R.O.A.M Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I just pray we don't end up with Richard O Donnell again. It's only got to be for 90 minutes anyway. In my opinion Fleming is far to good for Latics and has a bright future, if Maher had not played such a stupid backpass then Fleming wouldn't have a ban. The guy is a class act and by the looks of things can only be at fault for one goal since he has been here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 If Bell was injured would you look to the next keeper down? Under 16's maybe? Anyway, Windass isn't good enough for 45 minutes, and from what I've seen of Bell (last season I admit) neither is he. Shez agrees, so what is your problem?? He obviously isn't our 3rd choice keeper.....first team wise we only have 2 keepers. If Bell played and was well out of his depth, as Shez believes he would be, you would be the first on here lambasting him for not getting a loanee. I do agree that, good enough or not, he might as well have been on the bench as he is hopefully better than Deano! I think it was you who made the point that Kieron Lee was never going to get on before Liddell and Whittaker which is fair comment. Having seen our youth team goalie (Josh Ollerenshaw- sp? I think) against the Newcastle youth team strike force- one of whom is in contention of getting a game for the Geordies first team I would think he'd do an OK job. However, he did look like he'd be a little bit out of his depth for 90 minutes against a league 1 side, especially if they scored early and his confidence went. To be honest we had this problem last season and we had to get O'Donnell in on loan because Bell wasn't good enough (apparently) we gave Bell a one year contract in June for exactly this scenario so come on Shez either he is good enough now or why did you give him a contract. I'm not sure why he hasn't been on the bench recently considering we've hardly used 3 outfield subs in a game all season, and certain players appear to be supernumerary. I'd be happy to see the club get someone in on loan (especially if we can get someone like Kasper Schmiechel) but I would also be happy for the club to play Bell and keep him on the bench from now on, but if we do the first one then I'm sorry but Bell has to go as its the waste of a wage (admittedly not a big one). It's shez's decision and on such decisions are reputations/jobs made and lost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I have seen Ollerenshaw too, last season when he was keeping Bell out of the reserves! I suspect Josh Bell will never play in the first team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticNik Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 If Bell was injured would you look to the next keeper down? Under 16's maybe? Crazy as it may sound er yeah I would. Because they're goalkeepers. Every other position on the pitch you can fill with players from alternative positions. But not keepers. So, unbelievably, I would put a goalkeeper in goals. Why waste a loan? Shez has done that enough all season. E4e KEEPS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leezyverpunk Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Beardy (if OWTB aint got a game that is!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 He's not good enough for a chance? Ridiculous! But Windass is good enough for 45 mins? An absolute joke. Shez said we've lasted 7 or 8 games with no keeper on the bench and he could see it coming where we'd get caught out. Why risk it? When do we ever need 5 outfield subs?!? If our 3rd choice keeper isn't good enough for 90 mins of first team football then the world's gone mad. E4e BZERK I agree 100%. To not have a keeper on the bench smacks of either arrogance or stupidity. Surely any keeper would be better than none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Crazy as it may sound er yeah I would. Because they're goalkeepers. Every other position on the pitch you can fill with players from alternative positions. But not keepers. So, unbelievably, I would put a goalkeeper in goals. Why waste a loan? Shez has done that enough all season. E4e KEEPS Sorry, what are you on about? Has anybody proposed we use a player from another position in goal? We are discussing the merits of loaning a goalkeeper to play in goal against playing a youth keeper who has been deemed "not ready". And yes, you do sound crazy. You're way off mark (IMO ) in believing a keeper to be a waste of a loan. Shez, and presumably Norm too, don't believe Bell is good enough to play in the first team. They aren't confident of winning the game with Bell in this key position. We can't afford to not win the game, therefore a loan is absolutely necessary, probably more so than any other loan this season because, as you said yourself, "every other position on the pitch can be covered with players from alternative positions"...........and on top of that it's a loan that won't even cost much! If Shez loans a :censored: keeper who lets us down then by all means have another whinge, but let's not lay into him for saying he isn't going to throw a kid in goal for this weekends important league game. I'm sure even you can search out a more realistic gripe in the mean time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I agree 100%. To not have a keeper on the bench smacks of either arrogance or stupidity. Surely any keeper would be better than none. As I've already said, that I agree with. But being forced to put Bell on as sub in an unlikely emergency is totally different from planning to start him (again, with nobody on the bench) when we have a week to find a more adequate loanee. That would make bad management in my opinion. For Northampton I expect a loanee, preferably experienced (what's Beresford doing?), to start with the 'not ready' Josh Bell on the bench.....just in case! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleetwood Blue Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I have seen Ollerenshaw too, last season when he was keeping Bell out of the reserves! I suspect Josh Bell will never play in the first team. If Bell isnt good enough for the first team why was he given a contract in the first place, Shez must see something in the lad or else he would have got rid in the summer, give him a chance i say, everybody has to be put in the firing line at sometime, it is for one game and the one game that could already have cost us is when Fleming let in 5 against Hereford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kellys_discopants Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Josh Bell is awful, if you watch him just warm up you can see this, he cant even kick a ball properly! He`s here purely for worse case scenario, and tbh i`d rather have Windass in net than him. For all those moaning about Bell not being on the bench etc .. why moan, we drew the game and didnt concede, so surely your moans are actually unfounded .. we may have done worse with Bell, we`ll never moan, but why moan when all went well, and Shez`s masterstroke