Reason Shackell was dropped

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote]I see what you say but this explanation stinks - if hat was the case why was it hidden until now? Usually injury absences, which this could be classed as, are announced pre game. I am happy to be ca...[/quote]

Agreed there, if he isnt fit yet, after a few weeks of being back in training then there is something wrong. It doesnt take that long to get fully fit, besides id rather have a nearly-fit shacks than a fully fit flem or Doc.

Im in two minds over this really.. Im not too bothered as long as he is there on tuesday night!

[Dicky 0]

[quote]Dicky - in your first post you said it was a mate that told you. How can you know it was definite if you werent there yourself?[/quote]

He''s been a best mate of mine since the age of 11 (we are both now 38!!)

[Putney Canary 0]

It wasn''t hidden, the fact that Shacks had the mumps was well known ages ago. Its entirely logical that his fitness levels have suffered as a result, and to me a lot more believable than a fall-out with Worthy.

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote]He''s been a best mate of mine since the age of 11 (we are both now 38!!)[/quote]

OK, well Im not saying anyone was lying, just its a bit uncertain to say it was definite! Anywho, as long as shacks is back in the heart of defence soon then im happy.

By the way, anyone like my new avatar?

[eldrich canary 0]

Well I can understand him not playing if he is not fully fit. Worthy only has 3 subs to use (out of 5) and if Shacks can not last 85 mins (say a CB is hurt after 5) then its a big risk to even have him on the bench esp since Worthy already knew that probably Marney would have to come off anyway. I''d rather have Flem/Doc and no Shacks than having to risk Marney for 90 mins. The midfield is already very weak better to use the not 100% fit subs there than the backs in my opinion.

Eldrich

[Bird Table 0]

[quote]OK, well Im not saying anyone was lying, just its a bit uncertain to say it was definite! Anywho, as long as shacks is back in the heart of defence soon then im happy. By the way, anyone like my new ...[/quote]

Is that an ironic avatar, Trent?!

And anyway, include the words "My mate says..." and "Service station" in your rumour and it will always sound like a load of bollards.

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote]Is that an ironic avatar, Trent?! And anyway, include the words "My mate says..." and "Service station" in your rumour and it will always sound like a load of bollards.[/quote]

Think the Doc is a tad excited in that picture. Anyone remember the fast show sketch about Mrs Lineker looking up and seeing her husbands''s face as he''s in a moment of ecstacy...

Anyway we have an explanation  why shackell was dropped, any word when he will be back playing?

[breaker 0]

Believe me Trent, mumps can take months to recover from (depending on severity and strain) so when you are young and looking forward to a 50 game marathon in possibly the most physical division in the world, it is far better to be right than rush in and suffer. I think there may be some truth in reports of a bust up but this may be that Shacks just wants to carry on where he left off last season - who wouldn''t when received such plaudits? The only problem I can see is that when Shacks is available to return (and we really do need his speed and leadership qualities) who will make way - the experienced and determined old campaigner, or his younger, stronger, taller and leaner partner? Answers on a postcard please..........

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote]Believe me Trent, mumps can take months to recover from (depending on severity and strain) so when you are young and looking forward to a 50 game marathon in possibly the most physical division in the...[/quote]

Cheers Breaker. I just hoped as he was in full training, and that he had played in pre-season that he would be available from the start. Ho Hum.

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote]Believe me Trent, mumps can take months to recover from (depending on severity and strain) so when you are young and looking forward to a 50 game marathon in possibly the most physical division in the...[/quote]

True Breaker, I have had the mumps and I leaves you feeling very weak for a while and thats just getting on with normality let alone being a footballer.

[First Wizard 0]

Shacks had mumps, no more ,no less. 

End of discussion. 

[Google Bot 3,255]

Worthington would want players to play if they had some beleif, all the great players have big heads and big egos, they wouldn''t be where they are without this ''trait''.

Glad that it''s come out that shacks had mumps though, i was concerned knowing how NW can fall out with certain players.

