Shrimpsvoices

Luke Conlan, for me, is our natural first choice LB. The 3 other players that I feel must start are:

Jordan Cranston - wide left/ wing position. Pace and drive going forward, and able to track back well for defensive duties.

Adam Buxton. - natural right back. Lacks that yard of pace, but solid as a rock, comfortable on the ball, and excellent passer.

George Tanner. - A quality player, who has everything, and plenty more to come. Particularly like the way he runs at, and takes players on.

Now the dilemma. How can these 3 start together? Maybe it is that they can’t? Imo, GT would be very comfortable playing upfield, wide right/ wing(??)
Something to try.....???????

I thought Jordan Cranston was still suspended after being sent off, or is my timeline off ?

jbc.shrimp wrote:I thought Jordan Cranston was still suspended after being sent off, or is my timeline off ?

Yes he is jbc. Obviously, the starts are only if and when available, which might only happen rarely.

Roche, Kenyon and a guaranteed appearance from Kev at some point is the norm. Conlon is average at best, Buxton lacks pace. Cranston apart from his silly red card last week seemed to have dropped out of favour and now he will drop even further! The entire team needs a shake -up. Too many seem to walk into the side after injury or suspension. Others get dropped all too quickly too, making for a disorganised mixture on the field. I wonder how training has gone this week as it has been a very wet one!

Westgate Wanderer wrote: The entire team needs a shake -up.

Fair enough. Based on our current squad, who do you suggest, and where? Not too many left using your assessment.

Slanester wrote:

Westgate Wanderer wrote: The entire team needs a shake -up.

Fair enough. Based on our current squad, who do you suggest, and where? Not too many left using your assessment.

Halstead, then up front try and keep the same forward line for a few games instead of chopping and changing every week. I'd say Allesandra must start every game (until he leaves in January) for his creativity. O'sullivan play out wide and stay out wide to give us a bit of width. Midfield is always a who can play alongside Kenyon, if fit Tutte and Wildig doesn't work well. Tanner again while we have him. Old and Lavelle are all we have at centrehalf. Other squad members need to be trusted and given a chance. I mean it can't get much worse can it? But i don't know i don't even play football manager or fifa 2018

Westgate Wanderer wrote:

Slanester wrote:

Westgate Wanderer wrote: The entire team needs a shake -up.

Fair enough. Based on our current squad, who do you suggest, and where? Not too many left using your assessment.

Halstead, then up front try and keep the same forward line for a few games instead of chopping and changing every week. I'd say Allesandra must start every game (until he leaves in January) for his creativity. O'sullivan play out wide and stay out wide to give us a bit of width. Midfield is always a who can play alongside Kenyon, if fit Tutte and Wildig doesn't work well. Tanner again while we have him. Old and Lavelle are all we have at centrehalf. Other squad members need to be trusted and given a chance. I mean it can't get much worse can it? But i don't know i don't even play football manager or fifa 2018

My original post was just about my opinion of 3 players, and others thoughts, not really a full squad disassemble. But your prerogative.

Slanester wrote:

Westgate Wanderer wrote: The entire team needs a shake -up.

Fair enough. Based on our current squad, who do you suggest, and where? Not too many left using your assessment.

Westgate Wanderer wrote:Roche, Kenyon and a guaranteed appearance from Kev at some point is the norm. Conlon is average at best, Buxton lacks pace. Cranston apart from his silly red card last week seemed to have dropped out of favour and now he will drop even further! The entire team needs a shake -up. Too many seem to walk into the side after injury or suspension. Others get dropped all too quickly too, making for a disorganised mixture on the field. I wonder how training has gone this week as it has been a very wet one!

Enjoy the game.(?)

Was a low quality match and the result lived up to my expectations! Never too high just hit bottom. You must have loved watching our 4 shots on target and the mighty Bradford upping the tempo a little in the second half. Hey we have it a go as I'm sure you will say

Westgate Wanderer wrote:Was a low quality match and the result lived up to my expectations! Never too high just hit bottom. You must have loved watching our 4 shots on target and the mighty Bradford upping the tempo a little in the second half. Hey we have it a go as I'm sure you will say

“1-3 stroll to the mighty Bradford.” So the result not quite to your expectations.
“ mighty Bradford upping the tempo a little..”
and yes, enjoyed being at the game, the lads gave it a proper go against “ mighty” Bradford.

3 shots on target amazing,2 of them my 3 year old grandson would have saved and the other effort on target was from a city player!

al1 wrote:3 shots on target amazing,2 of them my 3 year old grandson would have saved and the other effort on target was from a city player!

Crossbar twice, post once, a header a fraction over when it looked easier to score. TWENTY SIX* shots from us according to the BBC, five on target. Bradford take more away than we have home fans, but yeah, you are right, we should be beating teams like Bradford.


*Okay, I think that must be a typo!

Keith wrote:

al1 wrote:3 shots on target amazing,2 of them my 3 year old grandson would have saved and the other effort on target was from a city player!

