Mcguane

[Shauntaylor85]

Infuriating isn’t it. Nigel developed Semenyo and Scott, sold them, then was told he can sign Ayala on a free transfer who is past it! Yet we are happy to now create spaces for someone who had half a dozen good games under Manning at Oxford. And we wonder where our issue lies……

[Gol]

22 hours ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

There is another take - we are choosing to develop our young talent via loans rather than crush them in the Championship- I would much rather Seb Palmer Holden develops at Dundee via regular game time than gets a few minutes here and there with us and doesn’t progress, which is exactly what happened with Yeboah - under Pearson let’s not forget!

We also had loans under parson SPH was at newport remember.
Yeboah is 18 now playing in league 2 on loan and would have learnt a lot from those minutes in the champ he had. Also I would have rather kept him in the squad than spent the money we did on Mebude. His experience does not make the point you think it does.

it about getting a balanced approach which we did have, which we no longer do.

[Dullmoan Tone]

On 12/10/2024 at 13:02, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I really think the minutes that players get and the level are hugely important.  I think Ephraim's loan is damaging for him.

My comment was in response to someone saying LM closed the pathway- honestly do you think Ephraim would get a single minute with us this season?

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

My comment was in response to someone saying LM closed the pathway- honestly do you think Ephraim would get a single minute with us this season?

Depends on the attitude / approach of the head-coach to how he shapes up / sizes his squad, surely?

Does he trust academy players to backfill a trimmer squad (as per the communicated strategy), or would he rather have a bigger squad so he doesn’t have to?

We are gonna find out on Saturday whether he is prepared to bring Elijah Morrison into the squad with Pring out and Sykes out from last Saturday’s 20-man squad.  Even then there’s a longer term question mark as to whether it’s a “token” selection or not….Pecover anyone?

+++++

And a pathway / closing a pathway is a much broader approach than picking a single player to prove an argument at a point in time!

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Depends on the attitude / approach of the head-coach to how he shapes up / sizes his squad, surely?

Does he trust academy players to backfill a trimmer squad (as per the communicated strategy), or would he rather have a bigger squad so he doesn’t have to?

We are gonna find out on Saturday whether he is prepared to bring Elijah Morrison into the squad with Pring out and Sykes out from last Saturday’s 20-man squad.  Even then there’s a longer term question mark as to whether it’s a “token” selection or not….Pecover anyone?

+++++

And a pathway / closing a pathway is a much broader approach than picking a single player to prove an argument at a point in time!

I'll wager he'll play one of his senior picks out of position.  

I don't understand the "Live Development" of Armstrong over Ephraim both of whom had pace and no end product, but at least Ephraim had done it at youth level and just had to translate it to senior level.

Edited Sunday at 18:08 by Lorenzos Only Goal

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I'll wager he'll play one of his senior picks out of position.  

I don't understand the "Live Development" of Armstrong over Ephraim both of whom had pace and no end product, but at least Ephraim had done it at youth level and just had to translate it to senior level.

I have no problem with him picking McCrorie to start.  But it’s the formation of the bench that I’ll be watching out for.

Atkinson fit, Cornick previously left out…one of those not picked over Morrison???

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I have no problem with him picking McCrorie to start.  But it’s the formation of the bench that I’ll be watching out for.

Atkinson fit, Cornick previously left out…one of those not picked over Morrison???

I really don't like playing right sided players on the left of defence unless there is a reason to that.  

[1960maaan]

That next team could be interesting. 

Manning could pay lip service and stick Morrison on the bench , wouldn't need to play him even as McCrorie would have a decent chance of completing 90, but I wouldn't be surprised if Naismith was on the bench to cover LB , though a complete lack of pace is a drawback. 

2 open spots on the bench . Atkinson is likely to be one and if he is serious about the academy he has a youngster for the last spot. If not , and there is no reason to have another striker in Cornick there , he really is not interested in our youth players. 

 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I really don't like playing right sided players on the left of defence unless there is a reason to that.  

Nor me, but would be a helluva leap to play Morrison off the bat. 

