Indy_Bones

It''s almost a carbon copy of the Lee Clark sacking, except Megson has had less money to spend.Really don''t get this sort of thinking at all.

[quote user="star_manic"].....totally agree and i can sympathise with players over this as a career is all too short and they will feel the need to make the most cash they can to support them and their families in a very long retirement[/quote]Sorry but this is just total bs.I''m totally fed up of this ''short career'' nonsense that gets spouted, because when a player retires from professional football, it doesn''t make them any less able to take a ''normal'' job like the rest of us ''normal'' people.They may have developed less workplace related skills than many, but all joking aside, why can''t a footballer take a job in the ''unskilled'' sector of the workplace? Are they suddenly too good to collect bins, work on a checkout or flip burgers? Hell, some of them would probably be great as ''greeters'' in places like B&Q, imagine going to look at a new bathroom and having the likes of Hucks or Dion saying hello at the door and guiding you to the right section!What''s more is that at the age of usual retirement from football, players have the time (and usually money) to be able to retrain in something they might like to do going forwards.I''m just sick of this bizarre assumption that once you leave football, you''re on the scrapheap and good for nothing else than sitting on your arse counting the cash you''ve accumulated over a ''short career''.Never mind sneering at 10k a week, try getting just over 10k a year and then you might be able to bitch...

[quote user="lappinitup"]...has just scored in his debut for Wycombe.[/quote]Aren''t you missing ''with a shocking own goal after manhandling the opposing striker''?Poor defender who was at fault for a number of goals when with us, was so glad to see the back of him and funny how he''s not gone beyond League 1 since we released him - despite those on here claiming he was a Championship quality defender - I guess nobody else thinks so...

[quote user="Gingerpele"]Who else is there? If Andy Carroll, Defoe or Heskey got called up ahead of Holty..... Would be even worse than Fraizer Campbell getting called up ahead of him.[/quote]The first two are the most likely along with possibly Zamora or even Crouch.Let''s face it, we and Holty don''t have the right image for the morons in charge regardless of what he may be able to offer.

Playing Wright-Phillips on the left isn''t exactly the most sensible decision...

Arguably the best value player in our squad for what he offers in comparison to what we paid for his services.Massively underrated, which I suppose is good to prevent offers coming in, but a player that deserves more of the limelight than he normally receives.

It rarely goes to the managers that deserve it based on what they''ve got to work with and the clubs income/expenditure.Winning League 1 was ok, back to back promotions was great, staying in the prem would be fantastic, but a top 10 finish would be an unbeatable run of form for PL.But chances are that the clueless mug that is Mancini will get the award, from having bought the title whilst displaying dubious tactics and laughable man management ability...

Totally bizarre appointment by Wolves, especially after all the bull that Moxey spouted about the focusing on getting a proven ''big name'' manager in.Whilst I appreciate clubs promoting from within, this wasn''t the time or place to do it, and I''m sure that Wolves fans will be cursing at the lack of ambition by the Wolves board...

There''s often too much romanticism towards football outside of the modern era, and whilst the players at the time were great at the time, watch the football they played nowadays and tell me you genuinely think it''s better.Take for example the Hungary side of the early 50''s, masters of a 31 game unbeaten run until losing the Germany in the ''54 world cup, a side that demonlished an excellent England team 6-3, and were very much the 50''s version of what Spain are now, here''s the highlights from the game against England:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HDNHXpzXUShocking defending throughout, no closing down with the Hungarian players left to their own devices most of the time, and at times it looked a bit shambolic.That''s the criticial response to the football played back then, in no way should that demean the quality of the players for their time, nor their acheivements and the way that they helped football develop, but the ''old'' game just can''t be compared to the modern game, just as the game in the 50''s can''t be compared to that of the 20''s and 30''s.There''s a lot of aspects I''m sure we''d all like to see back in the game, such as respect towards refs, tackles being allowed to be more than breathing near someone and players not being paid the GNP of Cuba every week in wages, but all this aside, the football on the pitch is arguably some of the best it''s ever been.That being said, the period towards the end of the 80''s and into the early 90''s saw some fantastic football, with the departure of the previous legends like Zico and Platini, ushering in the best of the new generation of Baggio, Van Basten, Maradona and Laudrup. It also saw our best overall period as a club in my mind, with the Milk Cup in 85, some great league finishes following this, and the 3rd place finish in the Prem in 92/93 where we really should have won the league.Ideally what I''d like is an amalgamation of the football ''experience'' throughout the decades, so that we maintain the quality of play on the pitch, but combine it with fairness and lack of corruption, sensible wages and a change that allows the average working man to watch their team again - be this terracing, price changes or something else.Take all the external crap away from modern football, and it''s hard to argue with the talents on display, but what makes it less attractive and therefore ''less'' than it used to be is the insidious external forces that have changed the face of football, which makes preferring things ''how they used to be'' seem a much more attractive and understandable stance by comparison...

