Reserves win 3-0

[Fez of Mahrez]

Feztershire la la la

Feztershire la la la

[The People's Hero]

What a constant inspiration you are. Are you the same with your own cricket team-mates? Cos you wouldn't last five minutes in a dressing room of mine.

How the fu ck did I get in there in the first place?

Did you drug me?

[weggy1976]

Really enjoyable game tonight. We played some really nice football against a pretty decent side.

LB: Maybury 7 - Played well considering he's Alan Maybury. Overlapped on numerous occasions and swung some nice crosses in. Considering our troubles on the left side, let me just warn you, i wouldn't be suprised if Megson turned to him soon.

This worries me. If GM is another manager to make a mistake on Maybury then we are history. At least Wortho and Allen realised the dangers of playing a Sunday league footballer.

[The People's Hero]

Rather Maybury than Alan sodding Sheehan.

[teblin]

Rather Maybury than Alan sodding Sheehan.

I think at time maybury looked alright.

Just did stupid things. Thoug Stearman is still doing them and still gets a look in.

[Thracian]

Rather Maybury than Alan sodding Sheehan.

Don't be ridiculous. He's been tried there stacks of times - the last time at Stoke as I recall. Go take a look at the video. Haven't we had enough of playing people out of position.

Maybury had a decent game last night. And he played okay on the wing against Wolves reserves too. And again in a similar role at Hinckley.

But that's hardly a recommendation for recall to the first team any more than Sappleton's goals says he should get a starting spot.

When don't you come and watch these people before making such sweeping comments?

Ferreira's another been touted by all and sundry yet it was abundantly clear last night - even before he went off with a hamstring pull - that he's well short of the fitness needed for first team football.

I despair at times.

[The People's Hero]

When don't you come and watch these people before making such sweeping comments?

I watched Sheehan at Charlton. That was enough for me.

He's out of his depth and you know it.

And I genuinely would prefer to see Maybury at left back to Sheehan. I might not pick him there, but he'd be higher on the list than Alan fu cking Sheehan would be.

Prat.

[Flynny]

I quite like Alan Sheehan at LM. Beats Porter.

Left-back is another question altogether.

[The People's Hero]

I quite like Alan Sheehan at LM. Beats Porter.

Left-back is another question altogether.

It's a bit like the question of how you'd like to die?

Burn of freeze to death?

[Flynny]

Coke fuelled orgy not an option then?

(I mean diet coke. Stay in school, kids!)

[The People's Hero]

Coke fuelled orgy not an option then?

(I mean diet coke. Stay in school, kids!)

You mean a hybrid of Levi Porter and Steve Walsh in the same room as fellow centre back's wife?

[Thracian]

I watched Sheehan at Charlton. That was enough for me.

He's out of his depth and you know it.

And I genuinely would prefer to see Maybury at left back to Sheehan. I might not pick him there, but he'd be higher on the list than Alan fu cking Sheehan would be.

Prat.

Sheehan's scored more goals in less than two months as a first teamer than Maybury in his entire career here and has made fewer costly errors too if you compare their last 12 games.

But even Maybury's form is a condemnation of our club because he's a half-decent player who has become more and more frustrated to the point where he was a bloody embarrassment at Cambridge.

Yet, put him in a Beaglehole/Stowell side and he looks keen, interested and effective again. As does Sheehan and Fryatt and most anyone else I can think of.

I wasn't pleased about our lack of attacking ambition at Plymouth under Beaglehole/Stowell but even then we competed by all accounts and showed some pride in ourelves. Which is more than we seemed to do at Charlton.

[The People's Hero]

Sheehan's scored more goals in less than two months as a first teamer than Maybury in his entire career here and has made fewer costly errors too if you compare their last 12 games.

But even Maybury's form is a condemnation of our club because he's a half-decent player who has become more and more frustrated to the point where he was a bloody embarrassment at Cambridge.

Yet, put him in a Beaglehole/Stowell side and he looks keen, interested and effective again. As does Sheehan and Fryatt and most anyone else I can think of.

I wasn't pleased about our lack of attacking ambition at Plymouth under Beaglehole/Stowell but even then we competed by all accounts and showed some pride in ourelves. Which is more than we seemed to do at Charlton.

I don't care who scores more goals. Sheehan can't defend which is the first priority for a defender.

You're becoming a complete joke, morphing the 'criteria' for any one position depending on who you want to play there.