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I really don't like playing right sided players on the left of defence unless there is a reason to that.  

 

20 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Nor me, but would be a helluva leap to play Morrison off the bat. 

TBF to RM , I thought he was one of our best players last week , and I agree about Morrison so I think we have little option . 

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Nor me, but would be a helluva leap to play Morrison off the bat. 

 

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

 

TBF to RM , I thought he was one of our best players last week , and I agree about Morrison so I think we have little option . 

We're playing Boro away I've got it down as a loss, draw at best. 

I think with Roberts out for 4 more weeks, Pring being out for probably 14 or more weeks 6 sounds very optimistic there are always scar complications with deep laceration injuries usually takes two operations to get right.

I'd be inclined to test Morrison out he's been outstanding at youth level, and he could turn out to be a Ryan Sessegnon, I still can't fathom that kids still 24.  We might have to have him in for a few weeks.

[Swede]

On 10/10/2024 at 13:46, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Richard Dryden couldn’t get in our side yet ended up in the Prem with Southampton. 

Dynamo Dresden, an unfortunate comparison!

[PHILINFRANCE]

5 hours ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I really don't like playing right sided players on the left of defence unless there is a reason to that.  

I agree, in principle, although Ross M played pretty well on the left when he came on last Sunday.

Injuries to both Roberts and Pring seems a pretty good reason to me, at least rather than blooding a youngster away to Middlesbrough.

[Henry]

7 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I agree, in principle, although Ross M played pretty well on the left when he came on last Sunday.

Injuries to both Roberts and Pring seems a pretty good reason to me, at least rather than blooding a youngster away to Middlesbrough.

It did work well.

I do worry it was the element of surprise. Any decent team will know now our left hide side will be narrow with two right footers and set up accordingly.

[1960maaan]

9 hours ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

 

We're playing Boro away I've got it down as a loss, draw at best. 

I think with Roberts out for 4 more weeks, Pring being out for probably 14 or more weeks 6 sounds very optimistic there are always scar complications with deep laceration injuries usually takes two operations to get right.

I'd be inclined to test Morrison out he's been outstanding at youth level, and he could turn out to be a Ryan Sessegnon, I still can't fathom that kids still 24.  We might have to have him in for a few weeks.

I know you have to give them a chance and take a risk at some stage, but this run of games in a team giving up chances for fun it seems more risky. Not just that , if it was Pearson there might be a chance but Manning seems a very cautious coach and I think "throwing someone in" will be the last thing he does. Specially with Yu and Mehmeti playing , no cover in front of him. 

If Dickie or Atkinson were fit and we played a 3 maybe, but I don't see it . Manning under pressure and desperate for results , he will stick with as much experience as possible. It feels like he has had his throw of the dice playing 2 wide men in games we all thought we would win or at least have a good chance of winning, it didn't work. To me it feels like he will try to be very solid, whatever that looks like , I don't see it involving young lads. 

Go on Liam, prove me wrong , Araoye played left back for the U21s didn't he and he's a lump.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

I know you have to give them a chance and take a risk at some stage, but this run of games in a team giving up chances for fun it seems more risky. Not just that , if it was Pearson there might be a chance but Manning seems a very cautious coach and I think "throwing someone in" will be the last thing he does. Specially with Yu and Mehmeti playing , no cover in front of him. 

If Dickie or Atkinson were fit and we played a 3 maybe, but I don't see it . Manning under pressure and desperate for results , he will stick with as much experience as possible. It feels like he has had his throw of the dice playing 2 wide men in games we all thought we would win or at least have a good chance of winning, it didn't work. To me it feels like he will try to be very solid, whatever that looks like , I don't see it involving young lads. 

Go on Liam, prove me wrong , Araoye played left back for the U21s didn't he and he's a lump.

Oddly I was thinking it might be a good time to experiment with a back three.  

[1960maaan]

8 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

Oddly I was thinking it might be a good time to experiment with a back three.  

