Downes injured

[Behind-the-Gulls]

Sure McKenzie would have coped admirably if he had been fit-anyone know if he is getting better?

[ROADRUNNER]

i see adam lockwood has just been realeased from bury, would be great cover for downsey, still only 31, good defender.

[chunkygull]

in my previous post i started to write but scrapped it, that maybe we could bring back nicho at left back and slide cruise into centre half, then i read the player stats on the official site that cruise is only 5 foot 7 inches. i thought he was taller than that , but still felt he may be a bit short for that position.

likewise i started to write, to put mansell in at right back, lathrope in the midfield, tonge at right centre half, pearce to slide over.

today is going to be a battle methinks and every man will have to help out and do their bit. for once i would say the back 4 does need protection and we need to make use of a packed midfield and dare i say it defensive midfielders ( cant believe i just wrote that).

[TeenageGull]

Chunky, Cruise is playing at CB

[chunkygull]

by TeenageGull » 5 minutes ago

Chunky, Cruise is playing at CB

yes i know that. thats why i wrote my previous post. i started to write it as a suggestion in the early hours of the morning but after reading he is only 5 foot 7 i thought, "oh $h1t", that was my point.

but, what other defenders have we got available, unless we swap the other side of defence around, tonge could deputise at centre back/ half but that would mean moving mansell and pearce. so i agree with the selection that has been made.

[supergulls]

Tom cruise is 6ft and we have jake Hutchings who is 6ft 1

[vinny]

I heard last night Downes might have done his cruciate......... hoping they are wrong

[chunkygull]

by supergulls » 24 minutes ago

Tom cruise is 6ft and we have jake Hutchings who is 6ft 1

im glad to read that. this makes the selection choice quite a good one and im not so worried about today.

as i wrote earlier it says on the official site stats for him that he is 5 foot 7 inches. i did say i thought he was taller than that. i dont agree with the obsession about size in english football, but i do think the centre halves/backs should have a bit if height etc.

would hutchings be ready to call upon if needed. i am a firm believer of, if they are good enough they are old enough and sometimes taking a gamble by chucking a player in at the deep end is the best way to bring them on and really get them to show what they can do. is he ready for it though?

[Chris B]

i see adam lockwood has just been realeased from bury, would be great cover for downsey, still only 31, good defender.

100% agree. It was a long time ago that he had his loan spell with us, but he was a genuine POTS candidate on the back of less than a dozen appearances. Experienced, available, and with a clean sheet under his belt this season - sign him up Knill.

[jonnyfive]

Not much info in the Bury news article:

http://www.buryfc.co.uk/news/article/lo ... 75692.aspx

Lockwood has always struck me as a solid CB. Definitely worth a look, perhaps he would accept a 6 month deal? Any wages are better than none.

[AustrianAndyGull]

Sure McKenzie would have coped admirably if he had been fit-anyone know if he is getting better?

Totally agree. Saw him make his debut away at Vale last season and he was immense. We drew 1-1 (Saah og) and we all know what Vale went on to do. I'd have no worries about McKenzie coming in although obviously he is very inexperienced. He has bags of potential though (a bit like lots of our players who don't get a fair crack of the whip and then get released) so I hope Kirtys isn't next on this list.

[Gullscorer]

This appears to have been a problem with the Gulls for a long time, young players coming through with promise who are never given a real chance to fulfil their potential. Of these, some move on to success with other clubs, a few in higher leagues, and some are disillusioned, lose their ambition, and eventually settle for a career in lower leagues. We should not be wasting such talent. Even if their future lies elsewhere, we should at least be bringing them to a level where we can command a decent transfer fee for them.

[yellowforever]

This appears to have been a problem with the Gulls for a long time, young players coming through with promise who are never given a real chance to fulfil their potential. Of these, some move on to success with other clubs, a few in higher leagues, and some are disillusioned, lose their ambition, and eventually settle for a career in lower leagues. We should not be wasting such talent. Even if their future lies elsewhere, we should at least be bringing them to a level where we can command a decent transfer fee for them.

It is disappointing, especially when you try to compare us with our neighbours, Exeter. They frequently have players coming through their youth system playing in their first team, and many go on to playing at a higher level. The same can be said for Plymouth. That said, both of their academies are far more established than ours, with ours only coming back into existence after the consortium took over. The hope (from many on this board anyway) that eventually we'll have some better players coming through as they'll be part of a group that went from under 11s all the way up to YTS. Geoff Harrop overseeing this transition will be essential, as he's a fantastic coach and praised by many in and out of the club. I think that won't be for another 3/4 years however, but in the meanwhile we do have good players coming through. Sullivan looks a prospect, and will hopefully be introduced more in the second half of the season, and I'm told that Hutchings is well thought of.

I agree with the general consensus that the Yeoman loan to Bideford is bizarre. Having gone there 2 years ago, he scored almost a goal a game there, and since then it's hard to disagree that he's developed as a goal, his strike at Morcambe is evidence of this. Thompson has been loaned to a club at a higher level, and by all means is already impressing with a goal in his first game - but is he better than Yeoman? For my money, no. Yeoman would be a handy acquisition for many BSP clubs and I'd have liked both him and Thompson to have been sent to a club at that level. I'm not suggesting he's going to walk into the Luton team, but one of the smaller teams, southern based teams (Salisbury?) would have been sensible.

