Odhiambo

[Geo V]

I seem to have touched a raw nerve !

Where was all the barracking for Mattocks inclusion in the first team when we signed Clarke?!! He was almost forgotten about in the few games Clarke was playing well in!

Anyway, its a game of opinions and my opinion is that we would need a left-back, left-mid, right-mid and one more striker all in on loan. If I could choose in order of urgency I would leave Mattock until last as he has some ability and we are woeful going forward and need wide players and a striker to score goals consistently but overall and IMO, despite umpteen signings we still need to strengthen in the aforementioned areas and I`d much rather take the pressure of the likes of Mattock, Sheehan and some of the other youngsters who are being asked to do too much too early.

[Manwell Pablo]

I seem to have touched a raw nerve !

Where was all the barracking for Mattocks inclusion in the first team when we signed Clarke?!! He was almost forgotten about in the few games Clarke was playing well in!

Anyway, its a game of opinions and my opinion is that we would need a left-back, left-mid, right-mid and one more striker all in on loan. If I could choose in order of urgency I would leave Mattock until last as he has some ability and we are woeful going forward and need wide players and a striker to score goals consistently but overall and IMO, despite umpteen signings we still need to strengthen in the aforementioned areas and I`d much rather take the pressure of the likes of Mattock, Sheehan and some of the other youngsters who are being asked to do too much too early.

Like who Geo.

Clive Clark was a no frill left back who did a job for us but he's no left wing back and this where we suffer. Mattocks good at that job, and finding someone who is available on loan who is better wont be as straight forward as you make out.

[Geo V]

Like who Geo.

Clive Clark was a no frill left back who did a job for us but he's no left wing back and this where we suffer. Mattocks good at that job, and finding someone who is available on loan who is better wont be as straight forward as you make out.

Im not suggesting its straight-forward because left-back always has been a problem position to fill in most leagues. I suppose if I have to mention names I`d try to get someone like Michael Ball at Man City who has recently made way for Garrido, Babayaro at Newcastle or maybe Valente at Everton who doesnt play much since Baines signed for them.

I also don't see all this fascination with wing-backs and 532/352 either. Just because it worked once against Villa it doesn't mean that this formation is all of a sudden the answer to our prayers. The system was woeful against Wolves on Saturday and I hope I have seen the last of it as a home side but it may work away from home, time will tell. I`d personally prefer a 442 all day. BTW maybe the talk of an effective wing back is brought out that we have shocking wide players?

[Ric Flair]

Im not suggesting its straight-forward because left-back always has been a problem position to fill in most leagues. I suppose if I have to mention names I`d try to get someone like Michael Ball at Man City who has recently made way for Garrido, Babayaro at Newcastle or maybe Valente at Everton who doesnt play much since Baines signed for them.

I also don't see all this fascination with wing-backs and 532/352 either. Just because it worked once against Villa it doesn't mean that this formation is all of a sudden the answer to our prayers. The system was woeful against Wolves on Saturday and I hope I have seen the last of it as a home side but it may work away from home, time will tell. I`d personally prefer a 442 all day. BTW maybe the talk of an effective wing back is brought out that we have shocking wide players?

All well and good, but the clubs those players are at will still want them there as back-up, unless they have more than 2 players in that position.

As for the wingbacks thing, it's not the fans that are advocating it, it's Megson. So unless Gary has a change of heart, we're stuck with it. So you can talk all you like about left backs and wingers, but they would be wasted here unless they can play the wingback role effectively.

[Manwell Pablo]

Im not suggesting its straight-forward because left-back always has been a problem position to fill in most leagues. I suppose if I have to mention names I`d try to get someone like Michael Ball at Man City who has recently made way for Garrido, Babayaro at Newcastle or maybe Valente at Everton who doesnt play much since Baines signed for them.

I also don't see all this fascination with wing-backs and 532/352 either. Just because it worked once against Villa it doesn't mean that this formation is all of a sudden the answer to our prayers. The system was woeful against Wolves on Saturday and I hope I have seen the last of it as a home side but it may work away from home, time will tell. I`d personally prefer a 442 all day. BTW maybe the talk of an effective wing back is brought out that we have shocking wide players?

I don't think any of them would come here on loan tbh.

[Geo V]

I don't think any of them would come here on loan tbh.

Maybe not on long loan deals but if we offer the clubs the option to recall we may get some joy?

Anyway, I`d first focus on wide-mids and a striker to be honest but it seems GM isnt having any joy thus far. Also thank fook that Billy Davies came out and said he wont be letting that thug Moore leave on loan as we don't need another centre-half.

