Bert Posted 22 March 2008 Posted 22 March 2008 Needs an ankle op. But he wants to keep on playing until the summer.
AyewJoking Posted 22 March 2008 Posted 22 March 2008 wants to put himself in the shop window more like
Matt Posted 22 March 2008 Posted 22 March 2008 I heard Wolves are planning a bid for him Seriously?! Woohoo...Any money for him would repay them for taking the piss when selling Akinbiyi to us! Bastards! That is quite harsh on Clemence tbh, he's not that bad, but certainly not captain material and god knows how he got fans player of the year and players player of the year last year in a promotion winning team.
C-man Posted 22 March 2008 Posted 22 March 2008 No. I was expecting that. I would have moved Hendrie over to the left in the second half, took off Fryatt and got Clemence in the middle. Just think he would have given us a bit of extra muscle in the middle to protect us from their infinitely stronger and quicker midfield. Failing that, put Barry Hayles at centre midfield, for bare jokes, and big tackles.
davieG Posted 22 March 2008 Posted 22 March 2008 No. Well every other player was missed when the ball was supposedly passed to them!
Asha Posted 22 March 2008 Posted 22 March 2008 Hendrie and Oakley were both shit. Clemence isn't a million times worse.
Uncle Albert Posted 22 March 2008 Posted 22 March 2008 Personally i dont think Clemence would of changed anything today. Oakley didnt have the best of games but i at this moment i would prefer him to be playing than Clem who hasnt produced for a while now.
Jimmy Posted 22 March 2008 Posted 22 March 2008 I was expecting that. I would have moved Hendrie over to the left in the second half, took off Fryatt and got Clemence in the middle. Just think he would have given us a bit of extra muscle in the middle to protect us from their infinitely stronger and quicker midfield. Failing that, put Barry Hayles at centre midfield, for bare jokes, and big tackles. muscle? he bottle's it, if you wanted to put Hendrie on the left then Weso should of come on
Father Ted Posted 22 March 2008 Posted 22 March 2008 Personally i dont think Clemence would of changed anything today. Oakley didnt have the best of games but i at this moment i would prefer him to be playing than Clem who hasnt produced for a while now. Clemence could only have made it even worse. We wouldn't have even been able to string 2 passes together with him!
SamL Posted 22 March 2008 Posted 22 March 2008 Clemence could only have made it even worse. We wouldn't have even been able to string 2 passes together with him! It really couldn't have got any worse.
C-man Posted 22 March 2008 Posted 22 March 2008 muscle? he bottle's it, if you wanted to put Hendrie on the left then Weso should of come on Clemence has been the one midfielder this year that puts his foot in every single game he's played in. I haven't seen Wesolowski, despite Football manager saying hes a DM, and a good one at that, put in a hard challenge all season, and I haven't missed many games.
Flynny Posted 23 March 2008 Posted 23 March 2008 I can't decide whether Clem would have slowed the game down like we needed, or would have got closed down too quickly dithering on the ball. I suspect he would have exacerbated our problems, really. He's as guilty as anyone for only ever looking for a killer ball and losing possession. I think he's our 3rd choice CM now.
Jimmy Posted 23 March 2008 Posted 23 March 2008 Clemence has been the one midfielder this year that puts his foot in every single game he's played in. I haven't seen Wesolowski, despite Football manager saying hes a DM, and a good one at that, put in a hard challenge all season, and I haven't missed many games. I never said he was a DM I simply said he should come on a head of Clemence
renards Posted 23 March 2008 Posted 23 March 2008 clem.. welcome to the football graveyard how do we ruin so many players??
Father Ted Posted 23 March 2008 Posted 23 March 2008 Clemence has been the one midfielder this year that puts his foot in every single game he's played in. I haven't seen Wesolowski, despite Football manager saying hes a DM, and a good one at that, put in a hard challenge all season, and I haven't missed many games. Bullsh*t. And were you not watching Weso at the beginning of the season when he was probably our best player?
Father Ted Posted 23 March 2008 Posted 23 March 2008 I can't decide whether Clem would have slowed the game down like we needed, or would have got closed down too quickly dithering on the ball.I suspect he would have exacerbated our problems, really. He's as guilty as anyone for only ever looking for a killer ball and losing possession. I think he's our 3rd choice CM now. Clem would have slowed the game down but then would have got caught in possesion and then Hull would have gone on to score. And as for looking for the killer ball and losing possesion, its the simple 5 yard bloody passes that he loses possesion with and he never supplies the killer ball apart from possibly twice in one match from free-kicks
Thracian Posted 23 March 2008 Posted 23 March 2008 Hendrie and Oakley were both shit. Clemence isn't a million times worse. Apart from Stearman when he got the chance there was no movement around them and no obvious passing options. With basically one up front in a 4-5-1 they could only pass sideways or backwards most of the time and what was the point of passing backwards if all that would lead to was another aimless hoof? People talk about needing experience in a crisis but I'm not in the least impressed. The only player performing consistently well in our relegation battle is youngster Stearman. Even minutes from the end with the game lost he was sprinting forward with all he had to get in their box. Yes he made mistakes but he was forever there to be counted, forever trying to make something happen. Alongside him I'd love to know how many McAuley passes actually found a City shirt. Or what Fryatt contributed at all?
Jimmy Posted 23 March 2008 Posted 23 March 2008 Apart from Stearman when he got the chance there was no movement around them and no obvious passing options. With basically one up front in a 4-5-1 they could only pass sideways or backwards most of the time and what was the point of passing backwards if all that would lead to was another aimless hoof? People talk about needing experience in a crisis but I'm not in the least impressed. The only player performing consistently well in our relegation battle is youngster Stearman. Even minutes from the end with the game lost he was sprinting forward with all he had to get in their box. Yes he made mistakes but he was forever there to be counted, forever trying to make something happen. Alongside him I'd love to know how many McAuley passes actually found a City shirt. Or what Fryatt contributed at all? 1st half both Fryatt and Hayles were playing well and creating half chances
Thracian Posted 23 March 2008 Posted 23 March 2008 1st half both Fryatt and Hayles were playing well and creating half chances Hayles started well enough but his influence waned and what of significance did Fryatt do. The bloke's a striker. He should be in and around the box having snap shots and feeding final passes. I'm struggling to remember a single save their goalkeeper had to make. Far too often we bounced the ball off Howard's head - always the danger when using a target man - and no-one seemed to have the faintest idea where any flick-ons were likely to go. Serious question. How many shots did Fryatt have and how many of his passes resulted in a shot on goal? I might ask the same about Hayles too.
Father Ted Posted 23 March 2008 Posted 23 March 2008 1st half both Fryatt and Hayles were playing well and creating half chances Fryatt was poor and should have been subbed rather than Bruno.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.