I do think if we had 3 fully fit CBs we may have tried it. Dickie is still a little bit away it seems and I guess they won't be rushing Atkinson back with only one 90 under his belt after so long. Unless they risk Naismith , at least he is naturally left sided.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I do think if we had 3 fully fit CBs we may have tried it. Dickie is still a little bit away it seems and I guess they won't be rushing Atkinson back with only one 90 under his belt after so long. Unless they risk Naismith , at least he is naturally left sided.

Uhhh, we have at least 3….Vyner, McNally, Naismith.  I take your “fully fit” discounts Atkinson, granted.

[1960maaan]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Uhhh, we have at least 3….Vyner, McNally, Naismith.  I take your “fully fit” discounts Atkinson, granted.

I sort of caveated myself by saying "unless they risk Naismith" . He's hardly covered himself in glory in his last few games and I took it he's not in Manning's plans. Of course that was in a '2' .

Good footballer, and a 3 may suit him better and there is the balance thing. But he has been caught on the ball too often and his lack of pace gets shown up . Guess it depends how much licence LM gives CBs in a 3 , McNally & Vyner do have the pace to cover , but if Morrison played I'd want someone looking after the space behind him.

[TDarwall]

We've been ropey all season defensively. It seems most agree that I'd a structural rather than a personnel issue. Not sure why Kal seems to be carrying the can so much. In many ways he's ideal for Mannings style of play & certainly a better "fit" for it than McNally.

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, TDarwall said:

We've been ropey all season defensively. It seems most agree that I'd a structural rather than a personnel issue. Not sure why Kal seems to be carrying the can so much. In many ways he's ideal for Mannings style of play & certainly a better "fit" for it than McNally.

Yep, he’s only started once too.

If we look purely at outcomes alone (I’d prefer not to) we’ve conceded 3 goals, three times:

- once with Dickie (Millwall)

- once with Naismith (Derby)

- once with McNally (Blackburn)

personnel per se isn’t the issue!

[hinsleburg]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, he’s only started once too.

If we look purely at outcomes alone (I’d prefer not to) we’ve conceded 3 goals, three times:

- once with Dickie (Millwall)

- once with Naismith (Derby)

- once with McNally (Blackburn)

personnel per se isn’t the issue!

Could it be argued that the other member of the pairing is the issue..?

Rightly or wrongly, in my opinion Vyner is our 4th best Centre Back however seemingly undroppable. (I'm discounting Atkinson as nobody knows if/how he's going to return after so long)

As individuals, I would say Mcnally (who's got better), Dickie and Naismith are all better and if they're all fit would actually be my back 3. And if we reverted to a 3 now, I'd have Tanner and Roberts in there as the 3rd CB ahead of Vyner as I think they suit the system more. (Obviously the Pring injury scuppers that) 

I think with Zak, people take improvement as ability, Zak has developed so much since he first broke through however I don't think he's anything more than an OK Championship defender and gets away with a lot because of how he was when he first broke through... 

In terms of Mcguane, ultimately he was bought in as 4th choice midfielder and as a result isn't expected to play much. If he cost less than we sold/Loaned TGH for then I get the logic and seems sensible, if not I'd have rather had TGH who I think had a really high ceiling. I do think we allow the ball to get through to the striker too easily at times and wonder if Mcguane could be a good option to shut down the passing lane and ultimately improve us defensively. Whilst I wasn't expecting him to play much, I do think it's odd he's not played a minute at all...

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Uhhh, we have at least 3….Vyner, McNally, Naismith.  I take your “fully fit” discounts Atkinson, granted.

My only concern with a back three is Morrison on the left works as a wingback but I'm not sure we have a natural right sided wing back.

Which takes me back to probably a back 4 with Ross out of position.

This game Boro away is the ideal game to play with formations.  I'm not sure we're taking 3 points unless the front men start clicking. 

Edited Monday at 10:10 by Lorenzos Only Goal

[Davefevs]

@hinsleburg an interesting angle, and one that shouldn’t be ignored!

@Lorenzos Only Goal is McCrorie the natural RWB?

[johnbytheriver]

On 06/10/2024 at 20:22, Snufflelufagus said:

Why did we sign him?

Why did we let TGH go to Birmingham???

