gutted to see shax on bench???

[lucky green trainers 0]

have to say i''m gutted for poor shax to be left out again.  pearce had a mare on sat, and looked short of standard required. last time i saw shax play was hull - he gave a top performance, covering the left side manfully and confidently, where plastic and gibbs were all at sea.  it can''t do a player who''s on top of his from any good to be left out for an young loanee  who is erratic in his form.  NO - 1 down already.........

[Vern 0]

I agree with you LGT as I usually do. Young Pearce is not excactly the next John Terry is he. I would think Coppell has said we have to use him or lose him which is not fair on Shackell.

[ca 1]

I feel sorry for Shacks too and am worried about how many of our players with contracts are going to be pissed off by losing their place to a loaness when they''ve done nothing wrong.

[Buncey 1]

Considering Shax was able to hold his own, a long time ago when he was just a kid, in the premiership, means he has the quality and the correct attiributes. I personally think there''s a lot more to come from the lad and has got what it takes. I''m dissapointed that Pearce was playing last night because Coppell specifically said he has no future at norwich and nobody could tell me that Shax isn''t up to the job any less than Pearce.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Fellas"]Considering Shax was able to hold his own, a long time ago when he was just a kid, in the premiership, means he has the quality and the correct attiributes. I personally think there''s a lot more to come from the lad and has got what it takes. I''m dissapointed that Pearce was playing last night because Coppell specifically said he has no future at norwich and nobody could tell me that Shax isn''t up to the job any less than Pearce.[/quote]yep - i''m sorry roeder, but i''m not convinced last nights starting 11 was our best line-up, nearly but not quite

[O.T.B.C 0]

I didn''t manage to get to either of the last 2 games, so I can not comment on him for those. But the game he played against Barnsley, I thought he was very good and a lot did too. He looked like a player who had been playing for a few years.

Where did Coppell say that? Was that when he signed? Just didn''t see it.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="canaries in Bed"]

I didn''t manage to get to either of the last 2 games, so I can not comment on him for those. But the game he played against Barnsley, I thought he was very good and a lot did too. He looked like a player who had been playing for a few years.

Where did Coppell say that? Was that when he signed? Just didn''t see it.

[/quote]fair enough beds - but he had a stinker versus blackpool and was given the runaround.  so why wasn''t shax returned to the first team starting line-up on that basis??? especially as ellington missed 3 good chances early on.  the game could''ve been over by half-time.  great to see our luck hold, and a storming 2nd half.  don''t know bout coppells statement, betta ask fella''s - but if i remember, coppell said something about it when they first came here.

[I beat Atalanta 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]yep - i''m sorry roeder, but i''m not convinced last nights starting 11 was our best line-up, nearly but not quite[/quote]And how do you expect Roeder to know "out best line up" until he''s seen the ''not best line ups''. Eh?As for the worst CB we''ve given a shirt to for many a year Jason ''where does a CB stand'' Shackell..... he is appalling. His poor sense of position and when to commit have dropped poor old Doc in it again and again. He turned last night to encourage ''the line'' to push out and only then realised it was HIM trailing by 5 yards..... as he always is.Pearce I grant you is not the most domineering CB, but he''s young and has great positional sense allowing Doc to do the dirty work. I thought they looked pretty good against a very crude (but as usual effective) Watford team last night. Shackell gets 10/10 for bravery and good intentions, but like Easton, McVeigh, Notman, Henderson (saw him play today....ha ha) et al....all for some reason darlings of the children in the Barclay, he is not good enough.......

