[azul]

what's the point

[Spireite-Karl]

azul, on Mar 2 2007, 09:54 PM, said:

what's the point

Exactly!!! He can't be worse than Larkin about and Shaw can he?

It's time to start him with the Chief in our next game and let's see what he can do! (that's if we don't make a loan signing before hand!)

[dalekpete]

Spireite-Karl, on Mar 2 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

Exactly!!! He can't be worse than Larkin about and Shaw can he?

It's time to start him with the Chief in our next game and let's see what he can do! (that's if we don't make a loan signing before hand!)

He could be worse than Larkin. He is very light-weight and lacks any real experience. He might quickly get found out and disappear in a game.

However he would start for me next week!

[chesterfield 461]

azul, on Mar 2 2007, 09:54 PM, said:

what's the point

Desparation from the management.

They should give him a go from the start

[Spireite-Karl]

dalekpete, on Mar 2 2007, 10:01 PM, said:

He could be worse than Larkin. He is very light-weight and lacks any real experience. He might quickly get found out and disappear in a game.
However he would start for me next week!

What like Larkin?

[azul]

richard s, on Mar 2 2007, 10:02 PM, said:

Desparation from the management.

They should give him a go from the start

or at least 30 minutes earlier

[Spireite-Karl]

azul, on Mar 2 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

or at least 30 minutes earlier

No, you were right the first time! What have we to lose!! Let's face it Larkin about couldn't score with an open net!!! We saw that the other week

[Blueprint]

I'd have brought him on at half time, what was to lose? We were already one down and looking unlikely to score, Larks should have scored so leaving him on didn't achieve anything.

Why won't this man sub early enough to make an impact on the game?

JD used to get slaughtered for that too btw.

[Spireite-Karl]

Blueprint, on Mar 2 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

I'd have brought him on at half time, what was to lose? We were already one down and looking unlikely to score, Larks should have scored so leaving him on didn't achieve anything.

Why won't this man sub early enough to make an impact on the game?

JD used to get slaughtered for that too btw.

I'd have started with JJ as it's obvious that Larks is not going to score! Just look at his record of goals per games! I've always said that he is a 2nd division player at best! and I've been slated many a time for saying it as well

The thing is if we do go down, I still can't see him scoring many in the basement either!!! Got to get rid in the summer, while we have our chance!

[marlons curtains]

Blueprint, on Mar 2 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

I'd have brought him on at half time, what was to lose? We were already one down and looking unlikely to score, Larks should have scored so leaving him on didn't achieve anything.

Why won't this man sub early enough to make an impact on the game?

JD used to get slaughtered for that too btw.

That would be my biggest criticism of McFarlands management.... too slow and reactive to substitutions... I cant think of many pro-active changes, hes made... oh.. just one.

When we were 2-0 down at Walsall last season, took Clingan off and brought Chief on at half time.. 4-5-1 to 4-4-2... and what do you know, we won!!

[Wooden Spoon]

dalekpete, on Mar 2 2007, 10:01 PM, said:

He could be worse than Larkin. He is very light-weight and lacks any real experience. He might quickly get found out and disappear in a game.

good post pete. in football confidence is everything. its time our experienced players took the bull by the horns. we cant rely on kidsat this stage of the season.

[azul]

death, on Mar 2 2007, 11:07 PM, said:

good post pete. in football confidence is everything. its time our experienced players took the bull by the horns. we cant rely on kidsat this stage of the season.

In that case, looks like we're hoping for a thunderbolt from god to spark them into life

good plan

perhaps if some kids had more than 90 minutes in a season they might develop quicker

[Wooden Spoon]

azul, on Mar 2 2007, 11:15 PM, said:

In that case, looks like we're hoping for a thunderbolt from god to spark them into life

good plan

perhaps if some kids had more than 90 minutes in a season they might develop quicker

they might. but they might get destroyed in five mins by big hairy @r5ed CB`s too, and we effectivly play with 10 men.

its something when we think our hopes rest on a young kid with just a few mins of league football under his belt........

[azul]

death, on Mar 2 2007, 11:22 PM, said:

they might. but they might get destroyed in five mins by big hairy @r5ed CB`s too, and we effectivly play with 10 men.

its something when we think our hopes rest on a young kid with just a few mins of league football under his belt........

I don't think many really believe Jackson is the answer at this stage in the season any more than the do Shaw and Larkin

It's born out of desperation

Then again they should be giving him more than 15 minutes

[Blueprint]

Providing the kid goes into the game with the right attutude and is aware of what might happen i don't think it would destroy him, kids are a lot stronger mentally these days, providing we don't just throw them in at the deep end and just say "there you go lad" the experience ought to be benifical to them.

I wouldn't start with Jackson, but i would give him more that 10 minutes, he needs to get into the game to make an impact and given his level of experience he ain't going to do that in 10 minutes.

[PACCFC]

death, on Mar 2 2007, 11:22 PM, said:

they might. but they might get destroyed in five mins by big hairy @r5ed CB`s too, and we effectivly play with 10 men.

its something when we think our hopes rest on a young kid with just a few mins of league football under his belt........

Jackson wasnt really put off after being elbowed in the face against Forest.

Every1 can see he has talent on the wing but I do think he can do a job upfront and Chief would look after him if he started getting bullied.

[SpireKop]

I wouldn't start with him either, not just yet anyway, but he certainly needs atleast 30 minutes, or maybe even a full half.

[dtp]

SpireKop, on Mar 5 2007, 04:16 PM, said:

I wouldn't start with him either, not just yet anyway, but he certainly needs atleast 30 minutes, or maybe even a full half.

So what's the worst experience for a young lad -

1. Bring him on when we are losing and heads are down with the other team on top with the responsibility of turning the game round, or

2. Let him start the match when neither side has gained an advantage or is chasing the game.

[Blueprint]

It will be easier for him to make an impact later on in the game, when the rest of the players on the pitch have been running around for 60 minutes already.

Once he's played about 10 sub appearances providing he looks capable then would be the time for him to start a game.

Another way of looking at things though is: If he started the game we could sub him if he's ineffective, but if he was ineffective when he came on as a sub it would ruin him to get subbed then. remember Iain Dunn - that's what most folk remember him for.