Bury match thread (1 Viewer)

I_Saw_Shaw_Score

Well-Known Member
Has he? Well, I would take that. Whatever it takes to win the game.

If TM believes we can win the game without him, then so be it and I'm sure he does need a rest at some point.

Be a bit odd though if he was just resting him now, because we then don't have a game for two weeks.


Agree I'm sure he means more for a few weeks time when we have the Saturday, Tuesday Saturday games start again.

No excuses not to have the strongest 11 starting tomorrow giving their all with the prospect of 2 weeks match free!

I suppose he could rest AA over the Easter period, oh wait he's playing in another one of those mid season U19's tournaments!
 

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
Agree I'm sure he means more for a few weeks time when we have the Saturday, Tuesday Saturday games start again.

No excuses not to have the strongest 11 starting tomorrow giving their all with the prospect of 2 weeks match free!

I suppose he could rest AA over the Easter period, oh wait he's playing in another one of those mid season U19's tournaments!


I would play play him in every game we need before that under 19 rubbish starts and I don't care if he gets there tired, if he is tired they can rest him, players who are in first teams shouldn't be pissing around in under 19 games it's a total waste of time.
 

I_Saw_Shaw_Score

Well-Known Member
I would play play him in every game we need before that under 19 rubbish starts and I don't care if he gets there tired, if he is tired they can rest him, players who are in first teams shouldn't be pissing around in under 19 games it's a total waste of time.


100% agree as much as he's honoured to play for his country blahhh I bet he would rather be playing on TV on good Friday v Peterborough trying to show case his talents to the watching public ie (NUFC fans) than playing in front of 200 fans in Europe somewhere.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Did you see that same sentence then in the 80's and 90's?

Pretty sure City and Southend were leagues apart back then. ;)

Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk
 

LB87ccfc

Member
4 pages about our next game, and numerous pages about a wank SCG group and numerous about a shite court case.... says it all that is wrong with this forum.
 

Moff

Well-Known Member
4 pages about our next game, and numerous pages about a wank SCG group and numerous about a shite court case.... says it all that is wrong with this forum.

I think this isnt helped by the apprehension of we just dont know what we will get tomorrow, and hoping for a win to get some of the confidence back in the team, and the fans.
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
we will win i can just feel it!!! thats prob why less posts in here too, if we were gonna lose the negative posters would be all over it.

wouldnt mind seeing 5 in midfield again but we will probably ge tback to ball retention this weekend as we are home
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Yeah probably back to 4-2-3-1. Not sure where rose fits in now we have both fleck and vince back?
Why not?

I can see a midfield and striker line-up like this working:



Vincelot Fleck

Murphy Rose Cole

Armstrong

What's wrong with that? And you can make Murphy and Rose a fluid two, so they can interchange.
 

ready_96

Member
Why not?

I can see a midfield and striker line-up like this working:



Vincelot Fleck

Murphy Rose Cole

Armstrong

What's wrong with that? And you can make Murphy and Rose a fluid two, so they can interchange.

I wouldn't drop maddison and play rose. I think rose is more of a defensive minded player than a CAM
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
I would play Rose instead of Maddison.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
An in-form JOB, yes, but he's been oddly out of form for the most part this season.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
An in-form JOB, yes, but he's been oddly out of form for the most part this season.

So has Murphy, but people seem to get upset when the suggestion he needs to be dropped comes across.

I don't disagree with you that he's been out of form, but believe the lack of form for players such as O'Brien, Lameiras et al is largely part to being in and out of the team at TM's irrational disposal. I'm not sure the lack of consistency helps the players if I'm honest.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I think his intention has been to keep people fresh, but really it's time to go for it now and just play your best side week in week out, especially when our form is like it is.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
So has Murphy, but people seem to get upset when the suggestion he needs to be dropped comes across.

