3 Great points....and thats all that matters.

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:37 am

ADG wrote:

They both defended very well for midfielders and they are helping us look more solid. It was our two strikers and wide players that were at fault. They are not mobile enough.

Nonsense. Jones defended well but Ritchie was dire. Also to say they are making us look more solid, did you actually see the state of our marking yesterday? It was abysmal. I lost track of the amount of times the Tranmere players got the ball in acres of space in and around our box. It was the worst I have seen us defend this season despite the clean sheet.

If our defenders are getting such good reviews from folk on here including myself (Collins, Liddle, Austin and hartley) together with the keeper then the fact that we looked so dodgy at the back must lie to some extent with the central midfielders surely??

Yes, we got a win and the three points which is the most important thing but we must do better than we did yesterday. We wont get much more luck like that this season.

Tax Paying Poolie · **Joined:** Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:18 am **Posts:** 9053

ADG wrote:

I couldnt see Danny Wilsons flying Swindon above us. Took me ages to realise that they were now below us. What do you think of that then? Wilson out. :laugh:

Swindon are shyte and how they have achieved such a long unbeaten run astounds me. They were rubbish in defence, lacked anything upfront and without Douglas their mieddle was piss weak and offered appalling service. They will tail off and won't finish in the top half, especially with him in charge.

poolymadandstupid · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:13 pm

ADG wrote:

:laugh:

Should be careful what I wish for.

That was seriously not very good. I doubt we will get a luckier win this season.

Once again, we have two strikers both playing with their backs to goal, and no midfielder making runs between them and getting behind them.

If they are going to remain our strike partnership, then the midfield have to do more. They just have to.

I thought both Boyd and Behan were poor today, though Boydy got better as he game wore on.

Billly Gruelich was a breath of fresh air. A great prospect, and was everything Boyd and Behan werent.

Humphreys and Jones did OK in the middle, but were getting crowded out, as once again Monky and Brown were sticking out wide, and rarely went looking for the ball.

Browny was better than Monkhouse though as Monky was at his worst unfortunately.

I notice that as usual Humphreys has come in for critisism from the usual suspects. Always forgetting to mention what was actually happening around him and Jones.

They both defended very well for midfielders and they are helping us look more solid. It was our two strikers and wide players that were at fault. They are not mobile enough.

The back four were very good, but........defended shockingly bad in the first 15 minutes. We could, no should, have been 2 down.

Flinders kept us in the game at that point.

After that we defended very well, and 8 clean sheets should be roundly applauded.

I remember saying during the summer that I would take 1-0 wins in scrappy games, if it meant we tightened up at the back, and thats just what CT has done. Its very difficult to be too critical now he has achieved it.

Flinders 8.
Austin 8.5 MOTM
Hartley 6. Good finish, but was easily the most suspect defensively of the back 4.
Collins 7.5
Liddle 7.5
Monkhouse 5.
Humphreys 6
Jones 7
Brown 6
Behan 5
Boyd 6

Gruelich 7.

Footnote:

Just looked at the league table.

I couldnt see Danny Wilsons flying Swindon above us. Took me ages to realise that they were now below us. What do you think of that then? Wilson out. :laugh:

Agree Austin was MOM and said when I saw Gruelich pre-season he had something and is being brought along nicely. Mr T was saying not so long ago about making our own luck and I think we made lots of it yesterday. I will take that three points any day and although not a classic clean sheets and back to back wins make it even better.

I think we will get something next week at Brighton and then bring on a cup run. rolf

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

how did ian thomas-moore play?

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:04 pm

Yubep wrote:

how did ian thomas-moore play?

like a pussy

LeicesterPoolie · **Joined:** Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:48 pm **Posts:** 1278

Do you think Ben Clark, would be an option in midfield,
I can't see him getting in at Centre Back, barring injuries / suspensions

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

centre back or not at all, he's far too slow to be a midfielder.

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:09 pm

LeicesterPoolie wrote:

Do you think Ben Clark, would be an option in midfield,
I can't see him getting in at Centre Back, barring injuries / suspensions

Unfortunately I dont think he would be any better alternative to Ritchie. Both are too slow and immobile to play in the centre. As much as I rate Ben Clarke, he is a centre half nothing else

PJ_Poolie · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:32 pm

Why oh why would anyone suggest playing Ben Clark in midfield?

Has the final third of last season been erased from memory? He played midfield and in the main was absolutely dreadful.