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="I beat Atalanta"][quote user="lucky green trainers"]yep - i''m sorry roeder, but i''m not convinced last nights starting 11 was our best line-up, nearly but not quite[/quote]And how do you expect Roeder to know "out best line up" until he''s seen the ''not best line ups''. Eh?As for the worst CB we''ve given a shirt to for many a year Jason ''where does a CB stand'' Shackell..... he is appalling. His poor sense of position and when to commit have dropped poor old Doc in it again and again. He turned last night to encourage ''the line'' to push out and only then realised it was HIM trailing by 5 yards..... as he always is.Pearce I grant you is not the most domineering CB, but he''s young and has great positional sense allowing Doc to do the dirty work. I thought they looked pretty good against a very crude (but as usual effective) Watford team last night. Shackell gets 10/10 for bravery and good intentions, but like Easton, McVeigh, Notman, Henderson (saw him play today....ha ha) et al....all for some reason darlings of the children in the Barclay, he is not good enough.......[/quote]i think you''ll find the doc often leaves gaps at the back which shacks has to cover - something grant alluded to in his time here.  also, i didn''t have the benefit of seeing pearce play last night - but i can assure you on sat his positional play was rank - he was undone 4 times by blackpool - allowing more one on ones in a match than i''ve seen for a long time.  also both their goals coming from his side -  it was a case of a knife through butter.  i''m not saying shax is the best, but during our unbeaten run he''s been part of a defence that has been stingey and has looked the part - possibly playing his best football for city.  benching him served no purpose imo - except than to allow pearce to play under the terms of his loan agreement.  so yeah - we got to within 4 points of the play-offs- and lets all be grateful that roeder tinkered with the side with young boys to see what his best side was - lol - cos our season has gone up in smoke - but naturally i assume you''re well happy with that - as a NCFC supporter.  

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]
i think you''ll find the doc often leaves gaps at the back which shacks has to cover - something grant alluded to in his time here. [/quote]

Well I seriously don''t remember Grant alluding to anything of the sort. What I do rememeber is Shackell, Dublin and Murray all coming out and saying how Doherty covered for them at a time when the boo boys were in full force in the ground.

As for yesterdays line up. A shrewd friend of mine suggested we could play with Doherty, Pearce and Shackell for this game. I would have gone with it using Otsemebor and Camara as wing backs with Fotheringham, Pattison and  Bertrand making a very solid midfield and Dublin, Evans up front. We could have used Croft and Cureton as impact subs in the second half as we tried to win the game.

But Roeders team did the job and we got a well deserved point. Don''t believe in things like "our luck held out" because in my experience luck doesn''t play that much of a part in a football match.

 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]i think you''ll find the doc often leaves gaps at the back which shacks has to cover - something grant alluded to in his time here. [/quote]

Well I seriously don''t remember Grant alluding to anything of the sort. What I do rememeber is Shackell, Dublin and Murray all coming out and saying how Doherty covered for them at a time when the boo boys were in full force in the ground.

As for yesterdays line up. A shrewd friend of mine suggested we could play with Doherty, Pearce and Shackell for this game. I would have gone with it using Otsemebor and Camara as wing backs with Fotheringham, Pattison and  Bertrand making a very solid midfield and Dublin, Evans up front. We could have used Croft and Cureton as impact subs in the second half as we tried to win the game.

But Roeders team did the job and we got a well deserved point. Don''t believe in things like "our luck held out" because in my experience luck doesn''t play that much of a part in a football match.

 

[/quote]seriously nutty - the grant quote is there.  likewise, i don''t remember shax coming out in support of the doc in that way.  i still contend its the doc that needs covering not shax - in fact if you look at the leicester highlights you''ll see shax is mostly the only defender who is still trying to get back and get close enough to make a challenge for some of their goals (where was the doc)  - he was trotting back???as for your shrewd friend, i''m struggling to think of another champs side who plays that was, please correct me if i''m wrong.  and why would we want to play such a system for the first time this season, and away to watford??? sounds like the action of a novice, rather than a shrewdy to me (or maybe sven or mclaren???)  if its merely to accomodate pearce in the line-up to satisfy the terms of his loan - then i would disagree.  i pleased as much as the next city fan that we gained a valuable point - due to a well earned second half display. and also pleased that shax came off the bench - helping that revival.i was also pleased that we enjoyed ''good fortune'' becuase master ellington left his shooting boots back at wigan - and missed 3 good chances early doors.  on that basis dear ole nutty - i feel able to say, ''it was lucky we were only 1 goal down at half time - and that roeder was able to get into the boys at half-time with his hairdryer - propelling them to give a convincing 2nd half performance and gain a well-deserved point.  agreed no luck there, just hard work, good play and great skill from curo. oh and from croft, who is at last discovering he can deliver.  onwards and upwards!!!

[nutty nigel 7,528]

I didn''t say the Grant quote wasn''t there, just that I didn''t remember it.

