You are having a laugh."deanwindass" wrote:And Bulman"Ascension Ox" wrote:Clarke is more important than Foster. So is Creighton. So is Batt. So , arguably is Murray ...on his day."GodalmingYellow" wrote: I tend to agree, and not forgetting that defenders often have worse disciplinary records than other positions. It goes with the territory of having to prevent goals.
Like Hog, I was a bit unnerved by losing top spot, albeit by default rather than through a losing run. I am pleased by the Tonkin signing, who is probably the best left back in the division. Bar Constable, losing Foster is perhaps the player I would least like to lose in the squad.
Let's hope it turns out to be a mis-understanding of some sort.
We've had some games postponed and wow we've lost top spot. Why on earth be at all 'unnerved'? Some supporters are such pussies.
Leavers
-
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
-
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re: Fozzie
Jake Wright yet to be seen, Rhys Day isn't half the player that Foster is."OUFC4eva" wrote:I have to go with CW's judgement on this one.
Oddly, perhaps, I can see Wilder's line of thinking. LF has not been great over the past 7-8 weeks. He looked at fault at Kidderminster went he was grounded inside two minutes when big Matthews scored from close in and then he was dismissed against Barrow for bringing down their forward in the box when they had barely threatened at that point. He was far from great in the replay apparently and I felt it was Foster who allowed Todd to head in that equaliser at Salisbury last week. I don't think CW would scapegoat one player for the failure to beat Barrow but you never know.
I have also thought that Foster struggled badly against the likes of Brodie, Rankin, Wright (Histon), Louis (Crawley) and big Damian Spencer at Kettering back in August.
CW feels that Foster is surplus to requirements and that Jake Wright and Rhys Day - to a lesser extent - are better players so we will find out when we next see some action!
I personally don't see LF being good enough for the Football League
if I am honest but I have enjoyed watching him for the best part of three years. CW knows a decent centre half when he sees one.
Re:
I have a very different view here. IMHO to say that Murray gives the ball away TEN times as much as he completes ONE incisive pass is complete b*****s. Plus he is of great value in being available to receive the ball and retain possession in many games. Football is made up much more of playing the simple ball effectively than the incisive pass. And before I allow anyone to get in there first - yes I do think Murray tries to play the incisive (killer) ball too often resulting in a loss of possession."GodalmingYellow" wrote:[Murray is overrated in my view. He gives the ball away 10 times as much as he completes an incisive pass and defensively he isn't the best.
But when he does not play we usually miss him.
-
- Puberty
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:41 pm
- Location: Oxford
Re:
Nope. I'd say that in our current state Bulman is more crucial to us than Foster. We've got decent cover at centre back but only the as yet unseen Fowler, who has underachieved in his career thus far according to CW, as backup for Bully."GodalmingYellow" wrote:You are having a laugh."deanwindass" wrote:And Bulman"Ascension Ox" wrote: Clarke is more important than Foster. So is Creighton. So is Batt. So , arguably is Murray ...on his day.
We've had some games postponed and wow we've lost top spot. Why on earth be at all 'unnerved'? Some supporters are such pussies.
Clist and Murray would be too lightweight a pairing, esp. away from home and Chappers hasn't quite hit last season's form yet, though he has obviously been played out of position or not at all.
-
- Middle-Aged Spread
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:34 am
- Location: London
Re:
I have to question your, erm questioning of some of our players above. I'm not sure that you've taken into account the fact we are a non-league club playing in the Conference. Players are going to be a bit shit at this level, so it's easy to say "He gives the ball away..." If he didn't he'd be playing in League 2 / 1 / Champ / Prem*"GodalmingYellow" wrote:The following are all relative comments - I'm not being critical of the individual players who are all right up there as being close to best in class in the division, but:"Ascension Ox" wrote:Clarke is more important than Foster. So is Creighton. So is Batt. So , arguably is Murray ...on his day."GodalmingYellow" wrote: I tend to agree, and not forgetting that defenders often have worse disciplinary records than other positions. It goes with the territory of having to prevent goals.
Like Hog, I was a bit unnerved by losing top spot, albeit by default rather than through a losing run. I am pleased by the Tonkin signing, who is probably the best left back in the division. Bar Constable, losing Foster is perhaps the player I would least like to lose in the squad.
Let's hope it turns out to be a mis-understanding of some sort.
We've had some games postponed and wow we've lost top spot. Why on earth be at all 'unnerved'? Some supporters are such pussies.
