the players we have had this season!

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

                 is really quite incredible! we have had some real quality this season -  i know they were not all around at the same time but most were, imagine if we could have had this team playing week in week out together, we would be challenging alot higher

 

                     marshall

omozuzi   kennedy  stefanovic  grounds

croft       clingan     hoolahan   bell

                 lita     lupoli 

[Foxy is a Pleasure 0]

That does look a good championship side on paper but unfortunatly too many of them were short term loans. It takes time for players to gel as a team and with players coming and going with such regularity its hardly been ideal. Stef has been a big loss to us this season.

[rjwc22 0]

Not sure that many other clubs could not put out a stronger side that could play as a team - in fact think that is what has happened to us 25 times or so this season...

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

On paper atop half side but a combination of poor management, big egos, lack of form and fitsness has managed to get a fraction out of this squad that it was capable of. Look at the Doncaster squad, Stock apart who can recognise any names yet they manage to win 8 out of their last 11 games, now that is good management and is why i am so pissed off that we do not look around at tried and tested managers and players in the lower leagues. I may be old fashioned but what about appreterships and track records as being agood indicator as to the future

[ZLF 271]

That woudl be no stronger than we have,  except up front where the club chose to get rid of one and not buy the other.

In defence Omo was better at centre back than right back,  although better than Ots still had a lot of questions.  At left back takeout a couple of games and Grounds has been poor too.  In the middle Stef looked the part,  but Kennedy was woreful,  worse than Shacks AND Doc at the mo.  And we played with that back 5 and struggled under roeder earlier this season.

In midfield Clingan,  ins spite of being exceptionalon his day,  is too inconsistent and not put in a really top drawer performance since Tahn,  Central midfield is our weakness,  just count the numbers of times opponents midfielders have scored after not being tracked by a midfield that has nearly universally included clingan.  Hoola is not a central midfielder and that would not work.

Woudl it do well?  Rose tinted glasses I think.    

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]On paper atop half side but a combination of poor management, big egos, lack of form and fitsness has managed to get a fraction out of this squad that it was capable of. Look at the Doncaster squad, Stock apart who can recognise any names yet they manage to win 8 out of their last 11 games, now that is good management and is why i am so pissed off that we do not look around at tried and tested managers and players in the lower leagues. I may be old fashioned but what about appreterships and track records as being agood indicator as to the future[/quote]

actually its 9/11 isnt it? i know it takes the micheal when we played donny a few weeks back there was nothing really between us and we were ahead of them in the league, now we can only dream of being as high as doncaster!

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

That woudl be no stronger than we have,  except up front where the club chose to get rid of one and not buy the other.

In defence Omo was better at centre back than right back,  although better than Ots still had a lot of questions.  At left back takeout a couple of games and Grounds has been poor too.  In the middle Stef looked the part,  but Kennedy was woreful,  worse than Shacks AND Doc at the mo.  And we played with that back 5 and struggled under roeder earlier this season.

In midfield Clingan,  ins spite of being exceptionalon his day,  is too inconsistent and not put in a really top drawer performance since Tahn,  Central midfield is our weakness,  just count the numbers of times opponents midfielders have scored after not being tracked by a midfield that has nearly universally included clingan.  Hoola is not a central midfielder and that would not work.

Woudl it do well?  Rose tinted glasses I think.    

[/quote]

 

before kennedys injury he looked a class act with stefanovic, certainly better then the doc and shack! as for hoolahan i think he could play central mid so long as its with a defencively minded midfielder, which clingan is.

[ZLF 271]

[quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

That woudl be no stronger than we have,  except up front where the club chose to get rid of one and not buy the other.

In defence Omo was better at centre back than right back,  although better than Ots still had a lot of questions.  At left back takeout a couple of games and Grounds has been poor too.  In the middle Stef looked the part,  but Kennedy was woreful,  worse than Shacks AND Doc at the mo.  And we played with that back 5 and struggled under roeder earlier this season.

In midfield Clingan,  ins spite of being exceptionalon his day,  is too inconsistent and not put in a really top drawer performance since Tahn,  Central midfield is our weakness,  just count the numbers of times opponents midfielders have scored after not being tracked by a midfield that has nearly universally included clingan.  Hoola is not a central midfielder and that would not work.

Woudl it do well?  Rose tinted glasses I think.    

[/quote]

 

before kennedys injury he looked a class act with stefanovic, certainly better then the doc and shack! as for hoolahan i think he could play central mid so long as its with a defencively minded midfielder, which clingan is.

[/quote]

Completely disagree on Kennedy.  A lumbering oaf rarely in position, winning little in the air and weak on the ball,  He is a fraction of the player that doc is- and with half the pace. At the moment shacks too is also better.

So why has Hoola/Clingan not been tried?  Its a disaster waiting to happen in an already weak area of the pitch. 

We will just have to agree to differ

 

 

 

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"][quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

That woudl be no stronger than we have,  except up front where the club chose to get rid of one and not buy the other.

In defence Omo was better at centre back than right back,  although better than Ots still had a lot of questions.  At left back takeout a couple of games and Grounds has been poor too.  In the middle Stef looked the part,  but Kennedy was woreful,  worse than Shacks AND Doc at the mo.  And we played with that back 5 and struggled under roeder earlier this season.

In midfield Clingan,  ins spite of being exceptionalon his day,  is too inconsistent and not put in a really top drawer performance since Tahn,  Central midfield is our weakness,  just count the numbers of times opponents midfielders have scored after not being tracked by a midfield that has nearly universally included clingan.  Hoola is not a central midfielder and that would not work.

Woudl it do well?  Rose tinted glasses I think.    