The reason the guy suggested that team to me was because it was Watford we were playing and if you think about it it did make some sense. As it happens Roeders team selection was proved correct unless you thought we could have done better than 1-1. Do you think Sven or Mclaren are novices? That really sums you up for me! Sven knows jack about football!! You couldn''t make it up!!!!

What are the terms of these loans? You keep mentioning it on here but like Grants Doherty quote, I haven''t seen them.

Sorry, but you are getting to be like Wiz LGT. You cannot judge a players performance on goal highlights. It''s ridiculous in the extreme.

On Tuesday night we defended as well in both halves. The blemish was Dion losing his man for their goal but these things happen. If you judge a player on goal highlights I guess thats him done for then! You think Roeder gave them the haidrier at half-time after standing up bravely to Watfords onslaught in the first half? I seriously doubt it! Did Ellington miss three good chances or were they saved and blocked. Good defending and indeed good goalkeeping are not often so obvious on goal highlights. Would you expect us to go to Watford and them not make chances?

 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I didn''t say the Grant quote wasn''t there, just that I didn''t remember it.

The reason the guy suggested that team to me was because it was Watford we were playing and if you think about it it did make some sense. As it happens Roeders team selection was proved correct unless you thought we could have done better than 1-1. Do you think Sven or Mclaren are novices? That really sums you up for me! Sven knows jack about football!! You couldn''t make it up!!!!

What are the terms of these loans? You keep mentioning it on here but like Grants Doherty quote, I haven''t seen them.

Sorry, but you are getting to be like Wiz LGT. You cannot judge a players performance on goal highlights. It''s ridiculous in the extreme.

On Tuesday night we defended as well in both halves. The blemish was Dion losing his man for their goal but these things happen. If you judge a player on goal highlights I guess thats him done for then! You think Roeder gave them the haidrier at half-time after standing up bravely to Watfords onslaught in the first half? I seriously doubt it! Did Ellington miss three good chances or were they saved and blocked. Good defending and indeed good goalkeeping are not often so obvious on goal highlights. Would you expect us to go to Watford and them not make chances?

 

[/quote]afternoon nutty.  sorry - playing 2 wing backs in the champs is unheard of these days, but as a point of discussion over a pint it probably makes alot of sense, but in reality i can''t imagine roeder considering it for 1 second.   my comments about sven and mclaren stem from the overuse of playing systems that confused our brave ''golden generation'' english boys  seeing them consistently underperform in all the major tournaments.  i doubt if many england fans will disagree there.  btw - how does sven line-up man.city these days???  as for your personal comments saying that about sums up, and comparing me to wiz - they are unwelcome and unfair.  i''ve always tried to be respectful to you nutty and would ask the same in return.  indeed, maybe its because you have reviewed the highlights and cannot disagree with my interpretation that you have sought to personalise our debate - which is regretable.i stand by my comments - that we rode our luck in the first half at watford - and came out strongly the second.   if you''re suggesting glen didn''t strongly motivate the players during the half-time team-talk - then the evidence isn''t there to support it.  i also make no apologies for preferring shax ahead of pearce, and i would suggest i''ve been fair in my appraisal of both players, but again - it could easily be suggested that introducing shax at the back tightened the defence and helped our fightback to produce the draw.  indeed, if roeder was playing his best side, and was content with our performance, why did he see the need to take young pearce off at all???  again, if its for politics sake, to keep shax happy, then surely the overuse of loanees as a policy is clearly working against the best interests of the club.  further, if you''re suggesting that roeder is beyond scrutiny or criticism then thats your right, but i''ll exercise my right to do otherwise.either way, what is certain - by introducing young loanees into our side and rotating more senior pro''s the performances of city have undoubtedly suffered for it - and consequently, we lost our unbeaten run and any chance of making the play-offs.  i doubt many would disagree with that.  privately - probably not even roeder. 

 

[nutty nigel 7,528]

Lucky I enjoy having these debates with you and I wasn''t aware I had personalised the debate. It''s just that I had the same debate with Wiz because I do not believe you can make any meaningful analysis from goal highlights.

I do not believe we rode our luck during the first half at Watford. I believe that defensive blocks and goalkeepers saves are part of a team performance. I believe we stood up to a very physical onslaught during the first half which enabled us come back into the game and get a result.

