.png)
Billy Bingham
Maybe he does plan to play him, but whilst he was regaining fitness he didn't play him.. But now we know he is fit, if he continues to leave him out then you're right.Adrian wrote:No, but you can blame the manager for refusing to play that player while he still being paid.
Why refuse to let him go if you're not going to use him anyway?
-
AVincelotFlyingLeap
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:54 pm
- Location: Walking In A Woodall Wonderland
Source for all this, pls
-
Cockney Byrites
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:54 am
I reckon he will play Saturday as I assume Boucaud will still be on International duty, although personally I think he should be playing even with Boucaud in the team, he should be playing in a 3 along side Abu on the left side of centre midfield.
If you play Bingham there and Abu on the right of centre midfield and Boucaud in his normal position just in front of the back four, surely this would be a more balanced midfield.
Unfortunately we don't have an out and out ball winner in this team. Abu runs around a lot and throws himself in front of things, Boucaud buys us time and gets the ball moving and Billy Bings is your passer, all three can make a tackle so surely this is the way forward.
Also with a right footer and a left footer in midfield we may not see people having to take so many touches to get the ball on to their stronger side, which tends to see us get caught in possession.
Just a thought.
If you play Bingham there and Abu on the right of centre midfield and Boucaud in his normal position just in front of the back four, surely this would be a more balanced midfield.
Unfortunately we don't have an out and out ball winner in this team. Abu runs around a lot and throws himself in front of things, Boucaud buys us time and gets the ball moving and Billy Bings is your passer, all three can make a tackle so surely this is the way forward.
Also with a right footer and a left footer in midfield we may not see people having to take so many touches to get the ball on to their stronger side, which tends to see us get caught in possession.
Just a thought.
-
bloke down the pub
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 1:08 am
Too prone to injury . A luxury we can't afford.
I imagine he will start considering Howell is injured and Boucard is on international duty. The team will probably be the same as last night but with Cousins, and Cureton coming in for O'Brien and Yussef. The only debatable one is whether Hemmings will replace Doidge but I kind of hope he sticks with Doidge as he could be good foil for Cureton who is intelligent enough to play off the flick ons. Something Yussef wasn't quite able to do last night.The Romford Dagger wrote:He was our best player last night. He deserves a chance after that in the league Saturday. Not that Wayne will give him one
Now I'm confused. Earlier on this thread you seemed to agree that he was being frozen out by the manager, but now he was injured?matt_drfc wrote:Maybe he does plan to play him, but whilst he was regaining fitness he didn't play him.. But now we know he is fit, if he continues to leave him out then you're right.Adrian wrote:No, but you can blame the manager for refusing to play that player while he still being paid.
Why refuse to let him go if you're not going to use him anyway?
So he was too injured to even make the bench on Friday but was suddenly fit enough to start yesterday.
-
Diggerthedog
- Posts: 3897
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 pm
He has been fit for ages.Adrian wrote:Now I'm confused. Earlier on this thread you seemed to agree that he was being frozen out by the manager, but now he was injured?matt_drfc wrote:Maybe he does plan to play him, but whilst he was regaining fitness he didn't play him.. But now we know he is fit, if he continues to leave him out then you're right.Adrian wrote:No, but you can blame the manager for refusing to play that player while he still being paid.
Why refuse to let him go if you're not going to use him anyway?
So he was too injured to even make the bench on Friday but was suddenly fit enough to start yesterday.
No I didn't? And not making the bench doesn't mean you're injured does it? Could be a different reason he wasn't on the bench on Friday.Adrian wrote:Now I'm confused. Earlier on this thread you seemed to agree that he was being frozen out by the manager, but now he was injured?matt_drfc wrote:Maybe he does plan to play him, but whilst he was regaining fitness he didn't play him.. But now we know he is fit, if he continues to leave him out then you're right.Adrian wrote:No, but you can blame the manager for refusing to play that player while he still being paid.
Why refuse to let him go if you're not going to use him anyway?
So he was too injured to even make the bench on Friday but was suddenly fit enough to start yesterday.
First 3 posts in this thread:matt_drfc wrote: No I didn't?
Diggerthedog - He asked to leave, he's been frozen out
Someone else - Where did you get his from?
matt_drfc - Quote "It's true"
Now, I accept that it's possible I've spent my life misunderstanding what "it's true" means but I'm not sure I have.
You're correct, there could be another reason, that has been pretty much the theme of this entire thread after all.matt_drfc wrote:And not making the bench doesn't mean you're injured does it? Could be a different reason he wasn't on the bench on Friday.
It was in reply to the second post of "Where did you see that?" Apologies that I didn't quote when replying and it may not make complete sense, sorry.Adrian wrote:First 3 posts in this thread:matt_drfc wrote: No I didn't?
Diggerthedog - He asked to leave, he's been frozen out
Someone else - Where did you get his from?
matt_drfc - Quote "It's true"
Now, I accept that it's possible I've spent my life misunderstanding what "it's true" means but I'm not sure I have.
You're correct, there could be another reason, that has been pretty much the theme of this entire thread after all.matt_drfc wrote:And not making the bench doesn't mean you're injured does it? Could be a different reason he wasn't on the bench on Friday.
And the reason I was thinking it could be, that simply Burnett saw the options he put on the bench as potentially making a better impact. I don't know the reason for it, just suggesting.
It seems to me that you're clutching desperately at straws in order to avoid accepting something that seems to be obvious to pretty much everyone else. If what you're suggesting was true, then to be honest it is probably even more worrying.matt_drfc wrote: And the reason I was thinking it could be, that simply Burnett saw the options he put on the bench as potentially making a better impact. I don't know the reason for it, just suggesting.