[Thracian]

I seem to have touched a raw nerve !

Where was all the barracking for Mattocks inclusion in the first team when we signed Clarke?!! He was almost forgotten about in the few games Clarke was playing well in!

Anyway, its a game of opinions and my opinion is that we would need a left-back, left-mid, right-mid and one more striker all in on loan. If I could choose in order of urgency I would leave Mattock until last as he has some ability and we are woeful going forward and need wide players and a striker to score goals consistently but overall and IMO, despite umpteen signings we still need to strengthen in the aforementioned areas and I`d much rather take the pressure of the likes of Mattock, Sheehan and some of the other youngsters who are being asked to do too much too early.

What has really happened is that we've rush signed a whole heap of players and found that they're NOT better than some of the young players you've mentioned.

Day by day you say we should play Kaebi and Ferreira. Not because you've seen them but because of their records.

Well I've seen them and around 250 other city fans have seen them and I don't see many on here saying they were so impressed they should be in the team. If that changes, fine, but there's really been no evidence when I've watched them.

Our young players - and I include Fryatt, Stearman and Wesolowski among them - are not being asked to do anything they've not shown they can cope with. Being inconsistent is a tendency with inexperienced footballers and ours are no different but, unfortunately, I cannot think of any experienced alternatives in our squad who are consistent and currently sidelined. And I've already seen enough duff loanees turn up here in recent months.

Right through Kelly's reign to the present day, Fulop's the only loanee I'd lose sleep about us losing.

A month ago I wondered about the left-back slot but, as Manwell pointed out, finding a wing-back alternative who's better than Mattock is not very easy at all, what with Megson focused on playing wing-backs. Especially as Sheehan can act as an attacking understudy and has played wing back lots of times.

Then there's the internal situation. Mattock has already attracted attention from serious clubs but has signed a longish contract with us.

MM rates him highly and I don't doubt for a minute he is well aware of his potential worth.

So do you really think - assuming Mattock maintains his form - that there is any great incentive for City not to play him? And if you accept that, then which brilliant alternative is really going to be lured here to potentially sit on the bench either now or in the near future? Or even to play for a near bottom-of-the-table team?

[Bareknucklefoxer.]

What has really happened is that we've rush signed a whole heap of players and found that they're NOT better than some of the young players you've mentioned.

Day by day you say we should play Kaebi and Ferreira. Not because you've seen them but because of their records.

Well I've seen them and around 250 other city fans have seen them and I don't see many on here saying they were so impressed they should be in the team. If that changes, fine, but there's really been no evidence when I've watched them.

Our young players - and I include Fryatt, Stearman and Wesolowski among them - are not being asked to do anything they've not shown they can cope with. Being inconsistent is a tendency with inexperienced footballers and ours are no different but, unfortunately, I cannot think of any experienced alternatives in our squad who are consistent and currently sidelined. And I've already seen enough duff loanees turn up here in recent months.

Right through Kelly's reign to the present day, Fulop's the only loanee I'd lose sleep about us losing.

A month ago I wondered about the left-back slot but, as Manwell pointed out, finding a wing-back alternative who's better than Mattock is not very easy at all, what with Megson focused on playing wing-backs. Especially as Sheehan can act as an attacking understudy and has played wing back lots of times.

Then there's the internal situation. Mattock has already attracted attention from serious clubs but has signed a longish contract with us.

MM rates him highly and I don't doubt for a minute he is well aware of his potential worth.

So do you really think - assuming Mattock maintains his form - that there is any great incentive for City not to play him? And if you accept that, then which brilliant alternative is really going to be lured here to potentially sit on the bench either now or in the near future? Or even to play for a near bottom-of-the-table team?

Good post.

IMHO Mattock should be played as our number 1 wing back, we can all see his potential and the best way to get that out of him, is too give the lad games.

[Babylon]

I think we shouldn't bother playing a left back, i'm sick of hearing about them.

[Flynny]

Didn't see Wolves, but Mattock was the best outfield player against Stoke. Time after time he got poor passes (to him or behind him rather than in front of him) or outright ignored when in tons of space, and he still made an impact.

[Toby or not Toby]

What has really happened is that we've rush signed a whole heap of players and found that they're NOT better than some of the young players you've mentioned.

Day by day you say we should play Kaebi and Ferreira. Not because you've seen them but because of their records.

Well I've seen them and around 250 other city fans have seen them and I don't see many on here saying they were so impressed they should be in the team. If that changes, fine, but there's really been no evidence when I've watched them.