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:15 pm

Grave wrote:

LeicesterPoolie wrote:

Do you think Ben Clark, would be an option in midfield,
I can't see him getting in at Centre Back, barring injuries / suspensions

Unfortunately I dont think he would be any better alternative to Ritchie. Both are too slow and immobile to play in the centre. As much as I rate Ben Clarke, he is a centre half nothing else

nowt to moan about so you turn on Ritchie :roll:

He has done quite well in Central midfield, certainly as good as anyone else this season, have you been to any of the away matches?

thought not......

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:49 pm

misterb2001 wrote:

Grave wrote:

LeicesterPoolie wrote:

Do you think Ben Clark, would be an option in midfield,
I can't see him getting in at Centre Back, barring injuries / suspensions

Unfortunately I dont think he would be any better alternative to Ritchie. Both are too slow and immobile to play in the centre. As much as I rate Ben Clarke, he is a centre half nothing else

nowt to moan about so you turn on Ritchie :roll:

He has done quite well in Central midfield, certainly as good as anyone else this season, have you been to any of the away matches?

thought not......

It wasnt a moan about Ritchie, but if someone suggests playing Clark in Ritchies position then it makes sense to compare the two does it not stpid

From what I gather Ritchie hasnt set the world on fire away from home either. Of course you would surely say otherwise :roll:

Poolie_k · **Joined:** Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:37 pm **Posts:** 414

Yubep wrote:

centre back or not at all, he's far too slow to be a midfielder.

Too slow tyo be a midfielder? He is a lot quicker than Humphreys and I would say he is quicker than Jones as well. He is one of the best passer we have at the club no reason he couldn' t play midfield. I would drop Humphreys and play Clark as soon as he is fit.

Poolie_k · **Joined:** Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:37 pm **Posts:** 414

PJ_Poolie wrote:

Why oh why would anyone suggest playing Ben Clark in midfield?

Has the final third of last season been erased from memory? He played midfield and in the main was absolutely dreadful.

Because he is a better passer, faster, better tackler and an all round better player than Humphreys.

PJ_Poolie · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:19 pm

Poolie_k wrote:

PJ_Poolie wrote:

Why oh why would anyone suggest playing Ben Clark in midfield?

Has the final third of last season been erased from memory? He played midfield and in the main was absolutely dreadful.

Because he is a better passer, faster, better tackler and an all round better player than Humphreys.

You must have missed the second half of last season.... He is a centre back and not a midfield player.

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:22 pm

Grave wrote:

It wasnt a moan about Ritchie, but if someone suggests playing Clark in Ritchies position then it makes sense to compare the two does it not stpid

From what I gather Ritchie hasnt set the world on fire away from home either. Of course you would surely say otherwise :roll:

well that is the case in an argument, the other person does tend to have a different view :wink:

he may have not set the world on fire, but he certainly hasnt been as bad as you have made out when slating him in a few different posts on here.

Poolie_k · **Joined:** Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:37 pm **Posts:** 414

PJ_Poolie wrote:

Poolie_k wrote:

PJ_Poolie wrote:

Why oh why would anyone suggest playing Ben Clark in midfield?

Has the final third of last season been erased from memory? He played midfield and in the main was absolutely dreadful.

Because he is a better passer, faster, better tackler and an all round better player than Humphreys.

You must have missed the second half of last season.... He is a centre back and not a midfield player.

But if you are going to go on last seasons performances then Humphreys shouldnt play as he was terrible and has been for a number of years and Collins was poor but brilliant this season. Why do people write off players who were poor last season or half a season as in this case and rate Humphreys so much who has been awful for 3 full seasons? It doesnt make sense Humphreys used to be a decent player he isn't now.

PJ_Poolie · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:33 pm

Poolie_k wrote:

But if you are going to go on last seasons performances then Humphreys shouldnt play as he was terrible and has been for a number of years and Collins was poor but brilliant this season. Why do people write off players who were poor last season or half a season as in this case and rate Humphreys so much who has been awful for 3 full seasons? It doesnt make sense Humphreys used to be a decent player he isn't now.

Since he's come back into the team we've lost one in six, I think he's doing a job and with the players we have available at the club I wouldn't argue with the starting eleven Chris Turner is currently picking. Ben Clark is a centre back but he was asked to do a job in the middle of the park because we had an unbalanced squad last season, he was found wanting and we barely won a game. Ritchie has been asked to do at left back for a number of seasons for similar reasons. Ben Clark will have to fight for his place with Gary Liddle and Sam Collins who are the moment are both outstanding so it's going to be hard for him, but he's a good player so him fighting for his place can only beneficial to us.

