Odhiambo

[Manwell Pablo]

So anyway, if I can wrestle this topic from the evil clutches of the Champion de la under 12's.

Has Eric had his loan deal extended?

[The People's Hero]

So anyway, if I can wrestle this topic from the evil clutches of the Champion de la under 12's.

Has Eric had his loan deal extended?

I think he turned back up at the club and Megson said 'who the fu ck are you?'

So he turned straight around and went back.

He's homeless now.

[Thracian]

Sounds about right.

How would you know? I thought you were licking your arse.

[The People's Hero]

How would you know? I thought you were licking your arse.

No.

That was you.

And it was Louis Dodds' arse.

[Thracian]

No.

That was you.

And it was Louis Dodds' arse.

I might be canon fodder for all sorts of your pathetic remarks but it was you who said you'd rather be licking your anus than watching Leicester City.

It's grim being a City fan right now but even I can't imagine it being that bad.

[The People's Hero]

It's grim being a City fan right now but even I can't imagine it being that bad.

I've completely lost interest. I didn't even feel that much pain when we got humiliated (ie beaten at a canter) by Charlton or a moment of joy at either of the two (notable) cup victories.

[Thracian]

I've completely lost interest. I didn't even feel that much pain when we got humiliated (ie beaten at a canter) by Charlton or a moment of joy at either of the two (notable) cup victories.

One defeat, two victories - that's almost pure joy compared to some of the things we've suffered.

More staying power is what you seem to need.

[The People's Hero]

One defeat, two victories - that's almost pure joy compared to some of the things we've suffered.

More staying power is what you seem to need.

I'm the customer.

LCFC is the product.

I've not got the disposable income to follow this sodding club round the country - I don't have the means and I've barely ever had less motivation.

[Lord Nibblington]

Not at all. We didn't give ourselves chance to win because we didn't have enough creativity. Choices are limited. Sheehan can make things happen as his record this season plainly shows. But I'd just as soon have played King.

Clearly my point is lost on you. We will not win football matches often enough without playing sufficient people to score and make goals. And, just like Kelly we are covering up for slow and sometimes incompetent defenders by playing too many of them.

Even then we still concede our regular goal so it plainly doesn't work.

Err. No, it's not. But thanks for being extremely patronising. I couldn't possibly work out for myself that you need to create chances to win a football match. Oh no.

However, if you look at what you wrote, it reads extremely like if we played Alan Sheehan, we would not have dropped the 2 points. How do I come to this conclusion? By following the words that you wrote. You start be saying that we played badly against Charlton as a whole, but Sheehan in particular was "sidelined". Your next line is "One of the consequences Saturday was that we lacked creativity". Now, perhaps you meant something different, but that reads as Sheehan was blamed for Charlton, and Sheehan was absent from the game on Saturday, hence we lacked creativity. Why does it read like this? Your use of the word conesequences, following straight on from the comment about Sheehan being sidelined. If that comment was NOT in reference to Sheehan, then why the use of "one of the consequences"? Why not "One of the problems on Saturday..."?

You then go on to say "which is one of Sheehan's strengths and so dropped two more home points". You are praising Sheehan's ability as a creative player, and refering to the lack of creativity as reason for the lack of a win on Saturday. This implicitly gives the idea the absence of Sheehan causes the lack of the victory, which in itself clearly lends it to the idea that Alan Sheehan playing would have resulted in a victory.

As it happens, I agree that we need more creativity in the side. But that's not going to happen with Megson in charge, or if it does, I'll be extremely amazed. But the way you express yourself in saying it is poor.

[The People's Hero]

Err. No, it's not. But thanks for being extremely patronising. I couldn't possibly work out for myself that you need to create chances to win a football match. Oh no.