Don't agree about Clarke - he's good but there are lots of good keepers.
Don't agree about Creighton - he's good, especially in the air, but he's slow and his distribution under pressure sometimes looks hurried.
Batt I'm minded to give you that one - I really like him as a player.
Murray is overrated in my view. He gives the ball away 10 times as much as he completes an incisive pass and defensively he isn't the best.
I think Foster is better (for his position) than all those (for their positions) except Batt, who apart from Costable is the best player in the squad.
The only conclusion I can reach is that it is down to money in that the club know they wiill not be able to remotely match Foster's current contract come May & so want to free up the wages now. I don't imagine that Tonkin was cheap.
Oh and btw Meeeow!
I think in most positions we have some of the best players in the league but, more importantly, we seem to act like a team.
*delete as appropriate
-
- Middle-Aged Spread
- Posts: 1436
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:45 pm
- Location: Stayed at the Manor.
snake did say they're relative comments, and i think that's the right approach to take.
of course, you're right: non-league players will always have some deficiency in their game, or they'll be off to a higher club pretty quickly. the question for me is what's the deficiency, how crucial is it, and can the team cover it or compensate for it?
as for foster, the deficiency as far as i can see is concentration and consistency. he's been great for Us, but the start of the last two seasons have been a bit of a worry. it's taken a while for him to switch on fully i think, or it's taken someone pushing him for his place.
so while you're right, some downside's to be expected with non-league players, i suspect wilder adopts the point of view that snake's advocating - not overlooking these, and looking at them as areas for potential improvement. wilder presumably has a lot of faith in wright, and perhaps sees him as presenting a more reliable partner to creighton.
that said, assuming foster will no longer be first pick for centre back, i am surprised at this being done mid-way through this season. but: in wilder we trust.
of course, you're right: non-league players will always have some deficiency in their game, or they'll be off to a higher club pretty quickly. the question for me is what's the deficiency, how crucial is it, and can the team cover it or compensate for it?
as for foster, the deficiency as far as i can see is concentration and consistency. he's been great for Us, but the start of the last two seasons have been a bit of a worry. it's taken a while for him to switch on fully i think, or it's taken someone pushing him for his place.
so while you're right, some downside's to be expected with non-league players, i suspect wilder adopts the point of view that snake's advocating - not overlooking these, and looking at them as areas for potential improvement. wilder presumably has a lot of faith in wright, and perhaps sees him as presenting a more reliable partner to creighton.
that said, assuming foster will no longer be first pick for centre back, i am surprised at this being done mid-way through this season. but: in wilder we trust.
Last edited by Matt D on Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
We can debate about how good Fozzie is/isn't, fact remains is that Wilder clearly rates him as he has been an ever present since he took over keeping out the likes of Day/Perry.
Fine if you want to improve the team by bringing in a better player, but why tell him he can leave, why not tell him get your head down, work hard and earn a new contract. If Wright gets injured/doesn't work well with the BEast it would be nice to have Fozzie to come in, rather than Day. For the sake of 6 months wages why not keep him.
Seems to me that he's upset Wilder.
-----------------------------------------
With regards to Murray I would claim he was our most important player, we miss him when he's injured/suspended and he's one of the very few players we have now who can create something and always wants the ball. Against Sailsbury without him I thought we looked poor and lacked ideas and I don't understand the strong feelings a number of people have about him not being very good.
Fine if you want to improve the team by bringing in a better player, but why tell him he can leave, why not tell him get your head down, work hard and earn a new contract. If Wright gets injured/doesn't work well with the BEast it would be nice to have Fozzie to come in, rather than Day. For the sake of 6 months wages why not keep him.
Seems to me that he's upset Wilder.
-----------------------------------------
With regards to Murray I would claim he was our most important player, we miss him when he's injured/suspended and he's one of the very few players we have now who can create something and always wants the ball. Against Sailsbury without him I thought we looked poor and lacked ideas and I don't understand the strong feelings a number of people have about him not being very good.
-
- Grumpy old git
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 12:23 pm
- Location: Nowhere near Treviso
An on-form Murray makes us much more creative. I thought he was at his best playing "in the hole" behind Constable and I don't think that the 4-3-3 (which seemed to arrive to accommodate Cook) helps him. He does have off days when he disappears or tries to over-elaborate, it is true, but he's the nearest we've got to a playmaker.