[bristol red]

10 minutes ago, johnbytheriver said:

Why did we let TGH go to Birmingham???

Should have kept Matty James

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, johnbytheriver said:

Why did we let TGH go to Birmingham???

Because his view of game time differed from LMs.

Now, whether this ought to have been thought about at time of signing him permanently, is another matter!

[CliftonCliff]

9 minutes ago, bristol red said:

Should have kept Matty James

Nor enough has been made of this, in my opinion. I have chosen not to initiate a thread on the subject, for the same reason I tend to avoid bringing up historical stuff generally, such as issues relating to NP, for example. I was all over that at the time and it's not because I don't still hold strong views about it (I do), but more that there's arguably too much dwelling on the forum on stuff that's done and dusted that we can no longer do anything about.

I did, and still do feel, though, that James should have been retained, if possible. I honestly think there's no way we concede three goals against Millwall, Derby and Blackburn with him in front of the defence, and there are other arguments that should have been considered concerning his seniority and experience, leadership qualities and influence with younger players.

I'm responding now to this comment, since MJ's case differs from NP's in one important respect - as far as I know, he's still available.... 

[Ivorguy]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, he’s only started once too.

If we look purely at outcomes alone (I’d prefer not to) we’ve conceded 3 goals, three times:

- once with Dickie (Millwall)

- once with Naismith (Derby)

- once with McNally (Blackburn)

personnel per se isn’t the issue!

Absolutely correct

[Rob k]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Because his view of game time differed from LMs.

Now, whether this ought to have been thought about at time of signing him permanently, is another matter!

One of our more bizarre signings of recent times that’s for sure. Absolutely pointless it would seem

[1960maaan]

2 hours ago, hinsleburg said:

Could it be argued that the other member of the pairing is the issue..?

Rightly or wrongly, in my opinion Vyner is our 4th best Centre Back however seemingly undroppable. (I'm discounting Atkinson as nobody knows if/how he's going to return after so long)

As individuals, I would say Mcnally (who's got better), Dickie and Naismith are all better and if they're all fit would actually be my back 3. And if we reverted to a 3 now, I'd have Tanner and Roberts in there as the 3rd CB ahead of Vyner as I think they suit the system more. (Obviously the Pring injury scuppers that) 

I think with Zak, people take improvement as ability, Zak has developed so much since he first broke through however I don't think he's anything more than an OK Championship defender and gets away with a lot because of how he was when he first broke through... 

In terms of Mcguane, ultimately he was bought in as 4th choice midfielder and as a result isn't expected to play much. If he cost less than we sold/Loaned TGH for then I get the logic and seems sensible, if not I'd have rather had TGH who I think had a really high ceiling. I do think we allow the ball to get through to the striker too easily at times and wonder if Mcguane could be a good option to shut down the passing lane and ultimately improve us defensively. Whilst I wasn't expecting him to play much, I do think it's odd he's not played a minute at all...

I think Vyner is a good CB, as others have said he plays better along side of a leader type CB . I don't think he's undroppable , but with the lack of pace in a lot of our CB's it's hard to drop him.

McNally has improved , but I wasn't  impressed with some of his early games and so I have Vyner ahead of him. 

Naismith is a good footballer , can pass but looked really uncomfortable Vs Derby . I have Vyner ahead of him too.

It's all perspective though we see players differently . We really miss Dickie though .

As for McGuane , I've said before it feels like LJ era accumulating players. At least in Johnson's time he would have played the new boy by now.  I didn't watch Oxford under Manning, so I have no idea what to expect when (if) he ever gets a start. Just seems odd to me.

 

[Rob k]

2 hours ago, hinsleburg said:

Could it be argued that the other member of the pairing is the issue..?

Rightly or wrongly, in my opinion Vyner is our 4th best Centre Back however seemingly undroppable. (I'm discounting Atkinson as nobody knows if/how he's going to return after so long)

As individuals, I would say Mcnally (who's got better), Dickie and Naismith are all better and if they're all fit would actually be my back 3. And if we reverted to a 3 now, I'd have Tanner and Roberts in there as the 3rd CB ahead of Vyner as I think they suit the system more. (Obviously the Pring injury scuppers that) 

I think with Zak, people take improvement as ability, Zak has developed so much since he first broke through however I don't think he's anything more than an OK Championship defender and gets away with a lot because of how he was when he first broke through... 