I always get the impression that any player that gets slagged off publicly (fans/media etc), NW automatically runs to their defense and plays them week in week out until they perform a good deed, at the expense of younger players who are trying to break through to the squad.

[Dicky 0]

[quote]Shacks had mumps, no more ,no less. End of discussion.[/quote]

And you were there?

[T07 0]

And just how do you judge ''best team''?

Do you include players that are going to create friction in the dressing room long term? Or is it prudent to incluse people that are going to make the team gel and pull together.

As for Shacks, as any of you know who watch the reserve games, prior to his first team selection last season he was TERRIBLE in the reserves. I was dumbstruck whe n he was thrown in, but the boy did a good job.

So sometimes its not as easy as just picking your ''best'' team.

[John Smith 0]

Have some faith in Worthy for godsake! I have my full trust in Worthy and belive it was the reason Shackell was left out. Also for one minute i don''t belive that Jim Brennan would tell some rnadom guy at a service station about the latest gossip from Colney!

[3pmkickoff 0]

I thought Brennan and few of the other players lived in Whitlingham which is more A47 territory than A11. But really who cares anyway, it''s rather like the person on here last week that said Deano told them the fee for francis at Colney was £1.7M

[FatMan Fat 0]

I think that the point is that that if Shacks was left out because of a fallout with Mr W then it would not have been the first time that W has acted in that way. No matter what his Fan Club say, he has a history of dropping players for personal reasons rather than finding another way around the intendant problem.

If Shacks was unavailable for selection because he is unfit, then why weren''t we told before the match??

In any case, fitness doesn''t preclude selection it seems with other players - for instance Jarrett. Why put him on the bench if he wasn''t fit??

[Evil Monkey 52]

My mate and I saw Leon McKenzie out on Saturday night and he told us that Shackell had been abducted by Sea Monkeys (no relation) and was currently off saving the Ocean, but should be back in time for Crewe, providing he''s not turned into a Squid Boy...

NB - We actually did see Leon, and what he actually said was "alright guys", but the above is a better story.  I got half way down the road and asked my mate how Leon knew we were City fans... erm, maybe the fact we''re both wearing Norwich shirts?? Riiiiight..... Not the quickest of Monkey''s, me....

[Bird Table 0]

[quote]Think the Doc is a tad excited in that picture. Anyone remember the fast show sketch about Mrs Lineker looking up and seeing her husbands''s face as he''s in a moment of ecstacy... Anyway we have an ex...[/quote]

That is such a disturbing image, Trent. Eeuuuuuuuugh!

[Maverick 0]

[quote]If that was the reason then fair enough, but he has to be back again tomorrow night as not playing shacks will meanmore dropped points. The sooner flem is moved to a management role the better... ...[/quote]

Well done , Zipper. I wasn''t aware that Doherty''s car crash defending was Flem''s fault.You guys will find any reason to have a go at Flem at the moment - face it , Doherty is a clumsy clown best off as far away from Carrow Road as possible on match days...

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote]That is such a disturbing image, Trent. Eeuuuuuuuugh![/quote]

Hehe, for some reason that picture of the Doc instantly made me think of that sketch.

On an unrelated note Derby are 1-1 with Preston, Dickson Etuhu just gave away a penalty, which was a shame as he has looked very good so far. He has got idiakez in his pocket.

[ron obvious 1,495]

Actually, you''re dead right. If he''s got mumps , there''s no way he can play...

He''d keep tripping over the wheelbarrow!

[Trent Canary 0]

Guy in front of me works at the club, told me that worthy ordered shackell to train by himself due to mumps, shacks said he was fine, worthy disagreed, shacks told him where to go. Hence his dropping from the lineup. You dont go from unfit for the bench, to starting in three days!

[T07 0]

Really?

LOL

[BIC 0]

So Worthy did drop him as a punishment then!

At least he was big enough to single Shacks out for praise after the game. Maybe he thought he''d gone too far - and he did if its true.

[Dicky 0]

Told you all so....