The main thing I don't like about the Foster decision is what it says about Wilder (... unless there is something we don't know about Foster's behaviour behind the scenes, but there's no obvious evidence of that) ... it flags dangers of a decision-making style that threatens "losing the dressing room" if things go down hill, and (as said earlier) a belief that only his acquired players are worthy. As others have said, I can't see that it is a good idea to break up a defensive pairing that has been pretty effective this season. Usual disclaimer about his having done a good job thus far, de da de da ...
Bulman is a real dynamo. You need someone like that in midfield doing the watercarrier role.
I do find the Batt-worship mystifying. Woeful defensive positioning, weak in the air, for all supposed strengths going forward. Fortunately few sides at this level have effective wide left players.
The main thing I don't like about the Foster decision is what it says about Wilder (... unless there is something we don't know about Foster's behaviour behind the scenes, but there's no obvious evidence of that) ... it flags dangers of a decision-making style that threatens "losing the dressing room" if things go down hill, and (as said earlier) a belief that only his acquired players are worthy. As others have said, I can't see that it is a good idea to break up a defensive pairing that has been pretty effective this season. Usual disclaimer about his having done a good job thus far, de da de da ...
Bulman is a real dynamo. You need someone like that in midfield doing the watercarrier role.
I do find the Batt-worship mystifying. Woeful defensive positioning, weak in the air, for all supposed strengths going forward. Fortunately few sides at this level have effective wide left players.
-
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
You appear to have completely ignored my deliberate and overt use of the word "relative". I'm pretty sue that I made it clear that I think most of our players are among the best in this league, and I made it clear that I was not criticising the players."recordmeister" wrote:I have to question your, erm questioning of some of our players above. I'm not sure that you've taken into account the fact we are a non-league club playing in the Conference. Players are going to be a bit shit at this level, so it's easy to say "He gives the ball away..." If he didn't he'd be playing in League 2 / 1 / Champ / Prem*"GodalmingYellow" wrote:The following are all relative comments - I'm not being critical of the individual players who are all right up there as being close to best in class in the division, but:"Ascension Ox" wrote: Clarke is more important than Foster. So is Creighton. So is Batt. So , arguably is Murray ...on his day.
We've had some games postponed and wow we've lost top spot. Why on earth be at all 'unnerved'? Some supporters are such pussies.
Don't agree about Clarke - he's good but there are lots of good keepers.
Don't agree about Creighton - he's good, especially in the air, but he's slow and his distribution under pressure sometimes looks hurried.
Batt I'm minded to give you that one - I really like him as a player.
Murray is overrated in my view. He gives the ball away 10 times as much as he completes an incisive pass and defensively he isn't the best.
I think Foster is better (for his position) than all those (for their positions) except Batt, who apart from Costable is the best player in the squad.
The only conclusion I can reach is that it is down to money in that the club know they wiill not be able to remotely match Foster's current contract come May & so want to free up the wages now. I don't imagine that Tonkin was cheap.
Oh and btw Meeeow!
I think in most positions we have some of the best players in the league but, more importantly, we seem to act like a team.
*delete as appropriate
Alll I was saying was that relative the the other players in the squad, Foster is a better and more important player.
Saying Murray gives the ball away more than he delivers isn't to say he's a bad player because for this league he is a very good player. Itjust means that compared to others in our squad, he makes more mistakes.
-
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
A dynamo yes, critical to the side, no. Againthere are many players who can play in that way."Ancient Colin" wrote:An on-form Murray makes us much more creative. I thought he was at his best playing "in the hole" behind Constable and I don't think that the 4-3-3 (which seemed to arrive to accommodate Cook) helps him. He does have off days when he disappears or tries to over-elaborate, it is true, but he's the nearest we've got to a playmaker.
The main thing I don't like about the Foster decision is what it says about Wilder (... unless there is something we don't know about Foster's behaviour behind the scenes, but there's no obvious evidence of that) ... it flags dangers of a decision-making style that threatens "losing the dressing room" if things go down hill, and (as said earlier) a belief that only his acquired players are worthy. As others have said, I can't see that it is a good idea to break up a defensive pairing that has been pretty effective this season. Usual disclaimer about his having done a good job thus far, de da de da ...
Bulman is a real dynamo. You need someone like that in midfield doing the watercarrier role.
I do find the Batt-worship mystifying. Woeful defensive positioning, weak in the air, for all supposed strengths going forward. Fortunately few sides at this level have effective wide left players.
