Lee Croft...

[Canary Boy 0]

It seems strange to me the Nigel Worthington has been saying for a while now that Lee Croft probably won''t feature at all against Leeds Utd as he is way behind in the fitness stakes and needs to do some catching up to become match fit, yet surprisingly he plays an un-fit Croft from the start and Croft is the one who gave away a penalty.

Now I realise that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but surely it would have been better to let Croft sit and watch how the game pans out, see how the teams plays etc and then maybe, if necessary, bring on Lee Croft with say, 15 mis to go.

McVeigh playing from the start would have been my choice. I''m not saying the penalty wouldn''t have happened, as that could happen to a match fit Lee Croft...it just seemed strange.

Anyone agree?

[Dame to Blame 96]

[quote user="Canary Boy"]

It seems strange to me the Nigel Worthington has been saying for a while now that Lee Croft probably won''t feature at all against Leeds Utd as he is way behind in the fitness stakes and needs to do some catching up to become match fit, yet surprisingly he plays an un-fit Croft from the start and Croft is the one who gave away a penalty.

Now I realise that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but surely it would have been better to let Croft sit and watch how the game pans out, see how the teams plays etc and then maybe, if necessary, bring on Lee Croft with say, 15 mis to go.

McVeigh playing from the start would have been my choice. I''m not saying the penalty wouldn''t have happened, as that could happen to a match fit Lee Croft...it just seemed strange.

Anyone agree?

[/quote]Worthy really can''t win can he ,if he had of left him out people would have moaned about not playing him, i say yes he should have played.

[Yellow Rages 0]

Canary Boy,

He didn''t say he wouldn''t feature because he is way behind in his fitness.

Please read the article you talk about again.

When you''ve done come back and talk about this with all of the information. Stop waisting poeples time.

[Canary Boy 0]

Hi Barclayboy, all I am saying is that Worthington said himself that he probably would not play Croft as he is un-fit. So he plays Croft and gives away a penalty.

Worthy probably should have stuck to his own counsel rather than do the opposite, then it wouldn''t have happened.

Like I say, hindsight is a wonderful thing...it just seems ironic!

[Rasputin was a C... 0]

I would''t say its overly strange. Between the time when the manager made the comments about Croft not starting and 3pm Saturday something obviously made him change his mind about starting him. Also its very rare for a manager to actually say what he means, especially ours who seems to only speak in cliches.

[Canary Boy 0]

[quote user="Yellow Rages"]

Canary Boy,

He didn''t say he wouldn''t feature because he is way behind in his fitness.

Please read the article you talk about again.

When you''ve done come back and talk about this with all of the information. Stop waisting poeples time.

[/quote]

Listen up Yellow Rages, Worthington said that because Manchester City are in the Premiership, he''s started a bit later so he''s behind as far as the work''s concerned. He''s come in this morning, he''s joined in very well, he''s looked well but we''ll need to keep getting a little bit of work into him to get him pumped up to our levels and that will take a period of weeks to do that. We''ll monitor the situation and what''s right for him. The last thing we would want to do is bring him in, unleash him and he gets injured through being pushed too hard, so we''ll manage him carefully.

Why don''t you stop waisting my time and make a meaningful comment rather than blurting out the first thing that hits your keyboard?

[Northern Canary 0]

We played better with Croft and took him off when he got tired. This is how to get him match fit surely.

[Yellow Rages 0]

You have even quoted what he said and it doesn''t say anywherethat he is unfit or that he wont play him.

 

Thanks for doing that for me. You saved me the trouble of showing you up.

[DONT REMEMBER YOUR TENURE AS ENGLAND MANAGER 0]

[quote user="Canary Boy"][quote user="Yellow Rages"]

Canary Boy,

He didn''t say he wouldn''t feature because he is way behind in his fitness.

Please read the article you talk about again.

When you''ve done come back and talk about this with all of the information. Stop waisting poeples time.

[/quote]

Listen up Yellow Rages, Worthington said that because Manchester City are in the Premiership, he''s started a bit later so he''s behind as far as the work''s concerned. He''s come in this morning, he''s joined in very well, he''s looked well but we''ll need to keep getting a little bit of work into him to get him pumped up to our levels and that will take a period of weeks to do that. We''ll monitor the situation and what''s right for him. The last thing we would want to do is bring him in, unleash him and he gets injured through being pushed too hard, so we''ll manage him carefully.