Our young players - and I include Fryatt, Stearman and Wesolowski among them - are not being asked to do anything they've not shown they can cope with. Being inconsistent is a tendency with inexperienced footballers and ours are no different but, unfortunately, I cannot think of any experienced alternatives in our squad who are consistent and currently sidelined. And I've already seen enough duff loanees turn up here in recent months.

Right through Kelly's reign to the present day, Fulop's the only loanee I'd lose sleep about us losing.

A month ago I wondered about the left-back slot but, as Manwell pointed out, finding a wing-back alternative who's better than Mattock is not very easy at all, what with Megson focused on playing wing-backs. Especially as Sheehan can act as an attacking understudy and has played wing back lots of times.

Then there's the internal situation. Mattock has already attracted attention from serious clubs but has signed a longish contract with us.

MM rates him highly and I don't doubt for a minute he is well aware of his potential worth.

So do you really think - assuming Mattock maintains his form - that there is any great incentive for City not to play him? And if you accept that, then which brilliant alternative is really going to be lured here to potentially sit on the bench either now or in the near future? Or even to play for a near bottom-of-the-table team?

Spot on thracian, i do feel that asking Mattock to play 3 competitive games in a week is a bit much for a 17 year old, so i feel that Sheehan is a more than capable wing back should Mattock need to be rested for a game! He isn't getting called up to England under 19's at 17 for nothing!

[Thracian]

I think we shouldn't bother playing a left back, i'm sick of hearing about them.

I don't know why they're getting mentioned either. We've gone three games unbeaten against good opposition and conceded one goal. That's about as good as its likely to get defensively.

Furthermore last time we played Wolves they hammered us at home 4-1 and now they've arguably got an even better side. Yet, not only did we draw but we restricted them chance wise to a few crumbs.

It's not stopping goals that worries me it's scoring some.

[syston_fox]

And I don't know why they're getting mentioned really. We've gone three games unbeaten against good opposition and conceded one goal. That's about as good as its likely to get defensively.

Furthermore last time we played Wolves they hammered us at home 4-1 and now they've arguably got an even better side. Yet, not only did we draw but we restricted them chance wise to a few crumbs.

It's not stopping goals that worries me it's scoring some.

And to be fair that took a pretty hefty deflection on its way in.

I think we're sound defensively to be honest but I do worry that if we pick up an injury or two at the back that we will suffer. As Thrac said the lack of goals is the main concern at this moment in time. We just don't look like creating many chances let alone putting them in the net

[Simon]

Went to see the lad play today for Southend against Tranmere, and thought he was no more than alright, and was subbed half way through the second half. His movement is pretty excellent for a young lad. He had a couple of chances- was through on goal once but the keeper saved, although from a tight angle. He was largely bullied out of some balls by his marker and he needs to learn to deal with this- a petulant kick out went unseen by either the ref or his assistant and could have got him in a great deal of trouble. He played some nice layoffs and interplay with other members of the team, but his first touch often let him down- the ball frequently getting stuck under his feet. This is something he really needs to improve on, because at the moment this area of his game, in my opinion, would prevent him getting anywhere near our side.

[Thracian]

Went to see the lad play today for Southend against Tranmere, and thought he was no more than alright, and was subbed half way through the second half. His movement is pretty excellent for a young lad. He had a couple of chances- was through on goal once but the keeper saved, although from a tight angle. He was largely bullied out of some balls by his marker and he needs to learn to deal with this- a petulant kick out went unseen by either the ref or his assistant and could have got him in a great deal of trouble. He played some nice layoffs and interplay with other members of the team, but his first touch often let him down- the ball frequently getting stuck under his feet. This is something he really needs to improve on, because at the moment this area of his game, in my opinion, would prevent him getting anywhere near our side.

That sounds fair enough and I'd accept your general comments. He's gaining good level experience at Southend, who try to play some proper football.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek about Odhiambo returning anyway. It's just that when I hear how well we do when we pass and move and then hear us make an inexplicable change and struggle I feel it's so negative and frustrating.

If changes are made I like the replacements to be able to maintain our flow.

Megson got away with it but should be under no illusions that had Fulop not made two outstanding saves we'd have been absolutely livid about potentially drawing a game on a day when Wednesday shouldn't have had the sniff of a chance...and all because of the sort of defence-obsessed change that lost us points against QPR.

Our manager did a lot of things right today. But that decision could easily have spoilt everything.

