Joe Mattock

[Thracian]

I still feel that Mattock is not quite showing all he's got as a footballer in the first team.

Okay, I still have no idea how anyone could make a case for Mattock over Sheehan given what has happened so far this season and the 18/20 goals or potential goals Sheehan has been involved in compared to precious little in that way from Mattock.

But focusing simply on Mattock I think he had as sound a game as you could wish yesterday. He neutralised a player who was expected to be quite dangerous and played his part not only in a clean sheet but in a game where the opposition hardly had more than five worthwhile attacks.

He just lacks the seniority and resulting confidence to show all that he can do.

However, that was still our ninth Championship clean sheet of the season and our 11th overall in what has been a miserable campaign.

We only managed 11 clean sheets through the whole of last season so it is a complete myth that either Mattock, Sheehan, Stearman or any of our other regulars can't defend.

The three mentioned are all different footballers with their own strengths and weaknesses. And quite why people say we're so desperate for another left-back to make three I don't know.

Nils was defensively adequate but he wasn't as good as Mattock or Sheehan and the record of clean sheets seems to clearly show that. Yet we weren't always calling for a replacement left back when Nils was here.

In fact when you look at the teams we've had clean sheets against the evidence looks even more compelling ...Villa, Plymouth, Wolves, Bristol City, Cardiff, Ipswich etc.

Furthermore the pressure on our full-backs ought to reduce considerably with the new set-up. For a start we'll have the ball more instead of constantly giving it away in the back third, inviting unnecessary presssure and inhibiting the side in its ability to get forsward and defend high.

There was evidence of this yesterday. Cos I cannot remember a single period of sustained Coventry pressure on anyone.

[Koke]

Thrac, you say he lacks seniority and resulting confidence, but surely that comes with age and development! Lets not forget this lad is 17 years old. Born in 1990.

[Thracian]

Thrac, you say he lacks seniority and resulting confidence, but surely that comes with age and development! Lets not forget this lad is 17 years old. Born in 1990.

Like I say, both Mattock and Sheehan are already arguably better full-backs in their individual way than Nils was. That doesn't mean they're not still learning and developing.

But neither player is in the least bit inexperienced generally. They are just relatively inexperienced in the Championship and the sooner they clock up the necessary flying hours the better.

And why not now? By any normal expectations we're not going to get promoted this season and I'm damned sure the team we had out yesterday is not going to get relegated. Does that situation not provide the perfect opportunity for still young players like Weso, King, Mattock and Sheehan to get match time?

Right from the start this season I said Sheehan and Mattock should be developed in tandem. King and Weso should be the same. Then, by next season, Holloway would know their full capabilities and they may be a lot nearer the level of experience they need to have a more pivotal impact.

I think the difference between you and I is that I have no fears concerning young players but, for you, I don't know that there would ever be a right time to use them.

People like King, or Porter or Weso wouldn't have struggled in yesterday's side. They'd have benefitted like everyone else from the width used, the retaining of possession the movement and the collective support they would have got.

Those things weren't just missing for Clemence in our previous teams.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Does Nils still play for us or something? What's he got to do with anything?

If we can improve our team, we should.

[Thracian]

Does Nils still play for us or something? What's he got to do with anything?

If we can improve our team, we should.

I'd never argue with that. Where we'd perhaps differ is in what constitutes "improvement".

[Fez of Mahrez]

I'd never argue with that. Where we'd perhaps differ is in what constitutes "improvement".

I doubt that. I'm just not in love with Mattock and Sheehan enough to block out their significant failings so far this season. On the basis of the home debuts yesterday I would trust Holloway to bring in someone better who will maintain our solid defensive record and provide more of a quick and effective threat going forward from open play too.

[Thracian]

I doubt that. I'm just not in love with Mattock and Sheehan enough to block out their significant failings so far this season. On the basis of the home debuts yesterday I would trust Holloway to bring in someone better who will maintain our solid defensive record and provide more of a quick and effective threat going forward from open play too.

I think I've acknowledged the faults of both Mattock and Sheehan on various occasions.

However, some posters are so keen to effect change that they ignore the faults of potential replacements.

Nils was a good example. He offered virtually nothing going forward - and our goals tally for the seasons he was here, plainly suffered, in part because of it. Yet few wanted him replaced by Mattock or Sheehan and I honestly believe the reason for that was twofold:

a) Some are nervous of playing young and inexperienced players anyway. Indeed I doubt they ever get picked because they would never have the chance to get any experience and

b) Because they don't realise the attacking importance of full-backs, considering the role to be basically defensive.

If we get a genuinely capable attacking left-back who's better/more effective than Sheehan or Mattock why would I complain but it won't be that easy getting one?

And I don't want some fierce-tackling stopper who does sod-all else.

[George]

i Cant believe your saying this , he had Mifsud in his back pocket all game haha