On the matter of Downes, when signing him we knew this would be a big risk. On one hand, we've had terrific performances from him in the past year and a half, however on the other we have the impending worry that there is a bigger risk than normal in losing part of the spine of the team. No idea whether Lockwood would be a good signing or not, his performances on loan for us back in the Leroy days were very very impressive. Didn't he have a better goals to game ratio than our forwards? However, that was a long time ago. I trust Knill to source out a good temporary option, unless he fancies blooding Hutchings which I, for what it's worth, would be supportive of.

[supergulls]

It is disappointing, especially when you try to compare us with our neighbours, Exeter. They frequently have players coming through their youth system playing in their first team, and many go on to playing at a higher level. The same can be said for Plymouth. That said, both of their academies are far more established than ours, with ours only coming back into existence after the consortium took over. The hope (from many on this board anyway) that eventually we'll have some better players coming through as they'll be part of a group that went from under 11s all the way up to YTS. Geoff Harrop overseeing this transition will be essential, as he's a fantastic coach and praised by many in and out of the club. I think that won't be for another 3/4 years however, but in the meanwhile we do have good players coming through. Sullivan looks a prospect, and will hopefully be introduced more in the second half of the season, and I'm told that Hutchings is well thought of.

I agree with the general consensus that the Yeoman loan to Bideford is bizarre. Having gone there 2 years ago, he scored almost a goal a game there, and since then it's hard to disagree that he's developed as a goal, his strike at Morcambe is evidence of this. Thompson has been loaned to a club at a higher level, and by all means is already impressing with a goal in his first game - but is he better than Yeoman? For my money, no. Yeoman would be a handy acquisition for many BSP clubs and I'd have liked both him and Thompson to have been sent to a club at that level. I'm not suggesting he's going to walk into the Luton team, but one of the smaller teams, southern based teams (Salisbury?) would have been sensible.

On the matter of Downes, when signing him we knew this would be a big risk. On one hand, we've had terrific performances from him in the past year and a half, however on the other we have the impending worry that there is a bigger risk than normal in losing part of the spine of the team. No idea whether Lockwood would be a good signing or not, his performances on loan for us back in the Leroy days were very very impressive. Didn't he have a better goals to game ratio than our forwards? However, that was a long time ago. I trust Knill to source out a good temporary option, unless he fancies blooding Hutchings which I, for what it's worth, would be supportive of.

If you go back a year to port vale away Downes was suspended so kirtys gets called up to make his debut and Hutchings is on the bench at the age of 16 under Martin Ling. We earn a draw kirtys puts in a fantastic performance. Fast forward to yesterday we have no other defender in the squad but knill chooses to ignore Hutchings who was good enough for the bench a year ago against a fantastic port vale team. He decided to shuffle our team about and play people out of position rather than give youth a chance. I think this speaks volumes on his attitude towards our younger players. If one of our defenders would have got an injury yesterday what would we have done with a bench full of attackers and midfielders.

[AustrianAndyGull]

On the bench we had Craig, a totally overlooked midfielder often not even on the bench this season, short of game time and ready to be stuck on and expected to change a game?

We also had Benyon who should be in the 11 IMO.

We also had Hawley who should also be in the 11 IMO.

We also had Azeez who isn't ours and who came on ahead of Benyon AND Hawley (what must they think of that?) but he did score.

We also had Sullivan who is a rookie but i'm all for giving them a chance. Desperate stuff if we were going to bring him on expecting him to do the business.

We also had Cameron which is just desperate stuff and wasting a place on the bench for someone else from what I've seen so far.

So all in Knill left our two most competent and dangerous finishers on the bench and played Ball and not only that but he didn't bring on Benyon and Hawley until the last 10 mins or so. Unbelievable.

Our bench isn't strong with attackers if he starts with Hawley and Benners, it is bloody awful. Of the other attackers, Bodin I won't go into again as you all know my views, Chappell is the one real positive, a real quality player and Ball is poor and will be going back to Derby.

Our midfield consists of a tired looking Mansell, Harding who has had an appalling start but is looking slightly better and Lathrope who is as defensive as they come.

We are basically wasting bench places with players that should either be in the first 11 for a kick off, players who aren't used enough to have any impact and it would be unfair on them to expect this and also spaces are wasted on players who aren't good enough. Meanwhile Yeoman is at Bideford and Thommo is at Worcester and we have zero defensive cover other than shipping over our full back Cruise to centre half just as he had usurped Nico because Knill thought Nico wasn't good enough presumably. So Knill plays a player he no longer thinks is good enough just because he hasn't added any defensive cover but has signed (Chappell aside and possibly Hawley too) duff players.

I'd call it mental.

My preferred first 11 is looks a really solid side on paper but once the surface is scratched we've got nothing left.