I don't disagree with you that he's been out of form, but believe the lack of form for players such as O'Brien, Lameiras et al is largely part to being in and out of the team at TM's irrational disposal. I'm not sure the lack of consistency helps the players if I'm honest.
Difference is, Murphy has been scoring goals.
 

Gazolba

Well-Known Member
<snip> just play your best side week in week out, especially when our form is like it is.

The problem is no-one is best from week to week. Everyone's performances are up and down.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
The problem is no-one is best from week to week. Everyone's performances are up and down.

I mean best in terms of "on paper", give them a run. I agree though, I can't think of any of the forwards who have been consistent, Cole at least has been on an upward curve.
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Difference is, Murphy has been scoring goals.

He's only scored in about six games this season, and been absent for nearly all of the remaining. Not quite the talisman people are led to believe.

Up until the Port Vale game where he scored (and did nothing for the other 89 minutes), he was one of the worst, if not the worst player on the pitch for the previous 3 matches barring the injury.

O'Brien can't play more than one game in a row before being dropped, even when he has been one of the better and most effective players on the pitch, which has happened on many occasions.

The chopping and changing only seems to benefit Murphy, because he's the only one not getting dropped regardless of how many half hearted performances he puts in.

I truly believe we would score more goals with him not in the team, blunting the attack in over 20 of the games he's played, and a major contributor to the reason Armstrong isn't getting any service.
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
He's only scored in about six games this season, and been absent for nearly all of the remaining. Not quite the talisman people are led to believe.

Up until the Port Vale game where he scored (and did nothing for the other 89 minutes), he was one of the worst, if not the worst player on the pitch for the previous 3 matches barring the injury.

O'Brien can't play more than one game in a row before being dropped, even when he has been one of the better and most effective players on the pitch, which has happened on many occasions.

The chopping and changing only seems to benefit Murphy, because he's the only one not getting dropped regardless of how many half hearted performances he puts in.

I truly believe we would score more goals with him not in the team, blunting the attack in over 20 of the games he's played, and a major contributor to the reason Armstrong isn't getting any service.

Armchair punditry if ever I saw it.
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Armchair punditry if ever I saw it.

I've been to almost every game this season, so at the very least you could have granted me the padded seat. My opinion isn't formed from other people's comments on here, or telegraph write ups.

I suppose if you had any decent counter arguments you would have used them by now anyway.
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
I've been to almost every game this season, so at the very least you could have granted me the padded seat. My opinion isn't formed from other people's comments on here, or telegraph write ups.

I suppose if you had any decent counter arguments you would have used them by now anyway.

Touchy.

The idea that an attacking player is, by default, ineffective or guilty of 'blunting the attack' in games he doesn't score in is absurd.

Murphy has played well and contributed in a number of games where he hasn't found the net. He has had some poor games too and is on a bad run of form. He is that type of player. Inconsistent yes, but also raw and exciting. Rather than than some plodding up and down wide player who is consistently mediocre.
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Touchy.

The idea that an attacking player is, by default, ineffective or guilty of 'blunting the attack' in games he doesn't score in is absurd.

Murphy has played well and contributed in a number of games where he hasn't found the net. He has had some poor games too and is on a bad run of form. He is that type of player. Inconsistent yes, but also raw and exciting. Rather than than some plodding up and down wide player who is consistently mediocre.

I wouldn't flatter yourself.

The argument that he is blunting the attack (in nearly all) the games he hasn't scored in is not absurd at all. He constantly hogs the ball, shoots from unreasonable distance, and almost never passes to team mates when someone makes a good run.

If you're not scoring, and you're not creating chances for other players when you're one of four attacking players then what are you doing? Blunting the attack, and the shirt would be better used elsewhere.

The statement that he has played well
In games he hasn't scored in isn't true on almost any level either, so I would actually question if you go to any of the games. He hasn't had just a few poor matches, he has had many, and the argument that he is just out of form when he blatantly isn't making any where near the effort required from someone who is supposed to be a professional doesn't quite wash.