[Webbo]

Megson got away with it but should be under no illusions that had Fulop not made two outstanding saves we'd have been absolutely livid about potentially drawing a game on a day when Wednesday shouldn't have had the sniff of a chance...and all because of the sort of defence-obsessed change that lost us points against QPR.

Our manager did a lot of things right today. But that decision could easily have spoilt everything.

You know Thrac it's just possible that with Sheff Weds being at home and 2 goals down at half time that they tried harder/changed their tactics in the 2nd half.

[Simon]

That sounds fair enough and I'd accept your general comments. He's gaining good level experience at Southend, who try to play some proper football.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek about Odhiambo returning anyway. It's just that when I hear how well we do when we pass and move and then hear us make an inexplicable change and struggle I feel it's so negative and frustrating.

If changes are made I like the replacements to be able to maintain our flow.

Megson got away with it but should be under no illusions that had Fulop not made two outstanding saves we'd have been absolutely livid about potentially drawing a game on a day when Wednesday shouldn't have had the sniff of a chance...and all because of the sort of defence-obsessed change that lost us points against QPR.

Our manager did a lot of things right today. But that decision could easily have spoilt everything.

I guess the best way I can think of describing him right now is like a Matty Fryatt, with a bit more pace, but less heading ability and a worse first touch. He definitely has potential, and my mate, who was biased (being a Tranmere fan) thought he definitely had potential- he did cause Tranmere a few problems when the ball went through or over the top.

When Southend started to hoof it up in the second half (whilst chasing the game) it did look like Eric struggled a little. I guess that's to be expected. They just weren't playing to his strengths.

I didn't go to the Leicester game today Thrac (obviously- I was at Southend! ) but it seems to me that our main issue right now lies not with the strikers, but with the midfield, and Eric is much better off learning his trade with a decent footballing team in Southend, a level where he'll undoubtedly get more chances; a) to get in the team and b) to score goals.

[Thracian]

You know Thrac it's just possible that with Sheff Weds being at home and 2 goals down at half time that they tried harder/changed their tactics in the 2nd half.

I don't doubt that for a minute. And it was easily anticipated. But as Steve Walsh remarked we started sitting too far back and letting them come on to us. I see no way the change would have helped that. And it certainly didn't sound like it did. But if you went and have a different view I'm all ears and would be happy to accept what you say.

[Andy_S]

I totally agree with your summing up of Eric's performance today, Simon.

We can definitely see there is potential there and his movement is decent, but he's just a little lightweight for league football at the moment. If he'd have knocked that chance away early on then that would've helped him massively. We didn't help him today though as to be honest we were pretty terrible. It was a poor performance and Tranmere's game plan of coming for a point and putting men behind the ball worked even better for them then they probably would've hoped. The "professionalism" of kicking the ball away everytime we got a free kick disrupted and angered us as did their time wasting tactics from the off, whilst in Gareth Taylor they have a professional big lump who is there for nuisance value. Christ I hate Ronnie Moore.

Hey ho, on to Crewe at home next Saturday. I'd imagine Eric will be back on the bench for that one.

[Jimmy]

I don't doubt that for a minute. And it was easily anticipated. But as Steve Walsh remarked we started sitting too far back and letting them come on to us. I see no way the change would have helped that. And it certainly didn't sound like it did. But if you went and have a different view I'm all ears and would be happy to accept what you say.

certainly not by bringing Kenton on in midfield, especially when Kishishev was on the bench

[Thracian]

I guess the best way I can think of describing him right now is like a Matty Fryatt, with a bit more pace, but less heading ability and a worse first touch. He definitely has potential, and my mate, who was biased (being a Tranmere fan) thought he definitely had potential- he did cause Tranmere a few problems when the ball went through or over the top.

When Southend started to hoof it up in the second half (whilst chasing the game) it did look like Eric struggled a little. I guess that's to be expected. They just weren't playing to his strengths.

I didn't go to the Leicester game today Thrac (obviously- I was at Southend! ) but it seems to me that our main issue right now lies not with the strikers, but with the midfield, and Eric is much better off learning his trade with a decent footballing team in Southend, a level where he'll undoubtedly get more chances; a) to get in the team and b) to score goals.

I accept and appreciate most of what you say. But with Clemence, King, Wesolowski, plus spares around for midfield I really feel our strikers are the Achilles heel right now.

We are definitely not dangerous or ruthless enough up front. Our goals today came courtesy of defenders - both their creation and the finishing, even though one was an own goal. We didn't threaten much against Charlton and QPR, had one real shot against Villa, scored nil against Wolves. The evidence of underperformance has been compelling.

