Richard Blight

Freathy wrote:

The fireman may as well not be here. There's no way you can start playing professional football at 32. The fitness levels required are way above the poxy league of wales!

You really are clueless, he's a quality player and if he stays fit will score many many goals this season

One of the best ive seen in a while in the green shirt

Czarcasm wrote:

Standard (awful) first half. Then N'ton's thursday night exploits took their toll 2nd half.

Does Nelson scoring mean Fletcher got it right playing him up front? Put it this way, if he hadn't scored and Fletch had brought him on to play up front having never scored EVER, whilst having three other attacking players on the bench, that would have been the most bizarre footballing decision ever by Fletcher.

I know it sounds silly, because Nelson scored, but it is still a rediculous decision. Has he explained it in interviews?

It was obvious why he did it. Griffiths came on and we had a target man to play alongside Feeney and it changed the game. Griffiths went off injured and the only feasible replacement in terms of size was Nelson who came on and held the ball up well. He scored and his header was very well taken as the keeper had no chance.

Northampton didn't look tired in the second half to me - we had two wingers in the second half who pinned their back four back and we didn't have that in the first half. Wotton coming off and Griffiths coming on changed the game as our formation in the first half was negative and this change was positive.

Really pleased with 3 points.

GreenWhiteBlack wrote:

Freathy wrote:

The fireman may as well not be here. There's no way you can start playing professional football at 32. The fitness levels required are way above the poxy league of wales!

You really are clueless, he's a quality player and if he stays fit will score many many goals this season

One of the best ive seen in a while in the green shirt

I bet he doesn't feature much through injury. He'll make Mpenza look like a regular starter.

Freathy wrote:

GreenWhiteBlack wrote:

Freathy wrote:

The fireman may as well not be here. There's no way you can start playing professional football at 32. The fitness levels required are way above the poxy league of wales!

You really are clueless, he's a quality player and if he stays fit will score many many goals this season

One of the best ive seen in a while in the green shirt

I bet he doesn't feature much through injury. He'll make Mpenza look like a regular starter.

Freathy wrote:

GreenWhiteBlack wrote:

Freathy wrote:

The fireman may as well not be here. There's no way you can start playing professional football at 32. The fitness levels required are way above the poxy league of wales!

You really are clueless, he's a quality player and if he stays fit will score many many goals this season

One of the best ive seen in a while in the green shirt

I bet he doesn't feature much through injury. He'll make Mpenza look like a regular starter.

So when he starts regularly, scores plenty and is a valued and integral part of the team....what will be your whinge then?

Nick Wall wrote:

Freathy wrote:

GreenWhiteBlack wrote:

Freathy wrote:

The fireman may as well not be here. There's no way you can start playing professional football at 32. The fitness levels required are way above the poxy league of wales!

You really are clueless, he's a quality player and if he stays fit will score many many goals this season

One of the best ive seen in a while in the green shirt

I bet he doesn't feature much through injury. He'll make Mpenza look like a regular starter.

Sorry mate,Freathy has a point.It was always going to be very hard for the guy to make the adjustment to pro football.If you read Tommy Tynan's book on his time at Argyle,there are some paragraphs there detailing how tough John Brimacombe found the adjustment to professional football and he was 26,not 32.Griffiths did play well in the limited time he was on the pitch yesterday and certainly made a difference,although so did Chadders on his return against Northampton last season.I hope that the injury is not a serious one and Rhys can quickly make a return to the team to continue the form that he showed yesterday but it isn't "clueless" to suggest that he may find tthe transition difficult-the evidence is already there to some extent.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Freathy wrote:

GreenWhiteBlack wrote:

Freathy wrote:

The fireman may as well not be here. There's no way you can start playing professional football at 32. The fitness levels required are way above the poxy league of wales!

You really are clueless, he's a quality player and if he stays fit will score many many goals this season

One of the best ive seen in a while in the green shirt

I bet he doesn't feature much through injury. He'll make Mpenza look like a regular starter.

So when he starts regularly, scores plenty and is a valued and integral part of the team....what will be your whinge then?

