maybe did enough for another start after his subs appearance yesterday, thought he was excellent when he came on and was unlucky when the keeper made a great save from him. Certainly got the speed to trouble defenders!

Well done Colin.

Despite his awful scoring record he has put in a few respectable shifts this season, more than some 'better' players at the club can manage.

You know what you'll get from colin, he'll work hard put a good shift in etc etc and all them other cliches.

He's just lacking at this level.

I thought when Larkin and Monky came on we seemed to generate more urgency. Larkin's pace certainly caused problems.
I thought he did ok.

I've never been his biggest fan either but if he could play like that more consistently he would be well up the pecking order of our struggling attackers. He never seems to have enough attempts on goal for me but that run and shot is more like it!

You have never been his biggest fan because he isnt very good.

Has the world suddenly gone stark raving mad???????????

He doesnt put a "shift in". he is the biggest bluffer of a player. Aalways runs about and rarely makes the ball. He created a great chance for himself on saturday then fucked up the easy bit. He blasted the ball straight at the keeper. - watch it again and tell me he didnt.

He then made one more run, and should have played monky in, but blasted the ball high across the box out for a throw over the other side.

If any other striker had missed that chance, and Monkhouse had have done that with that cross, you lot would have gone beserk on here.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Concurring with Mr C.

Some fans decide they dont like a player and them refuse to give them any credit whatsoever, even if they play well.

Pathetic.

But Larkin didn't "play well".

Licking his bum is pathetic.

So Larkin never played well when he came on!! He did more then Boyd and Brown put together on Saturday unless I missed something?

Yep, based upon this comment it appears what you actually missed was the point.

And the point is? The thread was just about how well he played when he came on and deserves a chance next game and I'm sure MW has said as much, what Is the point again you are trying to say?

MW did say as much. In the Echo this morning

The point is that he didn't play well.

He flatters to deceive by running around trying to avoid his lack of ability showing him up.

He had a chance to score after a glorious pass from Murray just after he came on and he made a pigs arse of it cos he just isn't good enough.

To be fair I'm hardly surprised that Wadsworth didn't use his post match interview to say something along the lines of, "...that Larkin fella, runs about a lot but he's shyte really, just look at his record if you want proof of this." He's too good a manager to come out with stuff like that even if it's true.

If people genuinely think that starting Larkin up front for Pools this season is a good idea I would have to genuinely question either their sanity or their knowledge of football. The only use I could think of for Colin Larkin would be catching chickens.

MW, in an Echo interview, praised Micky Barron for suggesting the idea of partnering Colin Larkin with Humps. MW thought the experiment worked.

Pairing any of our current "forwards" with Richie Humphreys would work better than what we witnessed for most of Saturday afternoon. Moving Humphreys was the difference, not bringing Larkin on.

Oh, yeah, very scientific.
Any evidence for this, since both moves happened at once?

Yep, my eyes and my brain.

Anybody watching able to use both of theirs at once would have to come to the same conclusion.

Simples.

Dear me, we didn't waste any money on your education did we?
If you use your eyes and brain a lot, does that mean you're right all the time? Never the case that people see what they want to see, then?

OK, story so far is Micky Barron sees something in training which suggests to him that RH and CL might work well together. Presumably he has at the same time considered playing RH with someone else, and ruled this out. MW decides MB's idea is worth a try. Later, MW says that he thinks that the trial has been fruitful.

What was it your eyes and brain said again....?

All of that post was horseshit I'm afraid Mr F.

I'm over the moon with the result and pleased with the general performance of the team.

However, anybody suggesting that Larkin was or is one of our best players must be on drugs, and if they're not on drugs they need to see their doctor who will prescribe some pretty fkin heavy ones without delay.

..all the "papers with ratings" I've seen give Larkin a 7 or more.

Cos we all know how accurate they always are!

Half or more of the papers rate the players without even having attended the match.

Yes, but you attended the match and failed to see relevant things. So. attending the match clearly isn't everything.........

If you believe that to be true tell me what you think I missed.

You missed what MW saw that made him so pleased with Larkin's performance that he's considering starting Larkin at the next match

I hope he does. Players with pace can change games. Players with no pace (Boyd and Brown on Saturday) should be on Substitutes benches, where they CAN be effective when everybody else on the park is knackered. It's a simple game.

Were you not there?

Apologies if not and if the question wasn't specific enough, as I was asking what YOU saw that YOU think I missed.

My god, its all kicked off here.

Lets all pause and take a breath.

OK, here we go.

Colin Larkin, along with Andy Monkhouse, and the positional change of King Ritchie, made the difference on saturday. You cant argue with facts.

But, and its a fucking big but, anyone suggesting that Colin larkin deserves to start because of a good 20 minutes(although it could be quite easily argued that he was actually good for about 5 of those minutes) is surely certifiable.

Its common football knowledge(for those that have any) that bringing on pace late in the game ususally has some effect on tiring defenders. Sady, as was proven yet again on satiurday, that really is all Larkin does have.

Unless of course that last 20 minutes has erased everyones memory of the past 18 months.

And to say Larkins shot was superb is utterly mental. He wa sthrough one on one with the keeper and blasted the ball straight at him. Surely a good striker would (a) try and slot the ball past the keeper, or (b) take it round him.

I swear, if Behan had of done that, or Iceman, not one of you would have said great shot.

So, to conclude, Larkin did a job on Saturday. We were drawing when he came on, then we won. Job done.

But he is still shite, just like all of you said before that last 20 minutes. He hasnt suddenly got better. And I know for a fact that some of you saying he should start fully agree with that, or did before saturday.