The thinking behind playing the two wing backs and three centre backs was because we knew that the ball would be coming out of the sky into our penalty box at every oppurtunity. That system allows three centre backs to defend such an aerial attack. As it turned out the result proved Roeder''s team selections and substitutions to be correct.

I still have seen no evidence to suggest that Pearce played in front of Shackell because of the loan agreement. If that is in fact the case then I don''t agree with it. Nowhere in my post did I say Roeder was beyond scrutiny or criticism, I just haven''t seen it said that the terms of these loans mean the players have to play.

Finally I can''t agree that England consistantly underperformed in all major tournaments under Erikson. We qualified for the three major tournaments during his tenure. His record in qualifiers was P24 W19 D4 L1 and we reached the quarters of all three finals losing twice on penalties and once to Brazil who went on to win the tournament. The only times we have done better were the 1966 World Cup and the 1996 Euros (both on home soil) and the 1990 World Cup. It could be argued that we over achieved under him and the fact that people believe the opposite surely just underlines the power of the press.

 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Lucky I enjoy having these debates with you and I wasn''t aware I had personalised the debate. It''s just that I had the same debate with Wiz because I do not believe you can make any meaningful analysis from goal highlights.

I do not believe we rode our luck during the first half at Watford. I believe that defensive blocks and goalkeepers saves are part of a team performance. I believe we stood up to a very physical onslaught during the first half which enabled us come back into the game and get a result.

The thinking behind playing the two wing backs and three centre backs was because we knew that the ball would be coming out of the sky into our penalty box at every oppurtunity. That system allows three centre backs to defend such an aerial attack. As it turned out the result proved Roeder''s team selections and substitutions to be correct.

I still have seen no evidence to suggest that Pearce played in front of Shackell because of the loan agreement. If that is in fact the case then I don''t agree with it. Nowhere in my post did I say Roeder was beyond scrutiny or criticism, I just haven''t seen it said that the terms of these loans mean the players have to play.

Finally I can''t agree that England consistantly underperformed in all major tournaments under Erikson. We qualified for the three major tournaments during his tenure. His record in qualifiers was P24 W19 D4 L1 and we reached the quarters of all three finals losing twice on penalties and once to Brazil who went on to win the tournament. The only times we have done better were the 1966 World Cup and the 1996 Euros (both on home soil) and the 1990 World Cup. It could be argued that we over achieved under him and the fact that people believe the opposite surely just underlines the power of the press.

 

[/quote]

alright nutty?!? - if good defending was indeed responsible then your assertion is correct.  however, i think its more a case of ellington mis-firing and missing chances he should have converted.   i do believe in luck and fate and therefore my belief system differs from yours, and so i''m more likely to view aspects of performances from that viewpoint - but thats another story...for me, the result proved it was a classic game of 2 halves - and the team selection and substitutions were eventually proved right!!!  re the squad rotation - quote from pink article. "Roeder has called in favours from Premiership managers since day one,

when he brought in Martin Taylor from Birmingham on his first full day

in the job, but he refuted the suggestion he was relying too much on

other teams'' players."What else can we do? I always pick the

best team available, always, there are no favourites," he said. "It is

the best team and if the best players are loan players so be it."We

will have to hit the loan system next year as well to make up the

numbers - I am very lucky. I have enough friends in the Premiership to

lend me some of their players because they know I''ll play them. They

don''t sit in the stand."In one breath roeder says he only picks his best team, then in the next suggests he is able to attract loanees in, because other managers know their players will be picked to play.  its likely that the first batch of loanees roeder brought in were better than the first teamers they replaced, but in my view, the latest batch of jan loanees are not.  therefore roeder seems to be arguing against himself, unless he truly believes pearce, gibbs and henry rank higher than mo, patty/russell or hucks.  if he does, then fair play.  but despite this - having tried the experiment, it seems to have derailed our unbeaten run and play-off hopes in the process.  as for having an explicit agreement to play loanees, i doubt if there is an formal arrangement entered into, such as a clause in the contract - but i do believe maybe an informal gentlemens agreement may exist between roeder and other managers, which he appears to suggest in the 2nd half of the quote there.as for sven.  again, it comes down to expectations.  certainly, we faired better in japan than i thought we would - but the golden generation of english footy payers were dubbed that because great things were expected of them in portugal and the last world cup in germany.  therefore, it can be argued in these latest tournaments the team underperformed, and svens (and later mclarens) tinkering with unfamilar formations was widely held as a contributing factor in that - quite rightly in my view - amongst other reasons as always of course.lets look forward to saturday now!!!