I''ve put my overall thoughts on the squad selection in the latest article on my recently started blog (after a long hiatus from writing), so if anyone fancies a read:http://www.indybonestruth.blogspot.com/CheersIndy.

Not 5 right backs in my mind Delta - 2 definites in Walker and Johnson, I''d suggest Richards is more RB than CB but can play and cover both if required, Cole and Baines are clear LB''s, but Jones, Smalling and Cahill are all primarily centre halves - despite Jones getting put in midfield a bit and Smalling getting put at RB a lot recently (mainly because they don''t have a strong and fit RB). It''s a bit like saying Vermaelen is an LB even though he''s clearly as CB and has only been stuck there because of injuries - it''s the same principle with Smalling.So 2.5 RB''s, 2 LB''s and 3.5 CB''s, out of which I''d like to see the following as first choice going forwards:Walker, Smalling, Jones, BainesThat is until we get a better LB to replace Baines as the other option besides Cole...

[quote user="Mason 47"]Not a great squad by England standards. That said, England standards are probably a lot higher than our standing in world football is in reality.Ruddy should be in there. He is the second-best performing English keeper this season and there''s no better time to get him in and around the system.[/quote]Some of the squad is pretty good, I''m personally quite pleased with the selections at the back, it''s the other areas I''m disappointed with.Players like Rooney and Gerrard are always going to be picked regardless of form etc, it''s the choices such as Downing, Campbell and Carson that annoy me, especially when we have perfectly good players who''ve been excellent all season who don''t even get a look in.Carson in particular has failed to live up to his potential outside of 1 good season in the prem, is now playing in a pretty poor league over in Turkey and still somehow gets the nod over Ruddy who''s played extremely well all season.You watch, in another 5 years we''ll be moaning all over again as yet more good players are totally ignored because they don''t play for ''fashionable'' or ''big name'' clubs, whilst we trot out a 42 year old Beckham instead...

It really seems like the more things change, the more they stay the same...When will whoever''s in charge of England start thinking outside the box and instead of picking the same old shower - especially those players who are badly off form, and actually select a side that''s not made up of 90% of the players from clubs in the top 6 regardless of their form and ability?Carson and Green get nods over John Ruddy despite his excellent form for us all season and them both playing in lower quality leagues.Fraizer Campbell gets selected over Grant Holt, despite Holt''s great form, having no other striker even like him available, and him having scored more goals this season than Bent, Welbeck and Campbell. Even Sturridge has only scored the same despite being in a better side and it''s only Rooney that has done more.Downing again makes the cut despite being shit all season for Liverpool and spending half his time on the bench because he''s been shit.Gerrard is a shadow of his former self following endless injuries over the last year, and Barry gets in even though Parker is a country mile better and there''s other options in that role much better than Barry who''s just a very average player.Sorry Psycho, but despite liking your choices in defence, there''s some silly selections and omissions here, when you could have used this opportunity to give the incoming manager something to genuinely think about instead of simply putting some tracing paper under the team sheet we''ve used for the last 5 years...

As I''ve said before chaps, it''s not about a trip to Wembley, or excitement, or the romance of the cup - for the people in charge, it''s simply about money. It''s disappointing that football has gone this way, but there''s little we can do about it, as boycotting cup games just means that clubs take it even less seriously, and even then many managers aren''t willing to take the gamble of players getting injured in what''s seen as a faltering prestige. We''re not alone in taking this approach, hell I remember Man Utd being crucified many years ago for putting a third string team out in the cup because they were focusing on the league and world club cup! Until football changes as a whole, where rules and regulations are put into place to make things fairer, and to stop certain teams building up huge debts or using private finance from owners to spend £100 million on a player, then this will always detract from things like the cup. When league peformance and survival dictates the potential financial future of clubs, it will always override those areas that don''t have this impact, and with more and more clubs having finance problems and looking at administration, the worse it will be for those that suddenly lose the huge premiership money.We dropped out of the premiership the first time around just when the money was coming in and spent the next 10 years suffering for it, we then came back up and missed the chance again, which then took us another 8 years to get our current shot at the big money, and very soon I can see the same few teams yo-yo-ing between the prem and championship because they''re the only ones with the parachute money or premiership money that will allow them to compete, and we simply cannot afford to fall by the wayside here, as this time it may not be another 8-10 years for another chance, it may be not at all, and this is what''s motivating the people in charge, not Wembley runs and ''Giant Killing'' cup games...

