Zippers Left Foot

Was he seen in ASDA with Carl Cort?

I agree he has been overlooked a little, and feel this is a legacy of him swapping roles at the end of last season. With Worthy likely to stick to a 4-4-2 and,in my view, very unlikely to play Hux wide left in the Prem (Hux is a potent striker - he would be wasted being asked to do a defensive wide left role) this leaves us with 2 players who can play the left midfield role. I think WLY will play a key role but not a many games as last year. I think we will see quite a bit of swapping between Brennan and WLY depending on the opposition, strength of their right wing and whether we are winning or losing the game. Brennan is far more defensively minded although can go forward well, however he is pretty one diminsional. Mcveigh has learnt to work hard defensively but its not a natural thing for him - however he is 10 times the player going forward and was the only midfielder we saw last year to offer any sort of passing ability or creative flair/vision - particularly when picking up Hux movement - that was an effective pairing. I dont see this as an area to strengthen - we have two reliable players competing for one spot - and suspect most people feel the same - hence little or no discussion about it - the same could be said about Drury for exactly the same reason. OTBC

I see Worthy feels that one of the three new players he needs is a 3rd keeper in case both Greeno and Gallacher gets injured. To me this seems an odd option. The player is very unlikely to get a game, although may appear on the subs bench a couple of times. I accept that if Greeno, god forbid, gets an injury in Sept that keeps him out for the season then we cant buy or loan another until Jan. However if this was an issue wouldnt keeping The Admiral one his cheaper wages beena sensible option than looking for someone who would expect more because they are now joining a premier club? I would rather the cash is spent on 3 outfield players - what is everyone elses view? OTBC

I''m in - predictable Hux, Francis and Greeno from City - gone for a more balanced approach than all the cash up front - first mistake I expect!

The bloke has talent (bizzarely played out of position at Liverpool) but doesn''t currently fit in with the gaps in our team. He is a striker but quite similiar to Hux and Leon - if we are to get another striker I would want someone who can hold the ball up - that isnt his strength. OTBC

Anyone but everton (1985 relegation - Coventry 4 Everton 0 still sticks in my throat!) or Manure (arrogant manager who has underperformed as much as Houllier over the last two years). I wouldnt mind Bolton - smallish club, charismatic manager, some superb players (JJ) with a great team spirit - as an alternative to Charlton. OTBC

No problem DDiM - we will just have to agree to disagree; I just have the comfort of knowing Iam right :-) !! Mind you humble pie appears to be my speciality this week - more than happy to eat again if he signs and proves to be a star come April! OTBC

I agree with the view that we need a wide right player (an unproven 19 year old loanee and a 19 year old striker looking out of position in Div 1 aint good enough) and another central defender is needed - we still have no pace in the middle. However while we have a lot of central midfielders they are all of the same type - ie hard working gut busting ball winners. I have long held the view that a partnership of Leon & Hux with a passing midfielder (Mullers may be able to do this but isnt consistent enough in Div 1) would create havoc with most premiership defences - a modern day Ian Crook would be awesome. A creative midfielder gives us more options to turn games around and unlock some of the more stubborn premier defences. With support from Jarvis/Bentley/Svensson/Abbey I do think we have a variety of attacking options that means, given a limited budget, we would be better buying a creative central midfielder rather than a further striker. Which is my priority? Central defence (Primus), then wide right (Helveg?), then creative play maker (?Parlour/Joe Cole/ideas - cant think of many!). In my Roman Ambramovich world I woul obviously want all three AND Johannsen and still keep the club financially secure! OTBC

Lucky with injuries is an understatement! Where would we have been had we not had our only serious injury of the season? Had Abbey not been injured we would have persevered with Abbey/Roberts/McVeigh strike force that we had seen for the two previous seasons making for a miserable season instead of the dreamland that we have all suffered since the arrival of Hux et al! How fairly fate has shined on us this season! OTB(Lucky)C

A1 - excellent idea for a Iwan send off at CR against Preston - more of the faithful to recognise his contribution than at Gresty Road and hopefully promotion will have been sealed by then so there should be an excellent carnival atmosphere.

