adg, we don't have the luxury to wait for joel to get fit. if he's the messiah, as certain posters claim, he needs to start producing sooner rather than later.

I think if he was given a run of games he'd look a lot sharper and fitter. His best ever period for us was 2004/5 where he started week in week out.For me he's too good a player to not have in the first eleven.

Sooner than what?

Sooner than Barker?

If I was Wilson I'd play him from the start. He's a quality player

Bloody Hell.

Joel Porter is a girl?

That might explain Wilson not wanting to pick him.

ease off a bit ripper, we're talking about porter. you're as fookin one-eyed as chip.

Why's that like?

For wanting to make comparisons between two of our strikers?

we're not comparing strikers. the question is, would joel porter be better employed as a sub as his stats are better when he comes off the bench.

try and keep up

If we had two better strikers who are useful and contributing from the start I could maybe concur.

But at the moment I don't think that we have.

So surely that is relevant to the discussion?

nope

Why not then?

because we're not comparing strikers at all. we're asking whether joel would be better coming off the bench. forget the other strikers (cue gag), for a minute. should porter be starting and scoring every 3.5 games, or coming on with half an hour to go and scoring every 89 minutes ?

those are facts, apparently. just don't tell chip.

err..you cant possibly decide whether someone should start or be on the subs bench unless you check out what other options you have.
Porter should start.
One of the reasons he should start is that he is one of our most creative players
Another reason is that he is better than Barker (well in everything but holding the ball up with his back to the goal and scoring penalties that someone else has won)

errr, it wasn't my question. madjohn was asking.

Of course it is relevant to the discussion. We can't afford to wait until the 60th minute, for Joel to come on as our saviour every match, because the 2 strikers who started haven't got us the goals required to already be on our way to winning without him. FFS it's Football not rocket science, you should start a match with the strongest team you can put out. The bench should consist of people who are not quite good enough to fit into that category, but who are champing at the bit for an opportunity to get on, and try and prove that they are good enough.

You also can't rely on the fact that he will only ever score every 3.5 matches from the start, but the equivalent of every match as a sub. In fact if he is getting 30 mins for each sub appearance, or was allowed the full 90 if he started, then those stats would almost equate to him scoring on every third time on the pitch either way.