Poolie_k · **Joined:** Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:37 pm **Posts:** 414

I cant agree with anyone who still thinks Humphreys is a good enough player to be in the starting eleven and anyone who does mustn't know much about football IMO. If not Clark then play Rowell as Humphs has passed it and hopefully he will be dropped sooner rather than later.

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:53 pm

Poolie_k wrote:

I cant agree with anyone who still thinks Humphreys is a good enough player to be in the starting eleven and anyone who does mustn't know much about football IMO. If not Clark then play Rowell as Humphs has passed it and hopefully he will be dropped sooner rather than later.

He may not be the greatest midfielder on earth, but the occasional times when we do get the ball down and play football, you can clearly see that he has still got it. If we play a short progressional passing game, then Humphreys will be the dogs.

And he has the one thing our midfield needs.......experience.

Are you seriously suggesting a Rowell/Jones partnership????????????????????????????????

Cornelius Atweasle · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:54 pm

Poolie_k wrote:

I cant agree with anyone who still thinks Humphreys is a good enough player to be in the starting eleven and anyone who does mustn't know much about football IMO.

That's fighting talk round these parts, PoolieK. :laugh:

It's a good job you have Mr I on your side. :wink:

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:57 pm

misterb2001 wrote:

Grave wrote:

It wasnt a moan about Ritchie, but if someone suggests playing Clark in Ritchies position then it makes sense to compare the two does it not stpid

From what I gather Ritchie hasnt set the world on fire away from home either. Of course you would surely say otherwise :roll:

well that is the case in an argument, the other person does tend to have a different view :wink:

he may have not set the world on fire, but he certainly hasnt been as bad as you have made out when slating him in a few different posts on here.

I know its not a 'popular' opinion to have but I dont think Ritchie is good enough to play in midfield (and to be honest, anywhere in our team). I was one of the people on here saying that he should get a go in midfield as Sweeney wasnt up to it but I dont think he is the answer. Jones showed Ritchie up yesterday in my opinion. One looks like a midfielder, the other looks like a square peg in a round hole. I cannot believe that Rowell isnt a better option.

Sorry it criticising Ritchie offends people but its how Ive seen it from the home games (and Pools world footage of the away ones).

I would be tempted to try Monky in the centre alongside Jones (with Jones obviously playing deeper). He does not get involved some games but this would surely change if he played more centrally. He is not afraid to get stuck in and can get his foot on the ball. He would also help to link midfield to attack - something which we sorely miss right now. Maybe try Fredrikkson on the left?

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:02 pm

so you want to take out a 'square peg' (richie) who gives 110% and has a spot on attitude, and replace him with another 'square peg' (monkey) who has a very suspect attitude and only bothers trying once every 4 games?

seriously??????

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:03 pm

can i also point out that i'm not saying we dont need a better player in there, we do. But with the current squad, Humphreys has to be one of the 1st choice midfielders, IMO!

Poolie_k · **Joined:** Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:37 pm **Posts:** 414

misterb2001 wrote:

can i also point out that i'm not saying we dont need a better player in there, we do. But with the current squad, Humphreys has to be one of the 1st choice midfielders, IMO!

Im sorry but your opinion is wrong. :wink:

Humphreys gives the ball away too much, isn't quick enough, can't pass, can't tackle but because of who he is people give him chance after chance. People are saying the team has only been beaten once by Exeter in 6 league games. Look at the class of oposition we have played in the last 6 league games compared to the opening 6 games. Are you seriously suggesting Norwhich, Charlton and MK Dons are the same as Brentford, Tranmere and Walsall?

I agree Monkey could play centre mid but I would prefer Rowell to be given a run of games in the tema and drop Humphreys. I cant remember him having a good game this season at home and including Stockport and Exeter. He isn't good enough anymore and people see him under performing every week and when he does do something that is decent he is over praised as people are used to seeing him do nothing apart from under perform.

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:24 pm

misterb2001 wrote:

so you want to take out a 'square peg' (richie) who gives 110% and has a spot on attitude, and replace him with another 'square peg' (monkey) who has a very suspect attitude and only bothers trying once every 4 games?

seriously??????

It would be a bit of a gamble but I dont think he could be any worse than Ritchie. I would trust Jones to protect the back 4 pretty effectively. Monky would inevitably get more involved playing centrally and he may surprise a few. He certainly has all the attributes to play there but I appreciate his temperament is suspect.