Newton should have scored today, Fryatt should have passed, Campbell had a good chance and doubtless there were lesser moments. We need to eliminate the words "should have" and replace them with the phrase "scored again".

At the moment our strikers are either making the wrong decisions, missing the target or failing to get into dangerous places often enough for whatever reasons.

Someone mentioned Sheringham and I'll say Larsson. The great thing about both was their constant presence in and around the box, their movement, decision making and accuracy at the kill. Both were masters of being selfish at the right time and selfless at others. Ole Gunnar S was the same at United.

We just don't have anyone with those qualities, or anything like them, at Leicester.

Of our people Gradel's perhaps the best and he's a winger (and out on loan anyway). Sappleton might eventually surprise people, and I'd like to see Hammond again but even if he excelled himself, Gradel apart, we still need at least two quality strikers, one of them genuinely fast.

[Geo V]

I accept and appreciate most of what you say. But with Clemence, King, Wesolowski, plus spares around for midfield I really feel our strikers are the Achilles heel right now.

We are definitely not dangerous or ruthless enough up front. Our goals today came courtesy of defenders - both their creation and the finishing, even though one was an own goal. We didn't threaten much against Charlton and QPR, had one real shot against Villa, scored nil against Wolves. The evidence of underperformance has been compelling.

Newton should have scored today, Fryatt should have passed, Campbell had a good chance and doubtless there were lesser moments. We need to eliminate the words "should have" and replace them with the phrase "scored again".

At the moment our strikers are either making the wrong decisions, missing the target or failing to get into dangerous places often enough for whatever reasons.

Someone mentioned Sheringham and I'll say Larsson. The great thing about both was their constant presence in and around the box, their movement, decision making and accuracy at the kill. Both were masters of being selfish at the right time and selfless at others. Ole Gunnar S was the same at United.

We just don't have anyone with those qualities, or anything like them, at Leicester.

Of our people Gradel's perhaps the best and he's a winger (and out on loan anyway). Sappleton might eventually surprise people, and I'd like to see Hammond again but even if he excelled himself, Gradel apart, we still need at least two quality strikers, one of them genuinely fast.

Strikers are only as good as the midfielders who supply them with the chances and at the moment, our midfield doesn't supply enough.

Its easy enough to have a pop at the strikers but the line-up has changed far too many times for the to settle into a rhythm and we are so woefully short of wide players that we have now gone for wing-backs and neither Mattock or Stearman are that good going forward whereby they worry decent defences.

We haven't the creativity of many of the other clubs and thats why we don't create enough clear-cut chances for the strikers so I think its unfair to suggest that Clem, Weso and King along with two wing-backs are the answer and that with two better strikers than Hume and Fryatt we would do better.

[Thracian]

Strikers are only as good as the midfielders who supply them with the chances and at the moment, our midfield doesn't supply enough.

Its easy enough to have a pop at the strikers but the line-up has changed far too many times for the to settle into a rhythm and we are so woefully short of wide players that we have now gone for wing-backs and neither Mattock or Stearman are that good going forward whereby they worry decent defences.

We haven't the creativity of many of the other clubs and thats why we don't create enough clear-cut chances for the strikers so I think its unfair to suggest that Clem, Weso and King along with two wing-backs are the answer and that with two better strikers than Hume and Fryatt we would do better.

I don't suggest anyone is "the answer". Football is a constantly changing challenge. So far we've played nine League games and three and a half cup matches. Total 12.5 games and our highest scorers Hume, Fryatt and defender Sheehan have scored two goals apiece.

That equates to eight goals each for a 50-odd game season and, in the case of specialist strikers, that's not enough however you try to explain it.

[Geo V]

I don't suggest anyone is "the answer". Football is a constantly changing challenge. So far we've played nine League games and three and a half cup matches. Total 12.5 games and our highest scorers Hume, Fryatt and defender Sheehan have scored two goals apiece.

That equates to eight goals each for a 50-odd game season and, in the case of specialist strikers, that's not enough however you try to explain it.

Mix and match the facts as much as you like but I`ll clarify a couple of important ones.

You don't play half a football match. That game was void so we have played 12 games.

We have already played Hume, Cort, DJ, Fryatt, MDV and Odhiambo up front at some stage this season although the latter only got a couple of mins of action.

We have had two managers who have seen things differently regarding the strikers so how the hell can you question their strike-rates when they haven't had the 12 games each to prove how capable they are?? If you look at the minutes both DK and Fryatt have spent on the pitch this season you`ll find they have decent strike-rates anyway.

[Joe.]

Odihambo Returns