However, if you look at what you wrote, it reads extremely like if we played Alan Sheehan, we would not have dropped the 2 points. How do I come to this conclusion? By following the words that you wrote. You start be saying that we played badly against Charlton as a whole, but Sheehan in particular was "sidelined". Your next line is "One of the consequences Saturday was that we lacked creativity". Now, perhaps you meant something different, but that reads as Sheehan was blamed for Charlton, and Sheehan was absent from the game on Saturday, hence we lacked creativity. Why does it read like this? Your use of the word conesequences, following straight on from the comment about Sheehan being sidelined. If that comment was NOT in reference to Sheehan, then why the use of "one of the consequences"? Why not "One of the problems on Saturday..."?

You then go on to say "which is one of Sheehan's strengths and so dropped two more home points". You are praising Sheehan's ability as a creative player, and refering to the lack of creativity as reason for the lack of a win on Saturday. This implicitly gives the idea the absence of Sheehan causes the lack of the victory, which in itself clearly lends it to the idea that Alan Sheehan playing would have resulted in a victory.

As it happens, I agree that we need more creativity in the side. But that's not going to happen with Megson in charge, or if it does, I'll be extremely amazed. But the way you express yourself in saying it is poor.

Although I'm as guilty as the next man for biting ..... just leave him to it mate.

He really does have no idea about football.

[ASH17LCFC]

Stearman play him at centre back

snigger.

[Jimmy]

so anyway does anyone have any info on weather Eric has returned or stayed at Southend for a while longer?

[Thracian]

I'm the customer.

LCFC is the product.

I've not got the disposable income to follow this sodding club round the country - I don't have the means and I've barely ever had less motivation.

You're bringing tears to my eyes. Surely you've enough pals on here to hold a collection.

[The People's Hero]

You're bringing tears to my eyes. Surely you've enough pals on here to hold a collection.

But then I'd feel obliged to attend...

[Thracian]

But then I'd feel obliged to attend...

What else is comeraderie for but a helping hand in time of trouble?

[Finnegan]

What else is comeraderie for but a helping hand in time of trouble?

Doing the odd petty favour and expecting it back in abundance?

[Geo V]

Mattock had a smashing game Saturday and against Villa defensively during the week.

In fact, for him to play so well in two full games was as good an achievement as I've seen this season from any of our players.

I wrote pre-season that I'd use both - they compliment each other anyway.

But Sheehan remains the more dangerous attacking option to me and I think you'll find as time goes on that Mattock was slightly flattered by the slow-turning Stoke full-back.

Although Mattock is comfortable on the wing, like Porter I've never felt he has the raw pace or deft skills needed to make any great impression from there. Nor is he a regular marksman. He may improve those things of course and I hope he does.

But Sheehan has a habit of making or scoring goals. He often looks dangerous going forward whereas Mattock looks functional.

To emphasise my point Mattock has one assist to his name so far all told, Sheehan two goals and one assist this season alone.

I would emphasise that I wouldn't have suggested taking Mattock off Saturday even if Sheehan had been on the bench.

Just because it didn't work for them at Charlton doesn't mean they don't work well together. a lot of people didn't do well against Charlton.

Don`t get me wrong, I`d much rather have a balanced side than one that has players playing out of position and the likes of Sheehan may well be the best option of a bad bunch.

What I object too is when you make excuses for all the players you want in and would take them warts and all whether they are Sheehan, Levi, Elvis, King, Odhiambo, Dodds or any of the other lads you want in but when someone mentions the likes of Fryatt you get all defensive and give a list of reasons why they aren't good enough. You have even had a mini pop at Mattock by belittling his performance against Stoke (a game I admittedly wasn't at) and saying that his good performance "was slightly flattered by the slow-turning Stoke full-back." just so you can get your man in the side. It was the same last season with Levi being slated at LM and you suggested he should be a central midfielder!

We`ll have to agree to disagree because you are right, we do differ hugely when it comes to players where I am happy enough to give players a chance and keep them in if they perform and you do all you can to hope that some of them fudge up so you can bring in your personal favourites. I bet you are gutted that Fryatt has scored two in two aren't you???

[Thracian]

Don`t get me wrong, I`d much rather have a balanced side than one that has players playing out of position and the likes of Sheehan may well be the best option of a bad bunch.