In terms of Mcguane, ultimately he was bought in as 4th choice midfielder and as a result isn't expected to play much. If he cost less than we sold/Loaned TGH for then I get the logic and seems sensible, if not I'd have rather had TGH who I think had a really high ceiling. I do think we allow the ball to get through to the striker too easily at times and wonder if Mcguane could be a good option to shut down the passing lane and ultimately improve us defensively. Whilst I wasn't expecting him to play much, I do think it's odd he's not played a minute at all...

Vyner to be fair to him is generally available for selection and is match fit, he’s also pretty quick which helps. 

[Back of the Dolman]

2 hours ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

My only concern with a back three is Morrison on the left works as a wingback but I'm not sure we have a natural right sided wing back.

Which takes me back to probably a back 4 with Ross out of position.

This game Boro away is the ideal game to play with formations.  I'm not sure we're taking 3 points unless the front men start clicking. 

McCrorie would undoubtedly be the right wing back and you could play Tanner, Vyner and McNally as the three.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@hinsleburg an interesting angle, and one that shouldn’t be ignored!

@Lorenzos Only Goal is McCrorie the natural RWB?

Zac is an interesting one, I consider him the new Lewis Carey home grown, good availability, and late bloomer.  He's interesting in that he's ok at most things and exceptional at none.  He's not a terrible defender but he is a ok.

Ross I like I just think of him more of a left back.  I think it would be interesting to see a back three with Tanner in as he's got some very good defensive qualities.

[Back of the Dolman]

8 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

Zac is an interesting one, I consider him the new Lewis Carey home grown, good availability, and late bloomer.  He's interesting in that he's ok at most things and exceptional at none.  He's not a terrible defender but he is a ok.

Ross I like I just think of him more of a left back.  I think it would be interesting to see a back three with Tanner in as he's got some very good defensive qualities.

I’m not sure why you see McCrorie as a left back apart from the fact he went there as the best option in the circumstances against Cardiff.

Playing at left back has never been something he has done during his career, a bit of research shows that in 155 appearances for Aberdeen he played there once.

He’s by no means a left back, but he’s certainly a centre back option where he has played many times during his career if he was not being used on the right hand side 

Edited Monday at 13:01 by Back of the Dolman

[hinsleburg]

45 minutes ago, Rob k said:

Vyner to be fair to him is generally available for selection and is match fit, he’s also pretty quick which helps. 

I think the pace is the key thing that differentiates him from the rest, the half issue with that is it's his pace that is often needed to get out of his own mistake...

Don't get me wrong, I can 100% see the positive attributes and the reasons for him being picked. But I think the negatives outweigh the positves and I'd struggle to justofy picking him if everyone was fit.

You're also correct though, Vyner's availability record is exceptional and ultimately is the reason he continues to be first choice

[Son of Fred]

5 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I do think if we had 3 fully fit CBs we may have tried it. Dickie is still a little bit away it seems and I guess they won't be rushing Atkinson back with only one 90 under his belt after so long. Unless they risk Naismith , at least he is naturally left sided.

I'd say give the three a go - when we did play three last season we looked more balanced.

Fair to say,we're not setting the world alight as we are & would ease the lack of a natural left fullback - although I'd be thinking about who would play in front of Naismith on the left!

No harm in trying!

Edited Monday at 13:48 by Son of Fred

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

2 hours ago, Back of the Dolman said:

I’m not sure why you see McCrorie as a left back apart from the fact he went there as the best option in the circumstances against Cardiff.

Playing at left back has never been something he has done during his career, a bit of research shows that in 155 appearances for Aberdeen he played there once.

He’s by no means a left back, but he’s certainly a centre back option where he has played many times during his career if he was not being used on the right hand side 

Typo Right Back