rudemedic Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 According to his twitter Danny Byrnes has been told he is in the squad for tomorrow's game. Fairly certain he has featured in squads for other games this season but I'm afraid I don't know much about him. For those that do, what sort of player is he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 seen him for the reserves bit lightweight but can pick a pass def has ability came on and played down the left but cant see him getting into the team, impressed when he came on against city when they beat us at BP but again like Bove and Pritchard and the young lad at left back cant think of his name think he is one for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 seen him for the reserves bit lightweight but can pick a pass def has ability came on and played down the left but cant see him getting into the team, impressed when he came on against city when they beat us at BP but again like Bove and Pritchard and the young lad at left back cant think of his name think he is one for the future. You mean Truelove? Could have seen him playing quite a bit this season if it wasn't for his cruciate(s) injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 According to his twitter Danny Byrnes has been told he is in the squad for tomorrow's game. Fairly certain he has featured in squads for other games this season but I'm afraid I don't know much about him. For those that do, what sort of player is he? Talented but very small and lightweight, he does run with the ball though which adds something different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 john pritchards caught my eye, not jack truelove no there is a young lad at left back he is a first year scholar but his name escapes me came on in the reserve game against shrewsbury for mellor looks a nice prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Young manager who has shown some qualities that he can cut it. . Has he... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Has he... I was going to ask the same question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Has he... I was going to ask the same question. I think there is something there, it might be just my blind optimism and belief... I think the football (early on) was encouraging, the passing and build up play was all there without that clinical striker to finish it all off. I'd also argue that he can bring in some decent players - obviously not all players have worked out here, Rooney being one. Players like Smith, Philliskirk, JCH & Harkins show that he has got an eye for a player, in some respects. Like I said, some qualities, he's obviously not the perfect man nor will he ever be, but I think given another summer and an opportunity to partially rebuild, bin the crap and bring in some more to add to the core of the team, we could go on to have a successful (not promotion, probably) season. It's all if's and but's - but, I think we're better off sticking rather than twisting this time. Time is the operative word in this scenario - let's see where we end up, binning managers after a year in charge can't be healthy. Just a sidenote from me, I personally think lack of investment is our biggest problem and has been since Blitz walked out in 2009? I don't think Johnson or many other managers can perform miracles on our budget without time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Just a sidenote from me, I personally think lack of investment is our biggest problem and has been since Blitz walked out in 2009? I don't think Johnson or many other managers can perform miracles on our budget without time. Or too much short term investment? The cost of 37 different first teamers can't be too different to 11 better quality players on two year deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Or too much short term investment? The cost of 37 different first teamers can't be too different to 11 better quality players on two year deals. Yes, that too. It depends I guess, some of our players this season we won't have been paying wages (i'd guess.) So that takes a few out of the equation, Plummer, Rusnak, Petrasso, possibly Oxley. I thought we were heading in a real direction early on, offering more two year deals to players, it looked like we'd be in for more stability. However Johnson seems to have fallen down the trap that both Sheridan and Dickov fell down. Too many loan players picked over our young lads. Instead of bringing in Stead, it might have been better to throw Bove or Turner into the equation, shake things up. Who knows? I'm hoping he can learn from this seasons mistakes, he's openly admitted that we've used far too many players this season. Long-Termism isn't seen much in football these days, but maybe we can give it a go, stick with him and see what he can produce next season. Assuming we don't get relegated, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Or too much short term investment? The cost of 37 different first teamers can't be too different to 11 better quality players on two year deals. Though you would have to factor in the wages of another 8/9 players to have a squad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Though you would have to factor in the wages of another 8/9 players to have a squad. 11 quality players with backup from 9 cheapo's then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markspark92 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Oxley Lockwood Wilson. Grounds Wesolowski Worrall. Smith Mellor Harkins Macdonald. Turner Anybody ? I know leaving 3 at the back is a bit risky but Mellor and Worrall are more than capable of covering on a counter, If Mellor doesn't preform we can always put Harkins on the left and bring Philly on off the bench to play in the hole Edit - just realised Worrall won't be playing so replace him with Winchester or put Philly on the wing Edited March 10, 2014 by Markspark92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsEddie Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Ox Winchester Lockwood wilson grounds Wes Dayton--Mellor Harkins Mac Turner Dropping korey because last two performances haven't been good enough. Wes staying back. Dayton and mellor wide men. Harkins given free roam in the hole. Mac and turner strikers, no other options but the off form philly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I think there is something there, it might be just my blind optimism and belief... I think the football (early on) was encouraging, the passing and build up play was all there without that clinical striker to finish it all off. I'd also argue that he can bring in some decent players - obviously not all players have worked out here, Rooney being one. Players like Smith, Philliskirk, JCH & Harkins show that he has got an eye for a player, in some respects. Like I said, some qualities, he's obviously not the perfect man nor will he ever be, but I think given another summer and an opportunity to partially rebuild, bin the crap and bring in some more to add to the core of the team, we could go on to have a successful (not promotion, probably) season. It's all if's and but's - but, I think we're better off sticking rather than twisting this time. Time is the operative word in this scenario - let's see where we end up, binning managers after