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]

In one breath roeder says he only picks his best team, then in the next suggests he is able to attract loanees in, because other managers know their players will be picked to play.  its likely that the first batch of loanees roeder brought in were better than the first teamers they replaced, but in my view, the latest batch of jan loanees are not.  therefore roeder seems to be arguing against himself, unless he truly believes pearce, gibbs and henry rank higher than mo, patty/russell or hucks.  if he does, then fair play.  but despite this - having tried the experiment, it seems to have derailed our unbeaten run and play-off hopes in the process.  as for having an explicit agreement to play loanees, i doubt if there is an formal arrangement entered into, such as a clause in the contract - but i do believe maybe an informal gentlemens agreement may exist between roeder and other managers, which he appears to suggest in the 2nd half of the quote there.

[/quote]

Hope you two don''t mind me barging in on your argument but I think your''re reading what you want to read with regards to Roeder''s quote LGT. The way I read that is that Roeder is saying that he won''t bring loan players in just to act as cover. In other words he''ll only seek to bring players in who he thinks will improve the team which means that they won''t "sit in the stand". I don''t think he''s guaranteeing that they''ll play every week. Now it maybe that he''s got it wrong this time, but he''s got a massive rebuilding job to do in the summer and the more players he can look at now the better.

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]

as for sven.  again, it comes down to expectations.  certainly, we faired better in japan than i thought we would - but the golden generation of english footy payers were dubbed that because great things were expected of them in portugal and the last world cup in germany.  therefore, it can be argued in these latest tournaments the team underperformed, and svens (and later mclarens) tinkering with unfamilar formations was widely held as a contributing factor in that - quite rightly in my view - amongst other reasons as always of course.

lets look forward to saturday now!!!

[/quote]

The golden shower, sorry generation, of English players were only ever dubbed that by the media because it sells more papers. If you look at Sven''s CV he''s had success everywhere he''s been until he was hampered by the fact that he could only pick English players. I think that tells you all you need to know. You also have to look at the fact that we were knocked out of both of those tournaments on penalties. I don''t think you can really blame the manager for the fact that those players technique went to pieces when they were put under pressure. McClaren was a clown though, I''ll give you that [;)]

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]

In one breath roeder says he only picks his best team, then in the next suggests he is able to attract loanees in, because other managers know their players will be picked to play.  its likely that the first batch of loanees roeder brought in were better than the first teamers they replaced, but in my view, the latest batch of jan loanees are not.  therefore roeder seems to be arguing against himself, unless he truly believes pearce, gibbs and henry rank higher than mo, patty/russell or hucks.  if he does, then fair play.  but despite this - having tried the experiment, it seems to have derailed our unbeaten run and play-off hopes in the process.  as for having an explicit agreement to play loanees, i doubt if there is an formal arrangement entered into, such as a clause in the contract - but i do believe maybe an informal gentlemens agreement may exist between roeder and other managers, which he appears to suggest in the 2nd half of the quote there.

[/quote]

Hope you two don''t mind me barging in on your argument but I think your''re reading what you want to read with regards to Roeder''s quote LGT. The way I read that is that Roeder is saying that he won''t bring loan players in just to act as cover. In other words he''ll only seek to bring players in who he thinks will improve the team which means that they won''t "sit in the stand". I don''t think he''s guaranteeing that they''ll play every week. Now it maybe that he''s got it wrong this time, but he''s got a massive rebuilding job to do in the summer and the more players he can look at now the better.[quote user="lucky green trainers"]

as for sven.  again, it comes down to expectations.  certainly, we faired better in japan than i thought we would - but the golden generation of english footy payers were dubbed that because great things were expected of them in portugal and the last world cup in germany.  therefore, it can be argued in these latest tournaments the team underperformed, and svens (and later mclarens) tinkering with unfamilar formations was widely held as a contributing factor in that - quite rightly in my view - amongst other reasons as always of course.lets look forward to saturday now!!![/quote]