Easy to say we''re safe when there''s no pressure on us as individuals isn''t it?Even if the possibility of everything going pear shaped is extremely small at this point, do you honestly think the PL and the rest of the management team can afford to relax right now with the stakes being so phenomenally high? They simply took the safest option in order to guarantee safety, as it just isn''t worth the potential risk - again, no matter how small it may be.All we potentially need is a couple of bad injuries to some key players and suddenly it''s a very different ball game, where one loss can lead to another and before you know it we''re in a dogfight.I genuinely don''t think this is likely to be the case, and I''m sure PL doesn''t either, but he simply can''t afford to gamble even slightly here.I also think that frankly the cup competitions are becoming shadows of their former selves, particularly to premier league sides, and it appears that the FA cup may soon join the league cup and UEFA cup (sorry Europa League...) as being seen as ''tinpot'' trophies not worth competing for...These days it''s all about the Premiership and Champions League, sad as it may be, but that''s how it''s going, and when premiership survival is worth 10 times more financially than the FA cup, you can somewhat understand the logic from the business brains that control football.It''s not about tradition or romance but about money, plain and simple, and whilst we all might like a Wembley final, it pales in comparions to staying and performing in the Prem, something which is paramount to the club - especially in the current economic climate.

On a playing front I''ve honestly never been good enough for more than the usual Sunday League football, I do however have coaching qualifications and have made a huge effort over the years to understand the game better and read up on all different aspects of the game, coaches and other areas.I''ve also coached a couple of Sunday league teams which frankly were full of very poor players who were more interested in the Sat night pi$$ up than they were playing on the Sunday, but even then they didn''t like losing one bit, but the difference there was that they didn''t want to listen about mistakes and how to improve, they didn''t give a stuff about being coached and frankly it just wasn''t important to them. Now that was frustrating.What you learn from being battered is the weaknesses in your game, which your manager/coach should then advise on and give coaching to improve individual problems, whilst adjusting their own thinking if need be around tactics and playstyle. As I say, you learn from the best not the worst and if you want to improve you look at the finest players in the game, analyse what they do and try to implement it yourself - be this as a player or a coach.The only real thing you gain from playing very poor opposition is the knowledge of how poor they are. You can still use the game to identify areas of improvement for your players, but without that challenge and lack of adversity they may also be unwilling to listen. Imagine telling a young striker who''s just stuck 5 or 6 past a crap side that he needs to work on his movement and finishing...The good players who want to improve will listen and take onboard your advice, the rest will however look at you gone out, wonder if you''re crazy and potentially lose confidence in either you or themselves...it''s a fine line to tread at times.We do really need to learn from the European leagues however, especially as you say - the Dutch and Spanish.

[quote user="Orford65"]Why is the game against the mighty MU considered so important and the FA cup-tie considered less so?[/quote]Many reasons, but here''s a few:1) League points are at stake, and even a single point against Man Utd is another point closer to safety2) Morale - A win would be a huge boost for our players, particularly with a relatively rough run-in, and again, even a point would do far more for our team spirit and general morale would, than getting a win against a Championship side in a cup game.3) Putting a weak team out against Man Utd sends a very negative message to the other clubs in the league, and when you consider that Blackburn have managed to take 3 points off them, it shows that a good performance on the day can get the points, whereas putting dross out removes that chance.4) Man Utd have a EL fixture in midweek, and even if they rest a few first team players, they''re still likely to field a strong team meaning potential injuries ahead of our game and also a couple of ''big'' players being rested against us, which again gives us a better chance to take the points if we play our best XI5) Any performance like the one against Leicester is going to upset paying fans, but it''s one thing to assign lower importance to a game, but another thing entirely to run scared of the big boys and deliberately play a weak team against them.I could go on but I''m sure you get the point. The cup holds romance and a potential trip to Wembley, the league holds our future and potential success as a club going forwards, and I''m also sure that getting a good result against Man Utd will do more for the team than beating Leicester would have...