[/quote]

 

before kennedys injury he looked a class act with stefanovic, certainly better then the doc and shack! as for hoolahan i think he could play central mid so long as its with a defencively minded midfielder, which clingan is.

[/quote]

Completely disagree on Kennedy.  A lumbering oaf rarely in position, winning little in the air and weak on the ball,  He is a fraction of the player that doc is- and with half the pace. At the moment shacks too is also better.

So why has Hoola/Clingan not been tried?  Its a disaster waiting to happen in an already weak area of the pitch. 

We will just have to agree to differ

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

lol! your joking right? there is no way doc is twice as fast as kennedy! doc makes malky look like linford christie!

[GJP 79]

I thought Kennedy did alright but wouldn''t pick him over the Doc. Same with Stefanovic.

Obviously Stefanovic is/was a good player but he can''t run at all and he was prone to dozing off. That said he did turn in a couple of superb performances, Birmingham at home was particularly impressive if I remember correctly.

Kennedy did well in patches but he got caught out a few times as well.

But yeah out of the 3 of them Doherty has proven himself the strongest defender this season.

 

[Foxy is a Pleasure 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"][quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

That woudl be no stronger than we have,  except up front where the club chose to get rid of one and not buy the other.

In defence Omo was better at centre back than right back,  although better than Ots still had a lot of questions.  At left back takeout a couple of games and Grounds has been poor too.  In the middle Stef looked the part,  but Kennedy was woreful,  worse than Shacks AND Doc at the mo.  And we played with that back 5 and struggled under roeder earlier this season.

In midfield Clingan,  ins spite of being exceptionalon his day,  is too inconsistent and not put in a really top drawer performance since Tahn,  Central midfield is our weakness,  just count the numbers of times opponents midfielders have scored after not being tracked by a midfield that has nearly universally included clingan.  Hoola is not a central midfielder and that would not work.

Woudl it do well?  Rose tinted glasses I think.    

[/quote]

 

before kennedys injury he looked a class act with stefanovic, certainly better then the doc and shack! as for hoolahan i think he could play central mid so long as its with a defencively minded midfielder, which clingan is.

[/quote]

Completely disagree on Kennedy.  A lumbering oaf rarely in position, winning little in the air and weak on the ball,  He is a fraction of the player that doc is- and with half the pace. At the moment shacks too is also better.

So why has Hoola/Clingan not been tried?  Its a disaster waiting to happen in an already weak area of the pitch. 

We will just have to agree to differ

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

lol! your joking right? there is no way doc is twice as fast as kennedy! doc makes malky look like linford christie!

[/quote]

 

Doc is actually quite fast once he gets going, it just takes him too long to get going. Pretty quick but has woeful acceleration. I personally would prefer Kennedy to Doc

[JJ 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"]

                 is really quite incredible! we have had some real quality this season -  i know they were not all around at the same time but most were, imagine if we could have had this team playing week in week out together, we would be challenging alot higher

 

                     marshall

omozuzi   kennedy  stefanovic  grounds

croft       clingan     hoolahan   bell

                 lita     lupoli 

[/quote]

On paper maybe, but in practice no.  Omosuzi rarely impressed and Kennedy, after starting well, looked shot to bits by the time he left.  Stefanovic was a liability at times before his injury, while Marshall and Grounds have had their good and bad days.

Lita and Hoolahan are class acts, Clingan is a good player, and Bell may well become a better one.  Croft works hard but is inconsistent with his final ball.  Lupoli is a decent player, but the fact he didn''t figure much for us nor Sheff Utd at the moment, suggests he may be difficult to handle.

I think that team would get a lot higher than now, but only mid-table at best.

 

[ZLF 271]

[quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"][quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

That woudl be no stronger than we have,  except up front where the club chose to get rid of one and not buy the other.

In defence Omo was better at centre back than right back,  although better than Ots still had a lot of questions.  At left back takeout a couple of games and Grounds has been poor too.  In the middle Stef looked the part,  but Kennedy was woreful,  worse than Shacks AND Doc at the mo.  And we played with that back 5 and struggled under roeder earlier this season.

In midfield Clingan,  ins spite of being exceptionalon his day,  is too inconsistent and not put in a really top drawer performance since Tahn,  Central midfield is our weakness,  just count the numbers of times opponents midfielders have scored after not being tracked by a midfield that has nearly universally included clingan.  Hoola is not a central midfielder and that would not work.

Woudl it do well?  Rose tinted glasses I think.    

[/quote]

before kennedys injury he looked a class act with stefanovic, certainly better then the doc and shack! as for hoolahan i think he could play central mid so long as its with a defencively minded midfielder, which clingan is.

[/quote]

Completely disagree on Kennedy.  A lumbering oaf rarely in position, winning little in the air and weak on the ball,  He is a fraction of the player that doc is- and with half the pace. At the moment shacks too is also better.

So why has Hoola/Clingan not been tried?  Its a disaster waiting to happen in an already weak area of the pitch. 

We will just have to agree to differ

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

lol! your joking right? there is no way doc is twice as fast as kennedy! doc makes malky look like linford christie!

[/quote]

Certainly not joking.   Doc has problems turning,  but he rarely gets outpaced,  kennedy was frequently left in strikers wake and we suffered as a result. 

It was noticeable how good doc has looked since he returned from injury - thats because he is a better defender than Kennedy was.  oneof the 3 candidates for player of the season,  was /is kennedy? 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Zip calls it right for me. The Doc, like most big units, can be slow on the turn but he rarely gets done for pace has still been our best defender over the last few seasons and certainly better than Kennedy and Dublin. Would have been interesting to see if a partnership of Doherty and Stefanovich would have worked. They were not both fit at the same time for long enough to find out. I think that was Roeders ''Plan A'' though and he was unlucky that it didn''t work out.