It'll be that he tweets in Welsh or that his hair is the wrong colour or that whenever there's a fire in Wales, it'll be his fault for coming here.

Only time will tell, meanwhile get back debating.

seadog wrote:

Only time will tell, meanwhile get back debating.

I had a pasty for £2.50. It was quite nice.

My first sight of the wooden dug-outs. Until the new stand comes, they look fine.

knecht wrote:

My first sight of the wooden dug-outs. Until the new stand comes, they look fine.

A work colleague sits in front of the executive boxes (if you can call them that) and they obscure her view of the pitch.

That'll teach her to be rich.

Is it any more than a few feet in a relatively unimportant part of the pitch?

hairy j wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Standard (awful) first half. Then N'ton's thursday night exploits took their toll 2nd half.

Does Nelson scoring mean Fletcher got it right playing him up front? Put it this way, if he hadn't scored and Fletch had brought him on to play up front having never scored EVER, whilst having three other attacking players on the bench, that would have been the most bizarre footballing decision ever by Fletcher.

I know it sounds silly, because Nelson scored, but it is still a rediculous decision. Has he explained it in interviews?

It was obvious why he did it. Griffiths came on and we had a target man to play alongside Feeney and it changed the game. Griffiths went off injured and the only feasible replacement in terms of size was Nelson who came on and held the ball up well.

If it's so obvious, that he would go to the lengths of playing Argyles most non-attacking player up front, purely because he's tall, why the feck has he seen fit to spend the whole summer resigning and recruiting attacking players with an average height of about 5 foot 6 !

Why start a home game with a short-arse as a lone striker? When it is so obvious that to get the best out of him or have any real attacking threat, you need a Griffiths-type sized player alongside him!?

I'm delighted with the win, but putting Nelson up front because all the other attacking options are diddymen, just makes Flether look even more silly for assembling such a squad! Yes he scored, but is this really going to be our favoured attacking threat from the bench for the rest of the season?

If it works then why not? Wouldn't it be more wrong not to try it again than to repeat it?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

If it works then why not? Wouldn't it be more wrong not to try it again than to repeat it?

So we should play a defender who scores for the first time in 60-odd matches - up front, on a regular basis?

Jesus, if this is our favoured attacking option, then I really do despair.

Im not getting carried away with this result like a few are as we need consistency not the odd win here and there

I'm not getting carried away, but that second half was the best football from Argo that I've seen in a long time (not that that's saying much). After the Curtis goal I actually thought that my ridiculous 4-1 prediction might come to pass. Still disappointing to concede a late goal and have 30 seconds to think "surely not".

Early, early days though.

Czarcasm wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

If it works then why not? Wouldn't it be more wrong not to try it again than to repeat it?

So we should play a defender who scores for the first time in 60-odd matches - up front, on a regular basis?

Jesus, if this is our favoured attacking option, then I really do despair.

The post I answered said "off the bench" not "on a regular basis". Nor was it a "favoured attacking option" this time. That favoured option was Griffiths but he got injured and the other forward on the bench, McDonald, was already on. But if we need a goal and all the other options are exhausted then why not send Nelson up to have a go? The fact that he has scored only once in 60-odd games just suggests that he doesn't go up much. I said "if it works then why not? Wouldn't it be more wrong not to try it again than to repeat it?" I didn't say do it all the time.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

If it works then why not? Wouldn't it be more wrong not to try it again than to repeat it?

So we should play a defender who scores for the first time in 60-odd matches - up front, on a regular basis?

Jesus, if this is our favoured attacking option, then I really do despair.

The post I answered said "off the bench" not "on a regular basis". Nor was it a "favoured attacking option" this time. That favoured option was Griffiths but he got injured and the other forward on the bench, McDonald, was already on. But if we need a goal and all the other options are exhausted then why not send Nelson up to have a go? The fact that he has scored only once in 60-odd games just suggests that he doesn't go up much. I said "if it works then why not? Wouldn't it be more wrong not to try it again than to repeat it?" I didn't say do it all the time.

If it comes off on a regular basis, I'll happily admit to Fletch being a tactical wizard.

If Fletch has seen attacking instincts in Nelson that no one else has previously, again, I'll hold my hands up.