Seeing as the criteria in your eyes are being a sh it player who occasionally scores a goal or two, why do you not advocate playing sodding Elvis Hammond at left back?

Prat.

[Manwell Pablo]

Sheehan's scored more goals in less than two months as a first teamer than Maybury in his entire career here and has made fewer costly errors too if you compare their last 12 games.

But even Maybury's form is a condemnation of our club because he's a half-decent player who has become more and more frustrated to the point where he was a bloody embarrassment at Cambridge.

Yet, put him in a Beaglehole/Stowell side and he looks keen, interested and effective again. As does Sheehan and Fryatt and most anyone else I can think of.

It's nothing to do with the managers! It's because they're playing reseve teams instead of first teams, when will you relise that!

I wasn't pleased about our lack of attacking ambition at Plymouth under Beaglehole/Stowell but even then we competed by all accounts and showed some pride in ourelves. Which is more than we seemed to do at Charlton.

[Thracian]

And how the hell would you know that seeing we haen't attacked with any conviction at City for years apart from isolated cup games that have become part of our folklore and one-off like Sheffield United at home under Levein.

We beat Spurs by having a go, should have beaten Fulham had we not lost our nerve and murdered Sheffield United at home under Levein. Precisely what was wrong with our approach on those occasions?

Or even against Villa when we lost last season?

The League match apart the other matches were cup games. And the big difference was lack of fear.

[Manwell Pablo]

And how the hell would you know that seeing we haen't attacked with any conviction at City for years apart from isolated cup games that have become part of our folklore and one-off like Sheffield United at home under Levein.

We beat Spurs by having a go, should have beaten Fulham had we not lost our nerve and murdered Sheffield United at home under Levein. Precisely what was wrong with our approach on those occasions?

Or even against Villa when we lost last season?

The League match apart the other matches were cup games. And the big difference was lack of fear.

Four one off results, spread over a three year time period! We don't even have anything resembling the same team that beat Spurs or Sheffield UTD you may as well go back to rambling about the 70's as talk about those games.

And the apparent Approach was no different in either game, solid 4-4-2 each time, it just so happened on those paticular days, beacuse we were playing a good side and maybe the pressure was off a little, they were scared, or in Sheffield United and Spurs's case, just didn't turn up full stop. You can't expect things to work for us everyweek.

Do you think we're the only side in England that achieves the occasional good result so therefore this means we have a brilliant team?

[samlcfc1]

sounds alot better than the game i went to! (reserves v forest)

[Thracian]

Four one off results, spread over a three year time period! We don't even have anything resembling the same team that beat Spurs or Sheffield UTD you may as well go back to rambling about the 70's as talk about those games.

And the apparent Approach was no different in either game, solid 4-4-2 each time, it just so happened on those paticular days, beacuse we were playing a good side and maybe the pressure was off a little, they were scared, or in Sheffield United and Spurs's case, just didn't turn up full stop. You can't expect things to work for us everyweek.

Do you think we're the only side in England that achieves the occasional good result so therefore this means we have a brilliant team?

But we still went back after those results to the same tired and unsuccessful formulae. Can you not see that - and the folly of it.

We had the basis of an effective team when we beat Watford and drew with Plymouth but as soon as we are forced to make changes we have to get complicated and, instead of playing like for like we either move people out of position, change the system to something which people are not practised in or change the balance.

The Wesolowski situation was so typical.

Much as I like him at right back Chambers is no central midfield player. There were two sensible choices for that role. Kishishev or King depending on the emphasis required. Perhaps MM will know on Thursday why we played Chambers there.

Apart from when he looked tired at Forest, N'Gotty's been very effective in defence. Why leave him out? People like Kishishev and N'Gotty are exactly the sort of experienced players whom when getting regular games, can help young players blend into a team successfully.

And if the guy tires that is the time to use the shadow full-back Chambers. It's not difficult. Same as you could start with Kishishev in central midfield and introduce King when the old fella's legs start feeling it.

But four changes I think, a system change, people out of their natural position, others wandering away from their selected position and all that against a good side.... little wonder the recipe went wrong.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Four one off results, spread over a three year time period! We don't even have anything resembling the same team that beat Spurs or Sheffield UTD you may as well go back to rambling about the 70's as talk about those games.