Why don''t you stop waisting my time and make a meaningful comment rather than blurting out the first thing that hits your keyboard?

[/quote]

Dude, I know we lost yesterday, but chill Winston.

[Chip20 69]

I can understand him playing Croft from the start. Before the game I was thinking it would be best to start him and then take him off when he''s tired rather than waiting until 15mins from the end before seeing what he can do. I wanted to see the strongest 11 start the game and give them the best chance of making a decent start to build on, rather than fielding un under-strength starting 11 and giving the boo-boys ammunition to get to the team early

Had he chosen not to start with Croft and we ended up being 3-0 down before bringing him on then we''d all be wondering why he didn''t play him from the start and replace him with fresh legs later on.

As you say; hindsight is a powerful thing. Who knows how it would have panned out the other way?

[12th man 0]

You are 100% correct Canary Boy.

Wothington always plays new signings (a) before they are fit (which he admitted himself) and (b) before there has been any chance of assimulating them into a practiced team formation.

I would bet that he has not even seen Croft play a complete first class match before signing him.

It is so unprofessional .......so no change there!

   

 

 

[xxxx 0]

I think you show yourself up very well yellow rages and dont need any help from others.

[Yellow Rages 0]

Not by the evidence of this post.

I''m still waiting to see this quote where Croft is unfit and they he wouldn''t play.

[Canary Boy 0]

Yellow Rages, let''s put this one to bed.

Worthy never actually said the words you are looking for, but he strongly indicated that Croft was way behind everyone elses in the fitness stakes, therefore, if a player is weeks behind, would you play him in the starting eleven a few days later?

Now, it just so happens that Croft did play and he did well, it''s just that most probably wouldn''t have played him straight away but rather, given him a bit of time to watch how we play and maybe just give him a run in the first team for 20 mins or so each match until he is fully fit.

Croft then gave away a penalty, and as I said earlier, this was a little bit ironic considering that it appeared from the outset that Worthy said he wasn''t ready yet.

Case closed.

[Mook 0]

No, I disagree Canary Boy. Croft may be behind in fitness but he is way in front of Hendo, McVeigh and Leon McKenzie in terms of balancing the team on the right. It wasn''t his fitness that made him perform a dumb tackle in the area!

I would imagine that Worthy''s main worry would not be injury, but that Croft would fade before half-time. But, after he was assessed in training, I believe that Hunter and Worthy would have decided he was worth more to us even just for a half than bringing him on for 10-15 mins at the end.

I believe their decision was fully justified - it''s no coincedence that our play fell to pieces with the mystifying substitution of Leon for Croft.

[Canary Boy 0]

Thanks for your support on that one 12th man and Notworthy.

I''m glad you could see where I was coming from.

[wan hanoi 0]

very much agree with canary boy.i read exactly what you said and that is what worthington said on sky and in the papers. yellow rages has a habit for defending worthy-is he the man himself?

[Yellow Rages 0]

I have a habit of telling it how it is. But making up and exagrating comments from the club doesn''t wash with me.

I would do exactly the same if a pro Worthy poster made up what someone said as well.

I''m here for the truth and an accurate debate. Lies and misread articles dissapoint me a great deal. I can''t live in your fantasy world just because it suits your cause. That goes for both ends of the spectrum.

[Canary Boy 0]

[quote user="Yellow Rages"]

I have a habit of telling it how it is. But making up and exagrating comments from the club doesn''t wash with me.

I would do exactly the same if a pro Worthy poster made up what someone said as well.

I''m here for the truth and an accurate debate. Lies and misread articles dissapoint me a great deal. I can''t live in your fantasy world just because it suits your cause. That goes for both ends of the spectrum.

[/quote]

"I have a habit of telling it how it is"....Yellow Rages is Nigel Worthington!

[Yellow Rages 0]

Not that old chestnut you pull out of your hole everytime your not agreed with again.

 

Some new material please. And quickly, your loosing the audience.