[quote user="CDMullins"]You say there is no point giving them easy matches, likewise there is no point giving them hard matches.These games are pointless unless they are competitiveAlso, ''its not about the winning or losing'' losing is no fun. Football is hard to enjoy getting beat every week, its even worse for footballers.[/quote]What an absolute crock...Firstly we can''t dicate the side our opponents put out, and if the likes of Arsenal are going to be putting top class players out, then even our first team would have a tough match on their hands, but to use your viewpoint we''d be playing half the first XI in the reserves just so it''s ''competitive'' against the stronger clubs...Sticking with Arsenal, funny how Wenger puts pretty much his ''kids'' side out to play in the league cup, do you really believe he thinks this is a bad move considering the likely standard of the opposition? Of course not should be the sensible answer, as he''s giving them much needed game time against good opposition. You learn virtually nothing by battering the hell out of people every week, it''s only the games against good opposition that have true value (outside of maintaining fitness) - even if this means you''re on the losing side more often than not. You learn from the best, not the worst...On a final note, whether or not losing is ''fun'', it''s an integral part of the learning process and it''s this focus on constantly winning that''s often held our footballers back at grass roots level, as why would you try to beat a man or play an intricate pass when you could lose possession and cost the game and have the manager on your back because you lost? Instead what you then have is a bunch of young players who are getting the innovation and invention knocked out of them by grass roots managers who only care about winning. This is also why a large percentage of the young players produced here in the last 20 years have either failed miserably at the top level, or have simply been players with great stamina who do the basic things well - ask them to take a man on or play a great through ball and they''re struggling...Compare this instead to Spain, where young players are encouraged to play the ball, to have fun and not concentrate too much on the result, and not only are they the current World and Euro champs, but their U21 and U17 sides also play the same way and with the same mantra, which is why they''re flying high in the modern game and we''re still harping on about 1966...

In regards to younger players, it''s not about winning or losing, but giving them playing time where they can practice the training they''ve had and learn from the experience of playing games against decent opposition.There''s no point simply giving them incessant easy matches where they always dominate, only for them to get a first team chance against quality opposition and crack under the pressure.I fully agree with PL''s stance on giving our youth players match time in the reserves, whereas due to their size, Arsenal need to use it to keep their overall squad fit, which is why they had so many quality players in there.

Sorry if I''m belabouring this, or it looks like something aimed at you YC (I''m also a YC in Rotherham), but since when does leaving 2 players out consitute a ''far weaker side''?Neither Ruddy nor Naughton played against either Burnley or WBA, Whitbread, Ayala and Tierney are all injured, so realistically we played the best we had available at centre half and left back, with Martin hardly being a poor player at RB and having played there against both WBA and Burnley.In midfield, Surman didn''t play against WBA, and the exact same midfield 4 we played against WBA also played against Leicester - the difference being that we played 5 in midfield against WBA with Crofts the additional midfielder, whereas we used a midfield 4 with an additional striker against Leicester.Holt was subbed off in both WBA and Burnley games, of which Jackson played against Burnley and again we had the 5 man midfield against WBA.In reality the majority of the team that played against both WBA and Burnley, also played against Leicester, with the major change being Morison for Holt and the defensive changes at CB that we had no choice about.So arguably a single player change (considering Surman also didn''t play against WBA) in the form of Holt, and suddenly the side goes from being ''Strong'' against WBA and Burnley, to ''Significantly Weaker'' against Leicester!I know Holt is good, but this is getting ridiculous. If Lambert is going to be faulted for his team selection against Leicester, then the same people complaining, should also criticise the choices against WBA and Burnley, where the likes of Ruddy, Naughton and Surman either didn''t play at all, or only played against one of them. Even Holt was subbed off in both previous games and we subsequently scored after he left the pitch on both occasions! Apparently it''s fine for PL to leave players like Ruddy and Naughton out against our previous opponents, but he does it against Leicester and there''s an outcry.I''ll say this for the final time - Grant Holt is not solely responsible for us winning or losing, nor is the choice to leave Surman out, and to suggest that not selecting these two players makes are team ridiculously weak in comparison is simply ludicrous...

