Shrimpsvoices

Going forward we were not bad tonight, Howe played well as did a couple of the other lads up front, and the ball was kept on the deck tonight which meant we also looked more like a football league team than a pub team.

But the back line (Roache exempt)....oh dear. Brentford had that scary weapon which we do not have.....PACE. Until changes are made at the back things will not get any better. By rights Brentford could easily have had three penalties first half & their forward left Jimbo for dead and put a free header wide from six yards out.

The defence was poor last year and no changes were made over the summer. Nuff said.

Jon wrote:Going forward we were not bad tonight, Howe played well as did a couple of the other lads up front, and the ball was kept on the deck tonight which meant we also looked more like a football league team than a pub team.

But the back line (Roache exempt)....oh dear. Brentford had that scary weapon which we do not have.....PACE. Until changes are made at the back things will not get any better. By rights Brentford could easily have had three penalties first half & their forward left Jimbo for dead and put a free header wide from six yards out.

The defence was poor last year and no changes were made over the summer. Nuff said.

There were changes made over the summer but there certainly weren't any improvements . But your dead right about the lack of PACE and it aint just the defence thats lacking in that department . You cant let your two most creative players go , and one had a lot of pace too and not replace them . Then bring in players who are not as good as what we already have , and tell the players who have played well for the club that they can leave. If Baker and Thommo had been replaced with some better quality and Howe on - loan that would have been enough to start with and we would be in a better position than we are now . Too much disruption , but thats just my opinion.

parceldave wrote: and tell the players who have played well for the club that they can leave.(

Thompson was out of contract, we could have told him anything we liked and done nothing about it.

At £175,000 received for Baker, I don't think the board were in a position to turn it down.

campdave wrote:

parceldave wrote: and tell the players who have played well for the club that they can leave.(

Thompson was out of contract, we could have told him anything we liked and done nothing about it.

At £175,000 received for Baker, I don't think the board were in a position to turn it down.

Exactly! I may be critical of Sammy at times, in particular, I don't think the style match the tactics, HOWEVER, in no way can he be blamed for either Thomo or Carl leaving. To have insisted on Carl staying would almost certainly have upset and unsettled him leading to him eventually going but for far less money than we actually got. £175k was good business, no matter what happens this season.

I want to see some good loans in January, with a strong focus on defence. When will Michael Howard be fit? We've got lots of adequate (or better) midfield players. We've got a couple of forwards who I believe can score at this standard if they are given the correct service.

campdave wrote:

parceldave wrote: and tell the players who have played well for the club that they can leave.(

Thompson was out of contract, we could have told him anything we liked and done nothing about it.

At £175,000 received for Baker, I don't think the board were in a position to turn it down.

but Stanley, Yates & Twiss were told they could leave.

You must wonder what effect that has on the dressing room

campdave wrote:

parceldave wrote: and tell the players who have played well for the club that they can leave.(

Thompson was out of contract, we could have told him anything we liked and done nothing about it.

At £175,000 received for Baker, I don't think the board were in a position to turn it down.

I meant the players who were still at the club , ie ;- Yates Twiss and Stanley