Nine days and counting........................Only 9

Ah so BFC dont give out squad nubmers 1-11 to first teamers? we give them to the crap ones?

colgan
hassell
heckingbottom
reid
togwell
hayes
mcindoe
howard</p>

coincidence that the only 1 to 11 squad numbers missing from that list are carbon who was in the first team whenever fit and the two players mentioned, vaughan and conlon. They WERE on first team wages, they WERE in the senior and first team.</p>

You cannot change the facts and twist it just to make your argument sound better tykeman. They have left and have not been replaced. You can squirm and twist things as much as you like but at the end of the day facts are facts.</p>

 

RE: Ah so BFC dont give out squad nubmers 1-11 to first teamers? we give them to the crap ones?

You are talking crap again.

So you think Vaughan was considered first team despite him being on loan eleswhere for most of last season.

Conlon was also on loan and injured.

Not saying they were not part of the 1st team squad but they were not considered to be 1st team regulars.

 

RE: Ah so BFC dont give out squad nubmers 1-11 to first teamers? we give them to the crap ones?

Vaughan and Conlon made no difference to last season. Squad numbers are totally irrelevant. They kept squad numbers from the previous season when they were part of the first team.

That doesnt mean that I think they shouldnt be replaced by players who will contribute, but you cannot use them in an argument about the squad been weaker because they have left.

 

None the less

we paid them as such and not insignificantly.</p>

Burns,Conlon,Vaughan all started last season as first team players.</p>

 

So when they left we were a stronger squad

FFS get a grip

 

I think you are missing the point

 the starting 11 is decent, we could stay up with that (ok we need a striker too) but it is the FIRST TEAM SQUAD as you put it that we need to strengthen.</p>

Did I imagine it or did our manager not complain last year about our lack of depth? He was struggling to find four defenders at one point. Well we now have two defenders less because both carbon and vaughan have left and havent been replaced. </p>

If you don't think that it is significant that these two have left and not been replaced then I think you are either very blind to the problems facing us or you have some sort of reason other than the football team for your views.</p>

 

Vaughan was never a first teamer

Just the captain.....

 

Of course the squad is weaker without them

Conlon played in 13 out of 46 promotion winning league games. He was crap but he was in the first team squad.

 

RE: Of course the squad is weaker without them

I didnt dispute that.

Just asked if you thought he should merit a place in the 1st team?

Atkinson will challenge this season for Centre Back.
He looks very good.

A GK, striker and possibly Healy and we will be fine.

Remember Togwell is equally adept at centre back too.

 

RE: Of course the squad is weaker without them

Nope he doesnt merit one and in my opinion never did but the facts are that he was a first team player that we have lost and not replaced. As was carbon, vaughan and burns.</p>

It is all well and good saying that togwell can play at the back but that then leaves us very short in midfield (dont even think about saying nicky wroe ).</p>

I think 4 new players are needed, one striker definetly, a goalkeeper, defender and midfielrder. Realistically we wont get that but a striker, goalkeeper and experienced defender are essential</p>

 

RE: Of course the squad is weaker without them

Would never suggest Wroe!!

May be Healy can be the midfielder.

Andy seems happy with the defenders he has.

 

Mcphail not replaced by McIndoe

Mcindoe replaces shuker, what ever way you want to look at it we are still missing 3 quality players, a striker, a centre midfielder and a centre half.</p>

and the clocks ticking</p>

 

RE: Of course the squad is weaker without them

Healy looked decent but the problem we have is that going forward (central midfield) we have nothing apart from Howard, there isn't another player on the books that is in that role unless you count paul hayes and I don't think he is good enough to do it.</p>

In defence we definetly need somebody at least as cover for reid and kay otherwise we will be always reshuffling the back four like we were last season and unfortunatly the strikers in the championship dont put the ball into the back of the ponty end as often as dean windass and co did when given 10 yards of space inside the penalty area.</p>

Don't get me wrong, we have a decent team, the first 11 looks good enough to stay up but the problem is that after that we have nothing. Apart from Rob atkinson I cant think of one backup player that is a recognised centre back.</p>

 

RE: Mcphail not replaced by McIndoe

Togwell for centre midfield ?

 

RE:Good post

How many times did we start with the same back 4 as the previous game. We need a recognised centre half not a defender/midfielder or a full back/centre back, we need a big strong centre half.
The lad at Hartlepool has always impressed me, Nelson  i think??

 

RE: Mcphail not replaced by McIndoe

not a replacement for mcphail really, hes a defensive player and didnt look to have anywhere near the same passing ability as Mcphail.
More like a burns type player imho

 

RE: Mcphail not replaced by McIndoe

Better player than Burns though.

Very few had McPhails passing ability.
How effective was he though?

 

re: Coulson comment

You could say the same about Conlon and Vaughan....</p>

 

"Better player than Burns though"

You've come to that conclusion from seeing him play how many competitive games?

 

RE: Better than Burns?

Dont know how you can say that after 1 game, burns was a major player for us last season and because of that he went to play for a team in the champions league. I didnt hear of any champions league teams coming after togwell