Yes times have changed James but at that stage inthe season we did only look mid table fodder. As the original poster noted we were going nowhere until we strengthened our squad - this post was just after the Forest defeat, we had 7 pts from 15 and had lost again in the worthington cup, Abbey was injured and neilsen was on his way back to denmark. And we were conceeding goals far too quickly to sustain any type of promotion push. Just after this we signed Harper, Crouch and Hux and we all know what has happened since then! Oh - we didnt sign a defender? I agreed with this post at the time as Malkay was looking very ropey but as I posted in late Oct/Nov Hux turned out to be the best defensive signing the club has ever made - his pace meant that our midfield no longer sat 5 yards from our own 18 yard box and that the opponents were less likely to attack in numbers as they tried to nullify Huxs'' threat - only Chambers has really had any success.. Our goals per game conceeded is the best for years - and it all ties in to the big three signings. Finally I would like to thank Neilsen for following his wife home, and give a very big thank you to Colin and the blades for injuring Abbey - without those (for Zema in particular) disasterous events I am sure we would have had a far less enjoyable few months! E I E I E I O...

I agree with most of your comments however Connolly was never going to be a city player. Citys accepted bid for him was £450k, more than what he went to the ''appy ''ammers for. He had consistently turned down non-London clubs - including Reading - as he did not want to move house or commute to train. It is frustrating that many suitable target men have been missed - two of the prospects left on the shelf are Ashton of Crewe and Beckett of Stockport but City need an experienced target man now and that will cost us hard cash in wages if not transfer fee. The goals become secondary to the style of play NW adopts which means a front man who can hold up the ball and releive the pressure form the central defenders, who are looking the shakiest they have for years. A target man who can consistently hold up the ball, has some pace and bring the midfield into play would also make us muchmore threatening away from home. Having lost Russell, Kents, Izzy, Steeno, Heckingbottam & Neilsen this summer & only brought in three players we must have some wages spare to sign a decent front man, and thats before the sponsor money is added. As we could sign 2 players before Neilsen went we must be able to push the boat out on one target man without upsetting the financial balance of the club? The likes of Dublin would be perfect even on loan - and there must be someone else like him but of lesser ability who could also do us a holding job? What is worse is that this season the division seems mediocre at best and the addition of a target man should move us from play off hopefuls to promotion candidates. So come on Nige & the board, surprise me - the next 7 days are crucial. OTBC

The club are suffering from a PR disaster. We have made realistic bids for SOME (but not all) players but they have chosen for other reasons to go to other clubs. I know first hand that we offerred £425k for Connolly which was accepted by the Dons - however the player simply wanted to stay in London having spent most of his career moving around Europe - a logistical issue that Worthy or the board could do nothing about (likewise with Hulse) Before I knew what the offer was I assumed that we simply missed out by offering less than the £285k the hammers got him for and damned the club for lack of ambition... What I cant understand is why werent the fans told this?? People in football would have known what we offered anyway - this sort of thing usually comes out - so why not do some positive PR with your own fans to DEMONSTRATE that the board are trying to get the right players but it sometimes simply does not come off. On the otherside of the coin it seems that NW did fancy Taylor - a big target man that the team desperately needs, not another shorty - yet we never followed up an interest once he suffered a short term injury pre season and he is now playing for another club. We must be able to match Forest for financial clout? There is an apparent inconsistency in the clubs actions but is the way the media is being handled making them appear less ambitious than they really are? And why do they seem to be treating the city faithful with such contempt? OTBC

I agree that a target man is the prime object for the club and someone should be found quickly. As an earlier poster noted this year the 1st division is full of average teams making it an open year. As such we need to take advantage whilst we can & they need to be found now. The addition of a target man who can hold the ball up, have a little pace and last a full 90 minutes all season is a key facet of the Worthy game plan - it is almost irrelevant whether they get the 20 goals a season that Worthy also craves as the hold up of the ball creates space for our defence and enables the midfield to get forward - and when the do as we have seen they can score. It is that outlet that will win us games - not a predator who can not help ease pressure when Malky feels the need to hoof it again. Some one like (& I am not recommending him) like Ipoua who will put themselves about is perfect for our needs right now.