Crossbar twice, post once, a header a fraction over when it looked easier to score. TWENTY SIX* shots from us according to the BBC, five on target. Bradford take more away than we have home fans, but yeah, you are right, we should be beating teams like Bradford.

Screenshot 2019-10-12 at 19.07.45.png

*Okay, I think that must be a typo!

Definitely unlucky today but there's no hiding from the fact that we haven't won at home since April...

I hope you aren't taking those stats at face value

I remember the days when Blackpool Shrimp put all those BBC stats up and he was constabtly shot down! Were you at the game? Stats don't mean everything!!

No stats, mean what you personally need them to mean to argue the point, same with everyone surely!!
Lies, damn lies and statistics!!

Got to question the crowd figure as well once again,there were never 2000 home supporters in my opinion,quiet on the berlin wall and in the home end. Who does the PA/BBC stats? Is it Quinny?

BerlinWaller wrote:I hope you aren't taking those stats at face value

No. That's why I wrote:

Keith wrote:TWENTY SIX*...

...*Okay, I think that must be a typo!

Are you saying you don't think we deserved anything from the game? That we weren't 'unlucky' with hitting the woodwork or heading narrowly over? That Bradford didn't, as the report says, score their second "against the run of play"? Your myopia may explain not reading my post correctly but surely you saw enough in the game today to think we were unlucky?

Keith wrote:

BerlinWaller wrote:I hope you aren't taking those stats at face value

No. That's why I wrote:

Keith wrote:TWENTY SIX*...

...*Okay, I think that must be a typo!

Are you saying you don't think we deserved anything from the game? That we weren't 'unlucky' with hitting the woodwork or heading narrowly over? That Bradford didn't, as the report says, score their second "against the run of play"? Your myopia may explain not reading my post correctly but surely you saw enough in the game today to think we were unlucky?

Not unlucky but we were better than we have been. Masters of our own downfall when we dick about with it from side to side and back to Roche(better today). I thought Bratfud were unlucky but chose to try and walk it in when they countered us numerous times. Yes, we hit the woodwork but it was our usual late push. Much rather see us in the lead for 70mins than losing for 80 and having a mad 10mins. Like most teams, they found us out.

Against the run of play does Bratfud a disservice. They countered us with pace when we had to attack. I think they call it tactics.

BerlinWaller wrote:

Keith wrote:

BerlinWaller wrote:I hope you aren't taking those stats at face value

No. That's why I wrote:

Keith wrote:TWENTY SIX*...

...*Okay, I think that must be a typo!

Are you saying you don't think we deserved anything from the game? That we weren't 'unlucky' with hitting the woodwork or heading narrowly over? That Bradford didn't, as the report says, score their second "against the run of play"? Your myopia may explain not reading my post correctly but surely you saw enough in the game today to think we were unlucky?

Not unlucky but we were better than we have been. Masters of our own downfall when we dick about with it from side to side and back to Roche(better today). I thought Bratfud were unlucky but chose to try and walk it in when they countered us numerous times. Yes, we hit the woodwork but it was our usual late push. Much rather see us in the lead for 70mins than losing for 80 and having a mad 10mins. Like most teams, they found us out.



Against the run of play does Bratfud a disservice. They countered us with pace when we had to attack. I think they call it tactics.

How can you refer to our opposition’s decision making as wrong, and then call them unlucky. Yet refer to the team you support, who hit the woodwork a couple of times, as not unlucky?? Also, any reference previously, with regard Morecambe decision making, right or wrong, would never include the word “unlucky.” Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I just can’t work it out, as a Shrimps fan.

Not sure if you have had a drink this afternoon but will try and answer.

When Bradford went 2 up, they began to play on the counter attack. They did this well but overplayed it when they got within shooting distance. Not sure where I said their tactics were wrong though?

BerlinWaller wrote:Not sure if you have had a drink this afternoon but will try and answer.

When Bradford went 2 up, they began to play on the counter attack. They did this well but overplayed it when they got within shooting distance. Not sure where I said their tactics were wrong though?

Another poor attempt at insult, very rarely drink, as well as never smoked,drugs or otherwise, so you must try harder.

“ I thought Bradford were unlucky, but chose to try and walk it in.....” as opposed to doing something different. Not implying wrong decision making??
“Not unlucky...” reference to the Shrimps.
Like I said, just don’t understand, as hard as I try.

The tactic was to counter attack.
The players made the wrong choices when in goal scoring positions. That is not a tactic.
It is similar to when Jim says they have prepared all week but the players make the wrong choices when on the pitch.

Not an insult at all

BerlinWaller wrote:The tactic was to counter attack.
The players made the wrong choices when in goal scoring positions. That is not a tactic.
It is similar to when Jim says they have prepared all week but the players make the wrong choices when on the pitch.

Not an insult at all

I think that is just a play on words. So replacing “tactic” with “ choice”, decision making or whatever. The points I made still apply.