Oh, and on a grander scale, you do realise that having Larkin playing regulalry will probably ensure the missing hordes will never return. Dont you? You do surely?

As far as I can see only one person suggested that he deserves a start. He did play well and could be a good asset for the rest of the season as an impact sub. His pace & workrate make him our 3rd best attacker.....which says something about the rest of them!

Coronation Street is utter shyte, however it is a bit better than Eastenders. Being better than Eastenders doesn't mean that it's anything other than shyte though.

Are you really fooled by his work rate? He has pace, which if I am being brutally honest, he has rarely used in his time at pools.

He offers absolutely nothing except pace, and so far has given one goal....in a game already won at a canter.

Like others have said, we have pace in the youth team, if thats what you want. Lets try some of them as back up.

None of you would have given a flying fuck if you had never seen Larkin in a pools strip again. And thats a fact Jack. NONE of you that have posted on this thread.

Your only as good as your last game or so they say.......

Zero goals, zero assists?

At least by judging him over the year and a half that he's been here he gets a "1" in the goals scored column.

But when theres fuck all else on, Tina is well worth a ham shank over

The league paper gave Larkin star man aswell.

And The Sun gives him 6/10.

So the point is...

Wonder who the sun reporter is????


You not doing it are you...

He could have got 10 out of 10 on match of the day for all the difference it makes. Until he had that "wonderful" one on one miss on saturday, none of you wanted him anywhere near the team.

I would bet my mortgage that none of you selected him in your starting 11 predications. And probably havent for months.

Suddenly he deserves a start? On one good run, bad finish, one good run shocking cross.

Only at Hartlepool.

Heres something for you all to get up in arms about.

If MW had picked the right players on saturday to start with we wouldnt be left wondering if our season is about to rely on Colin larkin.

By playing Boyd and Brown upfront he must have known that we lacked pace. Suely going back to 4 4 2, he should have used McSweeney and Monkhouse out wide and put Sweeney in the middle making runs in behind the front two, both of whom are clever enough to see a pass. This would have accomodated the lack of pace upfront.

But no, as we won, its all forgotten about. We played two out of form, lacking fitness strikers(who both need first team games, and are quality on their day) and then played a central midielder wide right, and Ritchie out left, and two holding central midfielders.

It was bound to fail.

I would stick with Boyd and Brown, and play this team next at home. Not sure what I would do at Brighton:

Flinders
Austin
Collins
Hartley
Horwood
McSweeney
Sweeeney
Murray
Monkhouse
Boyd
Brown

Give them a chance. They are both quality and are worth paying £18 to watch on their day.

Ah...another question. Perhaps because you couldn't deal with the objective response which your initial question elicited. Because that would involve explaining to us what YOU saw which proved MW wrong?

OK, yes I was there. What I saw was a guy who was doing his damnedest to play well for Pools, and being more effective than other strikers we have, on their present form. In my book that earns him praise. It certainly doesn't earn him multiple put-downs.

I've already explained what I saw, try actually reading the thread instead of just spoiling for an argument and you will notice.

This is where I really have a problem with those wanting Larkin to start. He was doing his best therefore he deserves praise.

Sorry like, but my ticket emands more than just someone doing their best.

Next time he plays watch him closely, and be amazed at how many times he runs, and nearly gets the ball, and nearly puts a tackle in.

We have this with my younguns under 13 team. We ahve a couple of kids getting a game at the moment cos they run round a lot. The fact they are like a mad puppy chasing a balloon around is lost on those picking the team. They never tackle, never create, but god can they run.

Larkin is biggest con of a player I have seen at pools in many a year. And thats not based on 20 minutes. Thats an assessment over 18 months. His alleged best game was in the defeat against Kettering? He couldnt score that day either against non league shite.

Right, so now it's OK to hammer Mick Wadsworth, whereas all last season it was gulag for anyone who dared criticise CT?
Sorry, Creosote, I like you a lot, but there's no point having a debate with someone whose opinion changes every half hour. MW has problems with getting a winning team together,he's trying to solve the problems by trying out alternatives. When was the last time we had a manager who had a plan B when things weren't working?

Yes, but the question was, what did you see that proved MW wrong?
I won't bother to reply to the insults, which you always resort to when losing an argument

Whoah. I am not knocking MW. I just think he tinkered on saturday a bit too much and didnt think the team through properly. Of course its easy with hindsight, but we did drop all the players with any pace. So Boyd and Brown suffered. Just a fact. I bet MW has learned from that as well.

So please, dont turn into one of the drama queens by saying things like I hammered MW.

I have noticed though, that those pleased Monkhouse was dropped have not been very quick to praise him for his contribution on staurday. Monky could have scored had a certain very fast, trying hard, no scoring striker had any vision whatsoever.

Easy tiger. I haven't resorted to any insults to you. In fact I've made a point of not doing so in spite of the fact that that is what you have been blatantly fishing for with the snidey avoiding the issue and not answering the question posts that you've been making.

Anyway, Dunny announced M.O.T.M as Humphreys, as well as playing "She Bangs The Drum" before kick-off. 10/10 for that chap!

Could it be that Monkhouse played well because he was dropped. The proverbial kick up the arse. (Please note that I did praise him on another thread "good solid win")

What more can you expect than a player giving his best ????

11 players doing that every match day would be great.

He could give his best, as a forward only to be denied by the woodwork on numerous occasions and an opposition goalkeeper giving his best and pulling off save after save.

He could give his best as a midfielder spraying 60/70 yard passes all around the pitch only for other players to mess up.

He could make tackle after tackle as a defender only for the referee to give a penalty for what everyone else sees as a perfectly good tackle.

So once more. What do you expect other than a player giving his best