The only trouble with this forum is I cant see who Yellas note is responding too - if its me then sorry, I''m afraid not - Barclay season ticket & standing proud and loud. However if there is an ongoing issue that could affect the club then I am sure we can find a way around the laws to keep everyone, police, fans, club etc happy. My point was that there is a real issue here, not an imagined one, that can affect the club where it hurts - ie in the pocket and so eventually on the pitch - and none of us want that. Y''Army

You are right there is a law. To highlight this Charlton have started an appeal through the courts against their local council who have decided to reduce ticket sales to Manyoo fans by 600 as they (manU) refused to sit down last season. This has no impact on Manyoo but hits a medium size club in the pocket as a result of the behaviour of an opposing teams fans. City cannot afford to have any part of the ground closed on this basis - it would affect the atmosphere and hit the club in the pocket. However there are ways an means of ensuring that the crowd comply and this should start with better communication between the club/police/fans over what is and is not acceptable when it comes to standing, rather than an unexpected enforcement which inevitably brings about a heated dispute. OTBC

Do anyone else have concerns over the choice of subs one the bench last night? During the game both Edworthy & Fleming was received some treatment. My concern is that there is NO defensive cover on the bench to cover an injury or sending off. Playing out of position Easton/Rivers/Holt/Francis seems to be an unnecessary risk to take in a close game. I am all for an attacking approach on the bench; unless Crichton is now multi-skilled... OTBC

For last nights game Holt & Francis played well and really dominated the centre of the park. It gave the rest of the team the platform to play the ball on the ground and dictate the game. Where our opponents play a high pressure game on turn the centre of the park into a battle field on last nights form I would stick with these two. However where the opponents are not highly combatative in the middle of the park I would start with Mullers & Francis on the basis that Francis can do the three lungs Holt job and both give us a better attacking options. If we go to 3-5-2 then all three can play but I think that we will stick to the 4-4-2; the defensive/tackling committment of both Easton & Rivers were on clear display again last night! Mulryne as a replacement for Rivers would have meant a full formation change so is not a move I would have made either - Hendo was the right choice IF Rivers needed to come off; he just had one of his poorest appearances yet with less committment to tackle than even Rivers.

I agree that the substitutions were again strange. Rivers was having a solid game and did give the side balance - I wonder if the couple of challenges that he (and Easton) pulled out of (which were 60/40 in his favour) led Worthy to take him off for a lack of effort? He did not appear injured and the team lost momentum with his removal. So we lose an opportunity to get a rare hat-trick. McVeigh was excellent, instrumental in all three goals and causing them problems all over the park, we lost more attacking thrust with his removal. Not the fault of Elvis - he was given v little time/ball to make an impression. Roberts off earlier to give him more time to recover before Saturdays game the tactical change needed. City till I die.

Your summary is correct - a game dominated by City but for some odd reason all sense of composure departed the dominant team once the clock hit 80 mins. The feedback is nearly all positive - with all of the starting line up warranting at least 7/10. McVeigh, Holt & Francis dominated the show and the team moved the ball around well. Roberts led the line expertly against an inexperienced dons defence and brought the rest of the team into the game. The defence was comfortably in control. The downsides were that Roberts should have been taken off after 60ish mins - he had done an excellent job and the match was won. He can no longer last a full game and Worthy should have conserved his energy for the Forest game once we were three up. His influence vanished after an hour. Some of the distribution from the back could have been better - c''est la vie with Malky and Henderson was very ineffective when he came on. Most worrying was the last 10 minutes when instead of getting stuck in as we had been all game we suddenly started back off players running at goal and being indecisive - this led to both goals and straight after their first goal Wimbledon somehow squandered their best chance of the game - over looked as immediately afterwards their player was sent off. That would have led to a very nervy last 7-8 minutes. Their goals WERE stoppable had we put a challenge in earlier rather than standing off. However anything other than a City win would have been a travesty as for 80 mins there was only ever one team on the pitch and the length of this note devoted to the downsides is out of all proportions to the actual performance - I just want to to get better thats all - I am not being negative! Roll on the old bogey game - away at forest - mind you it looks like this might be the best time to play them as their form is not aas strong as last years... OTBC