It's the same with the fascination of Ryan Kent. Some of our fans would rather see a player skin a man and it come to nothing than an effective team work together and win a game. If that's what you'd rather pay your money for (if you do actually go to the games) then fair enough, but sadly it's a little bit circus like.
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't flatter yourself.

The argument that he is blunting the attack (in nearly all) the games he hasn't scored in is not absurd at all. He constantly hogs the ball, shoots from unreasonable distance, and almost never passes to team mates when someone makes a good run.

If you're not scoring, and you're not creating chances for other players when you're one of four attacking players then what are you doing? Blunting the attack, and the shirt would be better used elsewhere.

The statement that he has played well
In games he hasn't scored in isn't true on almost any level either, so I would actually question if you go to any of the games. He hasn't had just a few poor matches, he has had many, and the argument that he is just out of form when he blatantly isn't making any where near the effort required from someone who is supposed to be a professional doesn't quite wash.

It's the same with the fascination of Ryan Kent. Some of our fans would rather see a player skin a man and it come to nothing than an effective team work together and win a game. If that's what you'd rather pay your money for (if you do actually go to the games) then fair enough, but sadly it's a little bit circus like.

If you want to turn it into a dick measuring exercise about who has been to the most games, well I have only missed Millwall, Bradford and Fleetwood all season. Not that it means anything.

You're right about Ryan Kent, people made the same lame arguments about him before he left, and how well have we done since then? Does we look more or less threatening going forward? Players who run at defenders create uncertainty and create space for others. We miss him. Get over it.

And I take it you missed the Peterborough game. Murphy ran riot in that second half. Did he score? No. Must have 'blunted' the attack then. Your last post should win some sort of award.
 
Last edited:

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
If you want to turn it into a dick measuring exercise about who has been to the most games, well I have only missed Millwall, Bradford and Fleetwood all season. Not that it means anything.

You're right about Ryan Kent, people made the same lame arguments about him before he left, and how well have we done since then? Does we look more or less threatening going forward? Players who run at defenders create uncertainty and create space for others. We miss him. Get over it.

And I take it you missed the Peterborough game. Murphy ran riot in that second half. Did he score? No. Must have 'blunted' the attack then. Your last post should win some sort of award.

It only became a dick measuring exercise following your opening comment about me being an armchair pundit, so I'm not sure why you're trying to take the moral high ground.

The fact of the matter is, you could go to another 1000 games of football before the end of 2016 but if you say we miss Ryan Kent then that shows me why we can't agree at all on this.

Anyone in Sunday league standard can run at a defence and cause panic, but like pace, it has to be used intelligently, something Kent or Murphy does not have. How many times did this 'running at defences' cause panic? Almost never, because if you have men over, you have to exploit that. This never happened with Kent because he couldn't even manage a straight forward pass of 5 yards. It also isn't very threating if the outcome after skinning two players is to involuntarily kick the ball out for a throw in, but again, happy clappy.

Again though, we start playing badly (to be honest many matches we were punching and had a lot of luck anyway) and the desperation kicks in. One assist and one goal is hardly very instrumental, and despite your thoughts, would not be very beneficial to us now either.

It's a shame you missed Millwall though. Our modest attacking four ripped them apart with fluid passing football, sheer organisation, and battle. That was when we were at our best. As for P'boro, that turn around was mainly credited to JOB to which I agree, his energy and drive meant that Murphy could make a couple of runs and exploit them. It was one of his better games. Had JOB not come on however, I doubt we would have seen the same outcome. As I said anyway 'in nearly all games he hasn't scored in' and the one you picked there is the one that is of most exception. It's a shame he has not been like that more often, because he could have been a lot more instrumental to us so far, rather than a too often passenger.
 

Nick

Administrator
I think he should stop fucking about with the team, I would like to see Rose play though to bring some more beef to the side.

I am quite confident about tomorrow though, hopefully be a turning point.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top