The golden shower, sorry generation, of English players were only ever dubbed that by the media because it sells more papers. If you look at Sven''s CV he''s had success everywhere he''s been until he was hampered by the fact that he could only pick English players. I think that tells you all you need to know. You also have to look at the fact that we were knocked out of both of those tournaments on penalties. I don''t think you can really blame the manager for the fact that those players technique went to pieces when they were put under pressure. McClaren was a clown though, I''ll give you that [;)]

[/quote]no worries shack - i can see where you''re coming from - but its clear that roeder is able to use the loan system well because of his contacts in the game, which gets him a foot in the door, and then by agreeing to play them.  sure, its not implicit in there that they will get a game each week - but roeder chose to blood these youngsters by rotating more senior players - when we were in the middle of an unbeaten run and 4 points off the play-offs.  which is strange timing to say the least.  so, if roeder was trying to find his best team by playing these boys - its clear he already had it, and the new loanees subtracted from it.   they are promising squad players, nothing more in my eyes.poor roeder is caught between a rock and hard place now - cos if its clear the loanees are squad players, how can he pick them ahead of the best starting 11???  probably at away games!!!we''ll agree to disagree over sven if that ok!?!

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]

In one breath roeder says he only picks his best team, then in the next suggests he is able to attract loanees in, because other managers know their players will be picked to play.  its likely that the first batch of loanees roeder brought in were better than the first teamers they replaced, but in my view, the latest batch of jan loanees are not.  therefore roeder seems to be arguing against himself, unless he truly believes pearce, gibbs and henry rank higher than mo, patty/russell or hucks.  if he does, then fair play.  but despite this - having tried the experiment, it seems to have derailed our unbeaten run and play-off hopes in the process.  as for having an explicit agreement to play loanees, i doubt if there is an formal arrangement entered into, such as a clause in the contract - but i do believe maybe an informal gentlemens agreement may exist between roeder and other managers, which he appears to suggest in the 2nd half of the quote there.

[/quote]

Hope you two don''t mind me barging in on your argument but I think your''re reading what you want to read with regards to Roeder''s quote LGT. The way I read that is that Roeder is saying that he won''t bring loan players in just to act as cover. In other words he''ll only seek to bring players in who he thinks will improve the team which means that they won''t "sit in the stand". I don''t think he''s guaranteeing that they''ll play every week. Now it maybe that he''s got it wrong this time, but he''s got a massive rebuilding job to do in the summer and the more players he can look at now the better.[quote user="lucky green trainers"]

as for sven.  again, it comes down to expectations.  certainly, we faired better in japan than i thought we would - but the golden generation of english footy payers were dubbed that because great things were expected of them in portugal and the last world cup in germany.  therefore, it can be argued in these latest tournaments the team underperformed, and svens (and later mclarens) tinkering with unfamilar formations was widely held as a contributing factor in that - quite rightly in my view - amongst other reasons as always of course.lets look forward to saturday now!!![/quote]

The golden shower, sorry generation, of English players were only ever dubbed that by the media because it sells more papers. If you look at Sven''s CV he''s had success everywhere he''s been until he was hampered by the fact that he could only pick English players. I think that tells you all you need to know. You also have to look at the fact that we were knocked out of both of those tournaments on penalties. I don''t think you can really blame the manager for the fact that those players technique went to pieces when they were put under pressure. McClaren was a clown though, I''ll give you that [;)]

[/quote]no worries shack - i can see where you''re coming from - but its clear that roeder is able to use the loan system well because of his contacts in the game, which gets him a foot in the door, and then by agreeing to play them.  sure, its not implicit in there that they will get a game each week - but roeder chose to blood these youngsters by rotating more senior players - when we were in the middle of an unbeaten run and 4 points off the play-offs.  which is strange timing to say the least.  so, if roeder was trying to find his best team by playing these boys - its clear he already had it, and the new loanees subtracted from it.   they are promising squad players, nothing more in my eyes.poor roeder is caught between a rock and hard place now - cos if its clear the loanees are squad players, how can he pick them ahead of the best starting 11???  probably at away games!!!we''ll agree to disagree over sven if that ok!?!

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

Sorry to wade into the very good debate, but I personally trust Roeder''s footballing knowledge, and going with that, the opinions on player ability shared by Coppell and Wenger. The idea that Roeder has been forced to accomodate loanees appears to have some credibility, I agree. Irrespetive of this, I still feel that if we give these players time to acclimatise through first team football, they will begin to demonstrate why THEY are part of a premiership setup and the likes of Shackell have not experienced any Premiership interest, despite being young enough to constitute a good investment.