Ritchies attitude may be 'spot on' but its his ability that I question. The more I think about it the more I would like to see Monky given a chance centrally with Jones sitting deeper. We have nothing to lose especially in the home games.

Poolie_k · **Joined:** Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:37 pm **Posts:** 414

Grave wrote:

misterb2001 wrote:

so you want to take out a 'square peg' (richie) who gives 110% and has a spot on attitude, and replace him with another 'square peg' (monkey) who has a very suspect attitude and only bothers trying once every 4 games?

seriously??????

It would be a bit of a gamble but I dont think he could be any worse than Ritchie. I would trust Jones to protect the back 4 pretty effectively. Monky would inevitably get more involved playing centrally and he may surprise a few. He certainly has all the attributes to play there but I appreciate his temperament is suspect.

Ritchies attitude may be 'spot on' but its his ability that I question. The more I think about it the more I would like to see Monky given a chance centrally with Jones sitting deeper. We have nothing to lose especially in the home games.

Not fully agreed but his temper is a quality to his game that I wouldn't change.

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:33 pm

ADG wrote:

I fookin despair. :roll:

Good for you

Cornelius Atweasle · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:49 pm

ADG wrote:

I'm fookin desperate. :roll:

I fully concur. bbolt

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 37691

I just don't hink we have that sort of midfielder at the club and haven't for a long time, there's lots of pretty, tappy, minimal contact players, but the combatative, lead by exampe midfielder we need is extinct at the Vic, mores the pity.

PJ_Poolie · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:33 am

Snowy wrote:

I just don't hink we have that sort of midfielder at the club and haven't for a long time, there's lots of pretty, tappy, minimal contact players, but the combatative, lead by exampe midfielder we need is extinct at the Vic, mores the pity.

Two words; Mark Tinkler.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 37691

..but how long is it now since he was a regular? ... he was the last, I suppose Boland was suposed to fill that role, but it never worked out and we've been lacking since then.

Tax Paying Poolie · **Joined:** Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:18 am **Posts:** 9053

Snowy wrote:

..but how long is it now since he was a regular? ... he was the last, I suppose Boland was suposed to fill that role, but it never worked out and we've been lacking since then.

Boland did the job perfectly in League 2, it was the step up to League 1 where he struggled.

Hopefully Turner has got someone lined up to bring in during January, it'll make a massive difference to where we finish in May.

Teams are finding it too easy to pack the midfield and win the battle in the centre of the park when they come to the Vic and it's a major factor (if not the main factor) why we are not picking up the results at home.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 37691

All midfield are a mixture of flair and agricultural strength, it would be a perfect world where we had a midfield full of players who possessed both attributes, but we haven't, so we appear to have gone for all all flair. While this is very nice on a good day, there are times when you have to get stuck in and impose your influence on the game so we need an enforcer on the pitch. The problem Turner has created, is by displaying all the talents at once, it becomes problematic deciding which one to leave out to accomodate the battler, but that's what he gets paid for and we'd all disagree anyway. It's all about balance and sometimes the undervalued part of anything is the one that lets the other parts of the whole thing work.

jish · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:14 am

The argument about Humphreys can't be taken seriously anyway as practically every home game that we've seen, we've completely bypassed the midfield when we've had the ball in defence by punting it long.

Surely it's unfair to assess his ability when he's only able to perform half of his duties?

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:00 am

ADG wrote:

So. Thats it in a nutshell. Teams pack the midfield against us at the vic.

I agree we could do with a destroyer in there, but would it make that much difference....its still gonna be two against three. This particular Hard bastad is gonna have to be one hell of a player.

Maybe we have to sacrifice Brown or monkhouse and get an extra player in there.

Maybe Humphreys isnt to blame for the third world famine afterall.

Well he certainly isnt to blame for the poor run of form which has seen us be unbeaten in three not concede and get up to 1oth just three points outside the play offs.

I wish some of you welcome to the board and support Darlo. you dont deserve a club like pools.

Just my opinion like.

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:04 am

some people are on a witch hunt chip. That much is obvious. You said yourself he has done ok, whereas other people say he has been that poor that they would never play him again.

For me, we dont have any pace in attacking areas, the fastest being larkin who is never going to be 1st choice or brown who isnt that fast. We need people who are willing to make runs to stretch defenses out of shape. Both behan and boyd dont make them runs anywhere near enough.