Safety is something you can''t guarantee until the maths says otherwise.So many fans cling to this mystical ''40 points'' to be safe, despite the fact that on a number of occasions it''s gone above this, and also the fact that even if this did guarantee safety, there''s also no guarantee that we''ll get 5+ points from our remaining games.Logic and form may suggest completely differently, and it''s certainly much more on the side of caution and pessimissm to assume we may struggle, but when you consider the risk relegation poses, then it''s something that has to be taken more seriously than simply claiming we''re safe and making a potentially disastrous assumption.In regards to being an ''established'' premiership team, I see that as being a team that''s not stuck in a relegation dogfight, with a squad capable of coping with injuries to ''big'' players whilst still allowing rotation and chance of a cup run. At the minute I don''t see us as being there. League wise we''re in a great position and so far have avoided the problems at the bottom of the league, but if we got a number of injuries such as those that have beset Arsenal this season, we don''t have the quality of players to cover our options. Some already seem to think that Holt is irreplaceable and pivotal to any success, so just imagine if we had 3-4 players like Holt get bad injuries leaving our ''squad'' players like Lappin and Wilbraham to perform - not quite so simple now is it?Until PL can strengthen the squad in the summer, it''s potentially risky to embark on an advanced cup run, and PL clearly sees it this way and has acted accordingly. I''m just amazed at the fuss this has caused. 2 seasons ago we were desperate to just get out of League 1, and now apparently being secure in the Prem isn''t enough - we want the FA cup as well! Seriously, we need to walk before we jump...

[quote user="CDMullins"]Our side with Surman (who as started all our premier league games lately) and Holt would have been stronger, thus giving us more chance of winning. [/quote]Oh FFS, when is this stupidity going to end?Since when did the omission of 2 players mean our side goes from great to shit?Yes, I don''t deny that it would have been a stronger side with both those players, but not to the level that so many on here are claiming - almost like we''ve dropped Xavi and Messi!As I said initially, Surman didn''t play against WBA and Holty got subbed in both games and we scored after he came off, and we played perfectly well despite this, so why does them not playing against Leicester cause this massive over-reaction?Forget whether or not Surman, Holt or whoever else was or wasn''t playing, it purely came down to the people that were playing, were not giving 100%, whilst using tactics that Leicester were familiar with and played well against.Now can we stop all this nonsense about Holt being God, and players like Surman being undroppable?

[quote user="Ernie"]When Leicester saw our team sheet how much more motivation do you think they needed?  With no Ruddy, Holt, Surman or Naughton[/quote]Two of whom also didn''t play against either Burnley or WBA - namely Ruddy and Naughton. Surman didn''t play against WBA and Holty got subbed off in both games with 20-25 mins left to play, and in both those games we scored after Holt had been subbed off...I didn''t see anyone criticising the team selections before, but apparently in your opinion, leaving Holt and Surman out of a single game makes our team shit?Seriously - WTF are you talking about???

Chops,I personally am not saying we should give up hope of a cup run, but simply that league survival and performance will always take priority for me, and when winning the cup is ''only'' worth a couple of million, compared to the 30-40 million that being in the league offers, only a fool would prioritise that over financial security.We simply don''t have an overall squad strong enough to cope if our ''big'' players get injured in the cup and our league form suffers. If Man Utd lose Rooney, they''ve got Berbatov or Welbeck or Hernandez or Owen etc who can come in and play at the same sort of level. If we lose the likes of Holt, then with all respect to Wilbraham etc, they aren''t the same quality and we can''t easily replace players we lose.Now, give us another season or two in the Prem, and we should have a stronger squad overall, and one that can cope with the additional games whilst giving cover if needed from injury.As for the ''logic'' you suggest, I''d argue that in reality there wasn''t much difference in quality between all 3 of the teams we put out against Burnley, WBA and Leicester, with the biggest difference being the loss of Ayala and Whitbread in defence - something PL can do nothing about as they''re injured. Rudd played against Burnley - he''s also injured, in both games Holt was taken off with 20-25 mins left to play and we played Moro instead of Crofts against Leicester. The rest of the players were pretty much involved in the other games.The difference was the formation and the desire, and Leicester played well against the diamond and our players didn''t have the same level of passion as they did in the previous games.I say again that we DID NOT field a weak side against Leicester, simply that the players didn''t perform.

[quote user="crabbycanary"]The Cup Final/relegation package that we saw in 1985, would not have happened here this season, I would have put my mortgage on it, before Saturday.[/quote]The point again is that this is just speculation.Whether you put 10p, £250, or your mortgage on it happening, it doesn''t change the fact that until we are GUARANTEED safe, we can''t take anything for granted, even if the odds, history or anything else suggests we may be able to, and if resting a few players for a cup game helps this process then I fully support the decision.If we were already guaranteed safe mathematically (or at least on say 50 points), then fair enough I''d understand the complaints totally, but the league MUST come first, particularly with the way finances are in football.I also have to agree with Harry here, in that I don''t think PL put a bad team out, they just underperformed horribly on the day, and if those players aren''t good enough, why have over half of them played regularly for the first XI in the league and helped get us into 8th??? Simply a bad day at the office, in a game that wasn''t a priority.