And the apparent Approach was no different in either game, solid 4-4-2 each time, it just so happened on those paticular days, beacuse we were playing a good side and maybe the pressure was off a little, they were scared, or in Sheffield United and Spurs's case, just didn't turn up full stop. You can't expect things to work for us everyweek.

Do you think we're the only side in England that achieves the occasional good result so therefore this means we have a brilliant team?

Halle-****ing-lujah.

[Manwell Pablo]

But we still went back after those results to the same tired and unsuccessful formulae. Can you not see that - and the folly of it.

We had the basis of an effective team when we beat Watford and drew with Plymouth but as soon as we are forced to make changes we have to get complicated and, instead of playing like for like we either move people out of position, change the system to something which people are not practised in or change the balance.

The Wesolowski situation was so typical.

Much as I like him at right back Chambers is no central midfield player. There were two sensible choices for that role. Kishishev or King depending on the emphasis required. Perhaps MM will know on Thursday why we played Chambers there.

Apart from when he looked tired at Forest, N'Gotty's been very effective in defence. Why leave him out? People like Kishishev and N'Gotty are exactly the sort of experienced players whom when getting regular games, can help young players blend into a team successfully.

And if the guy tires that is the time to use the shadow full-back Chambers. It's not difficult. Same as you could start with Kishishev in central midfield and introduce King when the old fella's legs start feeling it.

But four changes I think, a system change, people out of their natural position, others wandering away from their selected position and all that against a good side.... little wonder the recipe went wrong.

You've moved on to something completley different now but I agree. Chambers shouldn't be playing cm.

[Thracian]

I don't care who scores more goals. Sheehan can't defend which is the first priority for a defender.

You're becoming a complete joke, morphing the 'criteria' for any one position depending on who you want to play there.

Seeing as the criteria in your eyes are being a sh it player who occasionally scores a goal or two, why do you not advocate playing sodding Elvis Hammond at left back?

Prat.

City's defensive record when Sheehan has played is better than average. All our defenders have faults, quite serious ones at times, and Sheehan'sare that he fails to close down tight enough and gets beaten too easily on his right side.

That doesn't make him a bad defender. I could list parallel faults for Mattock, Kisnorbo and Mcauley but just like you've consistently shown with Fryatt, you'll choose to ignore them.

I see you've brought another of your favourite whipping boys into the conversation again - a player who would have served us a damned sight better than others we've already used to no better effect this season than they or others had last campaign.

As for being a prat. You'd know best about things like that.

[Thracian]

Kaebi was immense last night, I fail to see how he hasn't featured more for the first team. You could see at times that the opposition were scared when he either got the ball or was on the prowl for it. He can time a tackle exceptionally well, it's just that he prefers to tackle further up the pitch than most right backs do. If the club are worried that he'll leave the team too exposed at right back, then don't play him at right back. Play him at right wing, or if they don't fancy him there then play him behind the strikers where's he's played for his previous club.

We need some creativity in the team, it's getting desperate.

I've heard that Ferreira's injury isn't serious and they took him off as a precaution. He looked quality in patches last night, but he is lacking in fitness and that will be a reason why he's not featured in the first team yet.

I was very impressed with King and Sappleton last night, both looked fearless and let's hope they continue to push on.

Fifteen goals in five matches so far too.

[The People's Hero]

City's defensive record when Sheehan has played is better than average. All our defenders have faults, quite serious ones at times, and Sheehan'sare that he fails to close down tight enough and gets beaten too easily on his right side.

That doesn't make him a bad defender. I could list parallel faults for Mattock, Kisnorbo and Mcauley but just like you've consistently shown with Fryatt, you'll choose to ignore them.

I see you've brought another of your favourite whipping boys into the conversation again - a player who would have served us a damned sight better than others we've already used to no better effect this season than they or others had last campaign.

As for being a prat. You'd know best about things like that.

No, I don't.

I saw the game against Charlton.

Based on that... Sheehan is dog sh it and McAuley and Kisnorbo hardly covered themselves in glory.

I'd say 2 out of the 3 must be dropped.

Personally, I might drop all 3, given the job of picking the team.

[Fez of Mahrez]

No, I don't.

I saw the game against Charlton.

Based on that... Sheehan is dog sh it and McAuley and Kisnorbo hardly covered themselves in glory.

I'd say 2 out of the 3 must be dropped.

Personally, I might drop all 3, given the job of picking the team.

Yep.

And Fryatt was very poor too.

[Bert]

All Sheehan is good for is taking free kicks and being complacent.