worked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleetwood Blue Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Iam not moaning i just said what is the point of giving anybody a 1 year profesional contract and then turn round and say they are not ready for first team football, if he was one for the future he would have been given a much longer contract. If he isnt up to it send him to Stockport with the rest of our misfits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 If Bell isnt good enough for the first team why was he given a contract in the first place, Shez must see something in the lad or else he would have got rid in the summer, give him a chance i say, everybody has to be put in the firing line at sometime, it is for one game and the one game that could already have cost us is when Fleming let in 5 against Hereford. Why he is at the club is a different debate, and one I can't make much of a contribution to. I'd rather Shez didn't give him a chance. It's quite clear that he hasn't earned one. See above. As for the Fleming at Hereford comment, well, I believe I'm too logical to even comprehend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 (edited) Iam not moaning i just said what is the point of giving anybody a 1 year profesional contract and then turn round and say they are not ready for first team football, if he was one for the future he would have been given a much longer contract. If he isnt up to it send him to Stockport with the rest of our misfits. Bell obviously showed potential and the club felt it was worth giving him the contract to see how far he would develop. A good, positive move. However...he's not judged to be ready for a 1st team match. So we will get a loan keeper in, again a good move. It's up to Bell to make his performances on the training ground and elsewhere so good as to prove he is ready. Edited February 9, 2009 by LaticsPete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I agree 100%. To not have a keeper on the bench smacks of either arrogance or stupidity. Surely any keeper would be better than none. i think if you check back to start of season when norm was in net,flemming was named on the bench,as he is more than adequate cover should norm get injured. as well as a good keeper norm is an excellent keeper coach,if he doesnt think bell is ready for this game,then so be it...we dont have to bring a keeper in for a month,you can bring one in on an emergency loan for one game,as both senior keepers are out. windass was fine for 40 mins,the adrenalin and sense of injustice played a big part in keeping leicster out.he isnt a keeper,his sense of positioning and awareness isnt as good as a keeper,can you imagine if we named him as keeper for next week match and we ship 4 goals....the level of abuse on here towards deano and shez would be intolerable. we need to keep the pressure going and after saturdays game to keep in touch with the playoffs....if millwall win tonight were out the playoffs on goal difference,our lowest position this season.....so a recognised keeper is a must. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kellys_discopants Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 i think if you check back to start of season when norm was in net,flemming was named on the bench,as he is more than adequate cover should norm get injured. Exactly what i was going to say mate, it speaks volumes that when Norm was in net Shez named a keeper on the bench! Its not arrogance at all that he dosent name a keeper, it`s purely because he must feel Bell isnt much better than any outfield player in there, so why waste a spot on the bench! I`d much rather have 5 outfield options than a useless keeper taking up a spot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I tonight's rarely wong Chron Shez reveals that Kelvin Lomax was lined up to play in goal if needed during recent weeks. It was only because he didn't play that Windass got his chance, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 A very highly rated young goalkeeper, his jersey might invoke a few comments though. West Ham keeper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticNik Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I tonight's rarely wong Chron Shez reveals that Kelvin Lomax was lined up to play in goal if needed during recent weeks. It was only because he didn't play that Windass got his chance, LOL another masterstroke! D'oh! I've only gone and dropped Kelvin completely...he was mi'keeper! You couldn't script it. E4e ADITL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 (edited) LOL another masterstroke! D'oh! I've only gone and dropped Kelvin completely...he was mi'keeper! You couldn't script it. E4e ADITL OR I'm dropping Kelvin in the knowlege that Windass is the nominated keeper if needed, in view of his past experience. The country's football media's verdict on Shez: Masterstroke! Edited February 9, 2009 by Diego_Sideburns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kellys_discopants Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 LOL another masterstroke! D'oh! I've only gone and dropped Kelvin completely...he was mi'keeper! You couldn't script it. E4e ADITL Why do you moan? They didnt score, we kept a clean-sheet, i dont see the big deal myself. Moaning for moaning sake? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloughie Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I know someone mentioned John Ruddy at Everton. But they have a keeper who's better than he is. He's a Scottish lad called Iain Turner and looked a seriously bright prospect about 2 years ago. Injuries have restricted him and he's out of contract in the summer. Latics would be getting a very good keeper if he arrived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoytonBlueLad Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Looks like Ruddy is with Crewe at the minute on a months loan deal but some stories from a few months back indicate Turner has been after a loan move. Not sure if he'd be happy to just cover for one game though and then be back on the bench when Fleming's suspension ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloughie Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 He wouldn't be sat on the bench when Fleming is back in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrikkiNikki Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 we need to keep the pressure going and after saturdays game to keep in touch with the playoffs....if millwall win tonight were out the playoffs on goal difference,our lowest position this season.....so a recognised keeper is a must. Wouldn't we just drop one place and keep a 5pt cushion over Leeds? Or am I missing something that's blatantly obvious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kellys_discopants Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Wouldn't we just drop one place and keep a 5pt cushion over Leeds? Or am I missing something that's blatantly obvious? No your right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.