Until then, I'll go with my hunch that this was a bizarre stab in the dark, that came good.

It wasn't a bizarre stab in the dark. He had a bunch of little'uns on the bench who would only have duplicated roles we already had and he had a six-footer in the form of Nelson. Who would you have chosen to use in the emergency Fletcher had to deal with?

hairy j wrote:

knecht wrote:

My first sight of the wooden dug-outs. Until the new stand comes, they look fine.

A work colleague sits in front of the executive boxes (if you can call them that) and they obscure her view of the pitch.

The guy that i give a lift to and his lad sit in the front row of the Mayflower and they reckon that the dug outs obscure the view by about a third of the pitch at some points.Which,you may argue, is possibly no bad thing sometimes but would indicate pretty poor thinking and planning on the part of the club.

knecht wrote:

It wasn't a bizarre stab in the dark. He had a bunch of little'uns on the bench who would only have duplicated roles we already had and he had a six-footer in the form of Nelson. Who would you have chosen to use in the emergency Fletcher had to deal with?

Surely the point is that you don't fill your squad (and bench) with teeny weeny attacking options in the first place? Especially when you know you only have sicknote Chadwick, and a fireman (whose injury may or may not have been due, in part, to not being able to cope with the rigours of full-time training), as your only physical option?

Czarcasm wrote:

knecht wrote:

It wasn't a bizarre stab in the dark. He had a bunch of little'uns on the bench who would only have duplicated roles we already had and he had a six-footer in the form of Nelson. Who would you have chosen to use in the emergency Fletcher had to deal with?

Surely the point is that you don't fill your squad (and bench) with teeny weeny attacking options in the first place? Especially when you know you only have sicknote Chadwick, and a fireman (whose injury may or may not have been due, in part, to not being able to cope with the rigours of full-time training), as your only physical option?

I couldn't agree more. It was always clear that this was a gaping hole in Fletcher's planning. I was simply responding to the suggestion that yesterday's decision was bizarre. In the circumstances it was the right thing to do.

Incidentally, I was struck by Fletcher's comment re telling Soukouna he was surplus to requirements - he said that it was the first time he had had to do such a thing. I wonder if some of his decisions about squad during the close-season was down to a misplaced sense of loyalty.

Czarcasm wrote:

knecht wrote:

It wasn't a bizarre stab in the dark. He had a bunch of little'uns on the bench who would only have duplicated roles we already had and he had a six-footer in the form of Nelson. Who would you have chosen to use in the emergency Fletcher had to deal with?

Surely the point is that you don't fill your squad (and bench) with teeny weeny attacking options in the first place? Especially when you know you only have sicknote Chadwick, and a fireman (whose injury may or may not have been due, in part, to not being able to cope with the rigours of full-time training), as your only physical option?

Griffiths was our 'big guy on the bench' option, but he got injured soon after coming on, which isn't an eventuality you can really plan for. Chadwick, the other 'big man' option is also injured. How many tall strikers do you want us to have? Sticking a big defender up front isn't a revolutionary idea, it's what most managers do when they have an injury crisis, or when they need a goal in the last 10 minutes.

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

knecht wrote:

It wasn't a bizarre stab in the dark. He had a bunch of little'uns on the bench who would only have duplicated roles we already had and he had a six-footer in the form of Nelson. Who would you have chosen to use in the emergency Fletcher had to deal with?

Surely the point is that you don't fill your squad (and bench) with teeny weeny attacking options in the first place? Especially when you know you only have sicknote Chadwick, and a fireman (whose injury may or may not have been due, in part, to not being able to cope with the rigours of full-time training), as your only physical option?

Griffiths was our 'big guy on the bench' option, but he got injured soon after coming on, which isn't an eventuality you can really plan for. Chadwick, the other 'big man' option is also injured. How many tall strikers do you want us to have? Sticking a big defender up front isn't a revolutionary idea, it's what most managers do when they have an injury crisis, or when they need a goal in the last 10 minutes.

If I could choose, for division four, I'd have all my strikers in the 'tall' category, supplementedly by teeny pacy wingers in the AlexMac mould.