What I object too is when you make excuses for all the players you want in and would take them warts and all whether they are Sheehan, Levi, Elvis, King, Odhiambo, Dodds or any of the other lads you want in but when someone mentions the likes of Fryatt you get all defensive and give a list of reasons why they aren't good enough. You have even had a mini pop at Mattock by belittling his performance against Stoke (a game I admittedly wasn't at) and saying that his good performance "was slightly flattered by the slow-turning Stoke full-back." just so you can get your man in the side. It was the same last season with Levi being slated at LM and you suggested he should be a central midfielder!

We`ll have to agree to disagree because you are right, we do differ hugely when it comes to players where I am happy enough to give players a chance and keep them in if they perform and you do all you can to hope that some of them fudge up so you can bring in your personal favourites. I bet you are gutted that Fryatt has scored two in two aren't you???

I've been suggesting Fryatt's return to the first team since he scored his hat-trick for the Reserves and I emphasised that view on other occasions.

Glance back at the player ratings I gave him.

Even today I've commented that he's our in-form striker just now.

I didn't belittle Mattock's performance against Stoke either. I said that his completing two good games in succession was probably the outstanding peformance of our season.

What I did say was that as an attacker - against Villa and Stoke - his contribution was spasmodic and that people shouldn't be deceived into thinking he's our wing answer because he had a slow opponent against the Potters.

The fact remains he is NOT a left winger and will never be able to have the impact of a specialist attacker. The statistics already show that and I could give lots of reasons why.

At his age it is hard enough to do one job well let alone two. That is not criticism. That's the reality.

You also spread further myth by talking about "my men".

Because I've felt Porter was our best left-sided alternative doesn't mean I'd close my eyes to anyone better. Similarly when I say he's a good central midfielder I don't forget to say when he plays that role badly, like today for longish periods.

The same goes for Sheehan. He has certain strengths and certain weaknesses like others and if there were better people for a particular job then I'd say so. And have done in mentioning King for certain situations.

Even now I've no more idea than you whether King will take his chance. I hope he does but feel like that about anyone. All I say is that he's shown he can do the sorts of things we need at the level he's played at so far. And I see little problem with finding out if he can go a step further when our need is so desperate.

[Geo V]

I've been suggesting Fryatt's return to the first team since he scored his hat-trick for the Reserves and I emphasised that view on other occasions.

Glance back at the player ratings I gave him.

Even today I've commented that he's our in-form striker just now.

I didn't belittle Mattock's performance against Stoke either. I said that his completing two good games in succession was probably the outstanding peformance of our season.

What I did say was that as an attacker - against Villa and Stoke - his contribution was spasmodic and that people shouldn't be deceived into thinking he's our wing answer because he had a slow opponent against the Potters.

The fact remains he is NOT a left winger and will never be able to have the impact of a specialist attacker. The statistics already show that and I could give lots of reasons why.

At his age it is hard enough to do one job well let alone two. That is not criticism. That's the reality.

You also spread further myth by talking about "my men".

Because I've felt Porter was our best left-sided alternative doesn't mean I'd close my eyes to anyone better. Similarly when I say he's a good central midfielder I don't forget to say when he plays that role badly, like today for longish periods.

The same goes for Sheehan. He has certain strengths and certain weaknesses like others and if there were better people for a particular job then I'd say so. And have done in mentioning King for certain situations.

Even now I've no more idea than you whether King will take his chance. I hope he does but feel like that about anyone. All I say is that he's shown he can do the sorts of things we need at the level he's played at so far. And I see little problem with finding out if he can go a step further when our need is so desperate.

The fact is that apart from Weso, none of our youngsters from Levi to Sheehan, Mattock to Logan have grabbed their opportunities in the first team with both hands. Thats why supporters want replacements at left-back and why we were delighted with Clarkeys performances after coming from Sunderland. Thats why we are raving about Fulop now when some fans would have persevered with what we had in Logan. Thats the very reason why we want to play Ferreira (before he was injured) at left midfield having seen Levi and Sheehan both have average or below average contributions to the first team. It is also why despite 14 new arrivals, most of us are praying we sign a couple of good left-sided players on loan during the next International break.

