that top 11 in the side - six at a guess, perhaps seven if merit counts for anything - but that's hardly enough to call the top 11 the basis of the team. But it'll be interesting to see.
Cobbo Posted 26 July 2007 Posted 26 July 2007 Yes, Bill Anderson is a useless, know nothing arse, Thrac.
Joe. Posted 26 July 2007 Posted 26 July 2007 To be fair Thracian, he's sort of right really. He never said that the first 11 were going to the full team, and I know you have acknowledged that but the lower squad numbers are generally given to first team players. At the moment I count 8 out of those 11 who in my mind are probably going to start the first game of the season.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 26 July 2007 Posted 26 July 2007 Although we have a reserve team to re-establish, it is quite possible some of our fringe players may go on loan - but not to avoid risking them "fooking up" our side. I could write a long list of people who've helped "fook up" our team and none would be Academy youngsters. Logan, Stearman, Mattock, Sheehan, Wesolowski, Porter, and Odhiambo haven't "fooked us up" and I can see no reason whatsoever why Max Gradel, Andy King, Bill McKay, or Ashley Chambers should do so either. There youngsters aren't vulnerable novices plucked off the streets six months ago. They've spent years in Academy football and frequently play/train with the first team and have had the additional benefit of top class coaching with their youth international groups. If they go on loan it will be to toughen up and increase their experience. To get themselves some flying hours if you like. But these kids are demonstrably winners, to a man part of the champion youth team in all England. Yes they still have things to learn but they don't do "fooking up" as you call it and could play in any of our teams, any day, without letting anyone down. http://www.thebluearmy.co.uk/details.asp?k...672007281072231Perhaps I'm missing something but I cannot understand Bill Anderson's thinking on this. "It is the top 11 which looks like forming the basis of the new side, and there is always a psychological boost for any player in that bracket." Is that so?. Well is the guy seriously thinking we'll start without a specialist left-back? Or that MA will be daft enough to play McAuley there or Kisnorbo?. I don't think so. At least I damn well hope not cos I had enough of that nonsense last season. Basically MA seems to have put his senior new signings at the top of the list with Kisnorbo, McAuley and Hume from the old team and then included other signings. Perhaps the top 11 are on the highest salaries. But Bill Anderson has been around the City boss often enough to know that MA won't regard the list in any way as best to worst - because his whole aproach is one of "squad", at least that's what he said and emphatically so. Is Carl Cort seriously lined up to be our starting striker and what about Wesolowski? If that's in any way a 1-11 playing list he'd be at the top or in the top three at worst. Nielsen number one goalkeeper, Kaebi below Newton, Mattock at number 23 and three slowish centre-halves in the same side? I can't see it. There will undoubtedly be some of that top 11 in the side - six at a guess if merit counts for anything - but that's hardly enough to call the top 11 the basis of the team. But it'll be interesting to see. That's a lot of words.
LE8Blue Posted 26 July 2007 Posted 26 July 2007 i am tempted to get mattock 23 but also campbell 10 or kaebi 13
Jake_Foxes Posted 26 July 2007 Posted 26 July 2007 Paul Henderson squad number 31, whats that all about .
Cobbo Posted 26 July 2007 Posted 26 July 2007 Paul Henderson squad number 31, whats that all about . It's like 13 but the other way round.
dandannieldanok Posted 26 July 2007 Posted 26 July 2007 Paul Henderson squad number 31, whats that all about . Very sad, a travesty in fact.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.