I don't understand how you can say Batt's defensive positioning is poor. Au contraire, I would say it is excellent. I would accept his heading is weaker, but that's a fairly minor issue for a full/wing back. On top of that his attacking play from the back is second to none in the division, and his close control, passing, movement with and without the ball, and ability to beat a player, not to mention his outrageous pace, makes him very special at this level. I've no doubt that when fully fit, he would hold a regular place in a Championship side.
-
- Puberty
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:41 pm
- Location: Oxford
Re:
Name one in our squad, other than Fowler who none of us have seen."GodalmingYellow" wrote:A dynamo yes, critical to the side, no. Againthere are many players who can play in that way."Ancient Colin" wrote:An on-form Murray makes us much more creative. I thought he was at his best playing "in the hole" behind Constable and I don't think that the 4-3-3 (which seemed to arrive to accommodate Cook) helps him. He does have off days when he disappears or tries to over-elaborate, it is true, but he's the nearest we've got to a playmaker.
The main thing I don't like about the Foster decision is what it says about Wilder (... unless there is something we don't know about Foster's behaviour behind the scenes, but there's no obvious evidence of that) ... it flags dangers of a decision-making style that threatens "losing the dressing room" if things go down hill, and (as said earlier) a belief that only his acquired players are worthy. As others have said, I can't see that it is a good idea to break up a defensive pairing that has been pretty effective this season. Usual disclaimer about his having done a good job thus far, de da de da ...
Bulman is a real dynamo. You need someone like that in midfield doing the watercarrier role.
I do find the Batt-worship mystifying. Woeful defensive positioning, weak in the air, for all supposed strengths going forward. Fortunately few sides at this level have effective wide left players.
I don't understand how you can say Batt's defensive positioning is poor. Au contraire, I would say it is excellent. I would accept his heading is weaker, but that's a fairly minor issue for a full/wing back. On top of that his attacking play from the back is second to none in the division, and his close control, passing, movement with and without the ball, and ability to beat a player, not to mention his outrageous pace, makes him very special at this level. I've no doubt that when fully fit, he would hold a regular place in a Championship side.
On the Foster issue, from my distant perspective the logic goes like this.
Wright is brought in to be the left sided centre back.
Wilder then has to choose between Crites and Fozzie for right side of the pairing.
He will choose Crites. Foster then is competing for a bench place with Day and Sandwith.
Wilder bringing new players in means he has to offload some and Fozzie is probably the best paid and the most likely to find a new club of the possible candidates.
Simps, innit!!!
Wright is brought in to be the left sided centre back.
Wilder then has to choose between Crites and Fozzie for right side of the pairing.
He will choose Crites. Foster then is competing for a bench place with Day and Sandwith.
Wilder bringing new players in means he has to offload some and Fozzie is probably the best paid and the most likely to find a new club of the possible candidates.
Simps, innit!!!
-
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
Clist can play like that, as can Deering, as can Chapman."deanwindass" wrote:Name one in our squad, other than Fowler who none of us have seen."GodalmingYellow" wrote:A dynamo yes, critical to the side, no. Againthere are many players who can play in that way."Ancient Colin" wrote:An on-form Murray makes us much more creative. I thought he was at his best playing "in the hole" behind Constable and I don't think that the 4-3-3 (which seemed to arrive to accommodate Cook) helps him. He does have off days when he disappears or tries to over-elaborate, it is true, but he's the nearest we've got to a playmaker.
The main thing I don't like about the Foster decision is what it says about Wilder (... unless there is something we don't know about Foster's behaviour behind the scenes, but there's no obvious evidence of that) ... it flags dangers of a decision-making style that threatens "losing the dressing room" if things go down hill, and (as said earlier) a belief that only his acquired players are worthy. As others have said, I can't see that it is a good idea to break up a defensive pairing that has been pretty effective this season. Usual disclaimer about his having done a good job thus far, de da de da ...
Bulman is a real dynamo. You need someone like that in midfield doing the watercarrier role.
I do find the Batt-worship mystifying. Woeful defensive positioning, weak in the air, for all supposed strengths going forward. Fortunately few sides at this level have effective wide left players.
I don't understand how you can say Batt's defensive positioning is poor. Au contraire, I would say it is excellent. I would accept his heading is weaker, but that's a fairly minor issue for a full/wing back. On top of that his attacking play from the back is second to none in the division, and his close control, passing, movement with and without the ball, and ability to beat a player, not to mention his outrageous pace, makes him very special at this level. I've no doubt that when fully fit, he would hold a regular place in a Championship side.