As Ive said before, I am far from discounting Mattock, Sheehan or even the likes of loaned out Gradel and Logan from having big futures with us. Simply that they are not quite ready and we aren't good enough to carry players and watch them make mistake after mistake, many that cost the team dearly and expect to just back them anyway.

As for King, I hope he does grab his chance. I havent seen the lad play but I hope he shines. Not in just one game but after having a few chances to see of he takes to it. If he doesnt, its back to the reserves or on loan to see if he can improve again but not at the expense of the first team.

[Thracian]

The fact is that apart from Weso, none of our youngsters from Levi to Sheehan, Mattock to Logan have grabbed their opportunities in the first team with both hands. Thats why supporters want replacements at left-back and why we were delighted with Clarkeys performances after coming from Sunderland. Thats why we are raving about Fulop now when some fans would have persevered with what we had in Logan. Thats the very reason why we want to play Ferreira (before he was injured) at left midfield having seen Levi and Sheehan both have average or below average contributions to the first team. It is also why despite 14 new arrivals, most of us are praying we sign a couple of good left-sided players on loan during the next International break.

As Ive said before, I am far from discounting Mattock, Sheehan or even the likes of loaned out Gradel and Logan from having big futures with us. Simply that they are not quite ready and we aren't good enough to carry players and watch them make mistake after mistake, many that cost the team dearly and expect to just back them anyway.

As for King, I hope he does grab his chance. I havent seen the lad play but I hope he shines. Not in just one game but after having a few chances to see of he takes to it. If he doesnt, its back to the reserves or on loan to see if he can improve again but not at the expense of the first team.

Clarke played two and a half games, hardly in any way conclusive, and I don't intend to comment on him.

I don't hear too many fans wanting Mattock out.

As for Sheehan and Porter they may still have things to learn but they are a damned sight more ready for our first team than Ferreira, Djeziri or Kaebi seem to be from what I've seen tonight and, in Ferreira's case, in previous outings..

If we sign better in the international breaks fair enough but, unlike you, I'd rather see them than select them for the first team willy nilly. Reputations and previous clubs don't impress me - and little wonder when I see some of the people we've signed this summer.

[Milan]

Together or not, LCFC is very disfunctional at the moment.

[Geo V]

Clarke played two and a half games, hardly in any way conclusive, and I don't intend to comment on him.

I don't hear too many fans wanting Mattock out.

As for Sheehan and Porter they may still have things to learn but they are a damned sight more ready for our first team than Ferreira, Djeziri or Kaebi seem to be from what I've seen tonight and, in Ferreira's case, in previous outings..

If we sign better in the international breaks fair enough but, unlike you, I'd rather see them than select them for the first team willy nilly. Reputations and previous clubs don't impress me - and little wonder when I see some of the people we've signed this summer.

Not making a comment on Clarke because he is ill is ridiculous. I dont care if he is ill if he was shite for us I would say it and still wish him the best on his quest for a healthy life. However, it is no coincidece that we started playing better when Mattock was left out after a poor start and Clarkey appeared. Yes it wasnt over a long period of time but he showed enough to give us confidence just as Fulop had (and continued) top do so replacing Hendo.

I`ll say this for the last time and hope it finally registers and I`ll do it in a simple way for you to understand.

1. Sheehan, Porter and Mattock have done OK in spells but are not consistent enough yet to warrant a guaranteed starting place.

2. If fit, we should try both Kaebi and Ferriera regardless of what you have or have not seen at reserve level as we are paying their wages and have been bought in to the club to play with good repuations and International experience.

3. If the aformentioned two fail after a few games then I would gladly revert back to the Sheehans of the squad as he may well be the best of a poor bunch but lets not jump the gun until we have seen them in the first team as they may well shine in front of 23k+ instead of one man and his dog at the rserves.