I agree that Shackell and other crowd favourites, especially those from our youth "setup", enjoy a protected status and a false impression of their true ability. Jarvis, Jarvis and Henderson are three such players- players that everyone bar NCFC fans and pre-Roeder NCFC managers, can see are plainly not good enough. Maybe add Shackell to that list too, Im afraid.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Jim Duffy"]

Sorry to wade into the very good debate, but I personally trust Roeder''s footballing knowledge, and going with that, the opinions on player ability shared by Coppell and Wenger. The idea that Roeder has been forced to accomodate loanees appears to have some credibility, I agree. Irrespetive of this, I still feel that if we give these players time to acclimatise through first team football, they will begin to demonstrate why THEY are part of a premiership setup and the likes of Shackell have not experienced any Premiership interest, despite being young enough to constitute a good investment.

I agree that Shackell and other crowd favourites, especially those from our youth "setup", enjoy a protected status and a false impression of their true ability. Jarvis, Jarvis and Henderson are three such players- players that everyone bar NCFC fans and pre-Roeder NCFC managers, can see are plainly not good enough. Maybe add Shackell to that list too, Im afraid.

[/quote]i agree with you to a point JD - certainly, the opinions of the 3 managers you cite are valid and hopefully trustworthy.   and you could well be right that these 3 young promising lads will eventually prove their mettle in this league.  also, if you don''t particulary rate the doc or shax for example, you may have welcomed the inclusion of a budding prem youngster in the team - but most NCFC fans will not have welcolmed the run of results since their introduction - and the hammer blow it has dealt to our play-of hopes.  to be fair to roedy though, his brief was to avoid relegation first, and he''s all but done that now (save a ruinous run)   -  but the fact our record unbeaten run took us to within 4 points of the play-offs probably raised fans expectations to another (unrealistic???) level - and in that sense maybe he was a vicitm of his own success in that regard.  its reasonably certain, that if he''d been given asssurances of further funds in the summer - he''d have spent more in the jan window - as in ''you''ve £2m now and another £2m in june glenn''  or ''you''ve X amount now glen but we don''t know how much if any you''ll get inthe summer.''  hence - he chose to keep his ''powder dry'' - but how much powder - time will tell.i''ve praised the cherries glen has picked since he got here - not one bad apple - and he''s cleared tonnes of deadwood out, but this latest jan batch (at this moment in time) look plums.  maybe plums that can mature and sweeten, but which presently are maybe too underdeveloped and raw to satisfy.  consequently, he''s had some flak - which naturally he doesn''t like - as none of us do - but i doubt if he will allow himself to be put in that position again by the board.  make no mistake - imo glen wants assurances bout the amount of dosh that will be available - and if they''re not forthcoming  (we''ll do all we can just doesn''t cut it for me) then i can see the boy going.  as for shax - i saw his debut and was mightily impressed - more than pearce''s (although he will come good imo) and he''ll be the first to admit maybe he hasn''t trained on as expected.  he''ll never be top class - but can hold his own - when on top form.  i''d say, that he, and also the doc to be fair, have been playing their best footy for a long while under the guidence of roedy.   for me, he should ahead of young pearce in the pecking order at city - sorry, that''s just how see it. 

[scott 0]

Shackell did not deserve to get dropped particularly for a loan player we aren''t going to keep and isn''t as, good as Shacks!

 

Pearce looks like he has the quality to develop into a good centreback in time and didn''t disgrace himself (indeed his debut was very promising) but isn''t ready for a regular Championship place yet! 

[I beat Atalanta 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]in fact if you look at the leicester highlights you''ll see shax is mostly the only defender who is still trying to get back and get close enough to make a challenge for some of their goals (where was the doc)  - he was trotting back???[/quote]Man you need to get to a game. I was there, highlights schmilights, Shackell was terrible. end.Anybody...... name a game when Shack was on form. I must have missed it...... Taylor w ould have been great, never going to happen now sadly...... there was lots of talkabout Dean Richards and Taylor being the wish list for next season. No Shack. No Doc. Doc may now survive...... Shackell will go. P''Boro already in.....