What im trying to say is we either need to get nardiello back on loan (wont happen) start playing larkin from the start (wont happen) or change formation to one which suits the players at our disposal.

Or play brown up front!

Mr Ripper · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:08 am

Brown was abysmal on Saturday, and worst of all looked completely disinterested. As has been mentioned by one of the cleverer posters on this thread our problem on Saturday was that our two wide players didn't give us anything.

Yet people still want to scapegoat Ritchie Humphreys who didn't have a bad game? stpid

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 37691

The problem is we have a midfield who play nice, tippy, tappy football. if the opposition play the same, we're OK, unfortunately ... they don't and we're have a virtually redundant midfield. A midfield that likes to avoid tackling. A midfield that plays to a system of shadowing from a distance, never marking and being second to every ball. The new term is 'lacking situational awareness', sums it up really.

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:21 am

misterb2001 wrote:

some people are on a witch hunt chip. That much is obvious. You said yourself he has done ok, whereas other people say he has been that poor that they would never play him again.

Its not a witch hunt. A lot of people have also said that Monkey has been poor. The difference is that Ritchie playing in a central midfield role is the last throw of the dice for him. He isnt good enough to play anywhere else in the team (we know he cant play in defence and he has not got the pace or mobility to play out wide or up front. He isnt getting any younger so my comment that he should not play again is based on the fact that (for me) he has not been the success I thought he may be as a holding midfielder and I cannot see anything other than a bit-part role for him in the squad. We have much more strength in depth these days and I cant see him being an 'impact' sub or anything.

This argument crops up everythime people criticise Sir Ritchie with people saying he is being victimised and subject to a witch hunt but the fact is that any player not playing well will be criticised, Sweeney, Clark (when playing in as holding midfield role), whoever.

Mr Ripper · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:23 am

Grave wrote:

misterb2001 wrote:

some people are on a witch hunt chip. That much is obvious. You said yourself he has done ok, whereas other people say he has been that poor that they would never play him again.

Its not a witch hunt. A lot of people have also said that Monkey has been poor. The difference is that Ritchie playing in a central midfield role is the last throw of the dice for him. He isnt good enough to play anywhere else in the team (we know he cant play in defence and he has not got the pace or mobility to play out wide or up front. He isnt getting any younger so my comment that he should not play again is based on the fact that (for me) he has not been the success I thought he may be as a holding midfielder and I cannot see anything other than a bit-part role for him in the squad. We have much more strength in depth these days and I cant see him being an 'impact' sub or anything.

This argument crops up everythime people criticise Sir Ritchie with people saying he is being victimised and subject to a witch hunt but the fact is that any player not playing well will be criticised, Sweeney, Clark (when playing in as holding midfield role), whoever.

But he wasn't even one of our three of four worst players on Saturday. stpid

Seriously, were you actually there?

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:29 am

Grave wrote:

misterb2001 wrote:

some people are on a witch hunt chip. That much is obvious. You said yourself he has done ok, whereas other people say he has been that poor that they would never play him again.

Its not a witch hunt. A lot of people have also said that Monkey has been poor. The difference is that Ritchie playing in a central midfield role is the last throw of the dice for him. He isnt good enough to play anywhere else in the team (we know he cant play in defence and he has not got the pace or mobility to play out wide or up front. He isnt getting any younger so my comment that he should not play again is based on the fact that (for me) he has not been the success I thought he may be as a holding midfielder and I cannot see anything other than a bit-part role for him in the squad. We have much more strength in depth these days and I cant see him being an 'impact' sub or anything.

This argument crops up everythime people criticise Sir Ritchie with people saying he is being victimised and subject to a witch hunt but the fact is that any player not playing well will be criticised, Sweeney, Clark (when playing in as holding midfield role), whoever.

thankyou for at least trying to explain the crap that goes on inside your head!

My point is that there are some people who really cant stand humphreys for whatever reason, and it clouds their judgement on how well he is playing.

Now i will be called a humphreys lover because i disagree with them :roll:

humphreys has been doing ok, nothing more, nothing less. He is the best option in there that we have at the moment.

Dropping him for rowell would be suicide as we will have two very inexperienced midfielders, sweeney is non-existant. Clark is a defender and freddy a winger. As is monkey.

We need to sign a good midfielder, until then, humphreys is our best option.

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:31 am

Mr Ripper wrote:

But he wasn't even one of our three of four worst players on Saturday. stpid

Seriously, were you actually there?