4. Lets hope we get some more competition in wide midfield roles on loan to help the forwards as the players you rate and want in aren't doing enough.

Now do you get what I am trying to say?

[Thracian]

Not making a comment on Clarke because he is ill is ridiculous. I dont care if he is ill if he was shite for us I would say it and still wish him the best on his quest for a healthy life. However, it is no coincidece that we started playing better when Mattock was left out after a poor start and Clarkey appeared. Yes it wasnt over a long period of time but he showed enough to give us confidence just as Fulop had (and continued) top do so replacing Hendo.

I`ll say this for the last time and hope it finally registers and I`ll do it in a simple way for you to understand.

1. Sheehan, Porter and Mattock have done OK in spells but are not consistent enough yet to warrant a guaranteed starting place.

2. If fit, we should try both Kaebi and Ferriera regardless of what you have or have not seen at reserve level as we are paying their wages and have been bought in to the club to play with good repuations and International experience.

3. If the aformentioned two fail after a few games then I would gladly revert back to the Sheehans of the squad as he may well be the best of a poor bunch but lets not jump the gun until we have seen them in the first team as they may well shine in front of 23k+ instead of one man and his dog at the rserves.

4. Lets hope we get some more competition in wide midfield roles on loan to help the forwards as the players you rate and want in aren't doing enough.

Now do you get what I am trying to say?

1) You can talk all you like about Clarke. I'll just wish him a safe recovery.

2) Talk all you like but I cannot imagine it happening nor any reason it should right now.

3) If they failed at this stage at the very least it wouldn't help Megson's credibility at all.

4) Who I want in depends on who we've got as options. Porter has hardly been involved but Sheehan and Mattock have justified their places on that basis and have both made perfectly valid, even valuable contributions on several ocasions.

As for competition I'm sure that will emerge or arrive.

Jonathan Hayes was back in action last night. He looks a fairly natural winger who can move inside if needs be and I am sure he will put pressure on Porter. He has his faults but his presence will help Megson's options and far from wishing Porter to be the winner I don't give a toss. They might even end up playing the left wing role between them if Megson reverts to that approach but my view, in the absence of better options, is let the best man win.

In midfield, again, Andy King will get an opportunity tonight to add to the competition and if he takes it that would give us Clemence, Wesolowski, Kishishev and King in that department - perfectly adequate I would have said although Megson would doubtless take someone better if they become available.

The right side remains a problem.

[Ric Flair]

Not making a comment on Clarke because he is ill is ridiculous. I dont care if he is ill if he was shite for us I would say it and still wish him the best on his quest for a healthy life. However, it is no coincidece that we started playing better when Mattock was left out after a poor start and Clarkey appeared. Yes it wasnt over a long period of time but he showed enough to give us confidence just as Fulop had (and continued) top do so replacing Hendo.

I`ll say this for the last time and hope it finally registers and I`ll do it in a simple way for you to understand.

1. Sheehan, Porter and Mattock have done OK in spells but are not consistent enough yet to warrant a guaranteed starting place.

2. If fit, we should try both Kaebi and Ferriera regardless of what you have or have not seen at reserve level as we are paying their wages and have been bought in to the club to play with good repuations and International experience.

3. If the aformentioned two fail after a few games then I would gladly revert back to the Sheehans of the squad as he may well be the best of a poor bunch but lets not jump the gun until we have seen them in the first team as they may well shine in front of 23k+ instead of one man and his dog at the rserves.

4. Lets hope we get some more competition in wide midfield roles on loan to help the forwards as the players you rate and want in aren't doing enough.

Now do you get what I am trying to say?

Joe Mattock has been sheer quality in the past 2 games for a lad of 17. In a 5-3-2 formation, Clive Clarke would let us down as going forward he's never been good enough.

[Manwell Pablo]

Joe Mattock has been sheer quality in the past 2 games for a lad of 17. In a 5-3-2 formation, Clive Clarke would let us down as going forward he's never been good enough.

Quite, Clarke is definitley a left back, definitley not a left wing back.