I was there. Only the defence come out of the game with and credit (and greulich). We were up against a mediocre team and were second best especially in the middle of the park (where Ritchie played). I would say that he was one of the worst players on Saturday but not THE worst. I cant recall him doing anything of note.

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:35 am

misterb2001 wrote:

thankyou for at least trying to explain the crap that goes on inside your head!

My point is that there are some people who really cant stand humphreys for whatever reason, and it clouds their judgement on how well he is playing.

Now i will be called a humphreys lover because i disagree with them :roll:

humphreys has been doing ok, nothing more, nothing less. He is the best option in there that we have at the moment.

Dropping him for rowell would be suicide as we will have two very inexperienced midfielders, sweeney is non-existant. Clark is a defender and freddy a winger. As is monkey.

We need to sign a good midfielder, until then, humphreys is our best option.

I cant really disagree with you. We dont have many options at the minute in the centre. Clark is NOT the answer and would be no better than Ritchie. My poit is that Ritchie is not the answer and is simply not good enough (but is probably there by default right now). We need him replaced. We will get seriously over-run in midfield over the tough spell of games over Xmas if he is playing there.

I do think its a bit wrong to discount Rowell for being young. If he is good enough then he should be able to cope

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

Grave wrote:

Mr Ripper wrote:

But he wasn't even one of our three of four worst players on Saturday. stpid

Seriously, were you actually there?

I was there. Only the defence come out of the game with and credit (and greulich). We were up against a mediocre team and were second best especially in the middle of the park (where Ritchie played). I would say that he was one of the worst players on Saturday but not THE worst. I cant recall him doing anything of note.

Grave, give up, you wont win, your not allowed too say you don't rate humphreys, it's a banning offence.

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:41 am

im not discounting rowell just because of his age. Im discounting the rowell/jones partnership, simply because of a lack of experience.

Jones needs an older head next to him as would rowell.

You dont win anything with kids :uhoh:

Poolie_k · **Joined:** Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:37 pm **Posts:** 414

Mr Ripper wrote:

Grave wrote:

misterb2001 wrote:

some people are on a witch hunt chip. That much is obvious. You said yourself he has done ok, whereas other people say he has been that poor that they would never play him again.

Its not a witch hunt. A lot of people have also said that Monkey has been poor. The difference is that Ritchie playing in a central midfield role is the last throw of the dice for him. He isnt good enough to play anywhere else in the team (we know he cant play in defence and he has not got the pace or mobility to play out wide or up front. He isnt getting any younger so my comment that he should not play again is based on the fact that (for me) he has not been the success I thought he may be as a holding midfielder and I cannot see anything other than a bit-part role for him in the squad. We have much more strength in depth these days and I cant see him being an 'impact' sub or anything.

This argument crops up everythime people criticise Sir Ritchie with people saying he is being victimised and subject to a witch hunt but the fact is that any player not playing well will be criticised, Sweeney, Clark (when playing in as holding midfield role), whoever.

But he wasn't even one of our three of four worst players on Saturday. stpid

Seriously, were you actually there?

Ripper you say Humphreys wasnt the worst 3 or 4 players on the pitch for us yesterday although you gave him a 6 on your ratings. There was only 3 other people that got worse from you so obviously he was our 4th worst player in your opinion.

Mr Ripper · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:14 am

Poolie_k wrote:

Ripper you say Humphreys wasnt the worst 3 or 4 players on the pitch for us yesterday although you gave him a 6 on your ratings. There was only 3 other people that got worse from you so obviously he was our 4th worst player in your opinion.

But I wasn't using decimals.

Humphreys would've been a 6 and a bit if I had, and Boyd probably about 5 and three quarters. :wink:

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:49 pm

ADG wrote:

We have even ahd someone claim he is had been shite for 3 years. That means he was shite during the promotion season as well then. stpid

He is just not good enough for league 1 unfortunately. He would probably do a job at league 2 level for someone.

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:57 pm

Grave wrote:

ADG wrote:

We have even ahd someone claim he is had been shite for 3 years. That means he was shite during the promotion season as well then. stpid

He is just not good enough for league 1 unfortunately. He would probably do a job at league 2 level for someone.

he is doing a job for a league 1 team though. I make it 6 matches for him in the league. He has played well in 2, average in 2, and below average in 2. I would say that is a reasonable return. Certainly enough to keep him in the team until we can get someone better. And then as a good option to have on the bench.

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

You have an asperation to be average?

I think you need to aim a little higher.

3 Great points....and thats all that matters.

Gadgies online