a year in charge can't be healthy. Just a sidenote from me, I personally think lack of investment is our biggest problem and has been since Blitz walked out in 2009? I don't think Johnson or many other managers can perform miracles on our budget without time. I'm not convinced. None of that really counts for anything. I can see your point on Smith, Philliskirk, JCH and Harkins but I don't think Johnson can take too much credit for Phillis - that's one's down to TP. JCH and Smith are talented players but have hardly set the world alight this season. Harkins was a good signing but might well not be here beyond the end of the season. I certainly don't think the Rooney saga reflects well on Johnson. There are two ways of looking at this one: (i) he signed a :censored: player on a long-term deal and got lucky as someone took him off our hands early doors; or (ii) he signed a decent goal scorer and wasn't able to get him firing in his team. Neither looks great for Johnson. And for all the signings that show his supposed eye for a player, there are a good few that might be used to argue the opposite. Schmeltz was another signed on a long-term deal and released within six months. Plummer was plain :censored:e; Rusnak was a jumped-up little bell end (after Johnson's talk of careful diligence on players); Joksts didn't work out; Rodgers hasn't done much; Dayton had been largely disappointing; MacDonald has struggled for fitness and form; etc. As for the football, I like the idea of actually trying to play - even from the back - but that's been abandoned and we seem to be intent on lumping the ball up from the back and bringing in players to match that philosophy. Johnson looks like nothing more than a carbon copy of Dickov to me. Started brightly, won everyone over with some impressive talk, signed a few decent players and a lot of ropey ones, got his team to play attractive football, struggled for results, abandoned the attractive football philosophy but still struggled for results, filled the squad with loanees, started looking to point the finger elsewhere for the fact his team were :censored:... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Stevie said everything I was going to say, but with far more eloquence than I could muster up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I'm not convinced. None of that really counts for anything. I can see your point on Smith, Philliskirk, JCH and Harkins but I don't think Johnson can take too much credit for Phillis - that's one's down to TP. JCH and Smith are talented players but have hardly set the world alight this season. Harkins was a good signing but might well not be here beyond the end of the season. I certainly don't think the Rooney saga reflects well on Johnson. There are two ways of looking at this one: (i) he signed a :censored: player on a long-term deal and got lucky as someone took him off our hands early doors; or (ii) he signed a decent goal scorer and wasn't able to get him firing in his team. Neither looks great for Johnson. And for all the signings that show his supposed eye for a player, there are a good few that might be used to argue the opposite. Schmeltz was another signed on a long-term deal and released within six months. Plummer was plain :censored:e; Rusnak was a jumped-up little bell end (after Johnson's talk of careful diligence on players); Joksts didn't work out; Rodgers hasn't done much; Dayton had been largely disappointing; MacDonald has struggled for fitness and form; etc. As for the football, I like the idea of actually trying to play - even from the back - but that's been abandoned and we seem to be intent on lumping the ball up from the back and bringing in players to match that philosophy. Johnson looks like nothing more than a carbon copy of Dickov to me. Started brightly, won everyone over with some impressive talk, signed a few decent players and a lot of ropey ones, got his team to play attractive football, struggled for results, abandoned the attractive football philosophy but still struggled for results, filled the squad with loanees, started looking to point the finger elsewhere for the fact his team were :censored:... You make very good points in all of that Stevie. I think the end of playing football from the back left with Lanzoni and Tarkowski. Both were very good players which we failed to keep hold of, one because his contract simply wasn't long enough and the other because of our financial situation. I'm still an advocate for time however, I believe that LJ wants a smaller squad and to integrate the youth team into the set-up. I just have a feeling that it will come good, the signs are there, in my opinion. Again, others may see this as blind optimism, blurred by my rose tinted spectacles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjonesyyoafc Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Wouldn't mind seeing us try a 4-1-4-1 to be honest. Oxley Brown Lockwood Grounds Mellor Smith/Wesolowski Winchester Harkins Philliskirk Turner MacDonald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Wouldn't mind seeing us try a 4-1-4-1 to be honest. Oxley Brown Lockwood Grounds Mellor Smith/Wesolowski Winchester Harkins Philliskirk Turner MacDonald We playing for a 0-0...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjonesyyoafc Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 We playing for a 0-0...? Can't see why that team would connote playing for a 0-0. Taking out a defensive midfielder in order to facilitate Harkins down the centre and adding an extra wide player could only ever be an attacking change. The only defensive positive is that an out-and-out winger is more likely to track the right-back than Harkins is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceStationLatic Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Oxley Brown, Lockwood, Grounds, Mellor Winchester, Smith, Wes Philliskirk, MacDonald, Harkins Formation change - but Philliskirk and Harkins both have experience on the wings before and so should have some positional sense. The above would be a fluid front three, with Harkins in the hole or left - with Philliskirk also free to drift. If they play with width, the midfield three can always shift across with Harkins/Philli dropping slightly to still have your two banks of four if necessary. If they are physical (likely), then Harkins might help playing behind the other two strikers - or as an outlet with the other two fighting for second balls. We need our attacking players in areas they can threaten. This would toughen us up in the middle whilst still being positive and going for victory. I fear we'll go 4-5-1, 4-1-4-1 or 4-2-3-1 - well just end up deep and negative, concede from a set piece and fail to score as no-one will get in the box and we'll screw up every set piece of our own. Nothing like positivity eh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitey1980 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Whichever formation he plays, he has to find a way to compensate for Harkins being so advanced on the left hand side. Having watched Wigan at City on Sunday, it was an excellent advert for 3 at the back - which would suggest having Lockwood and Wilson marking with Grounds ideally spare as the quickest and best distributor of the three. This would allow Mellor and possibly Winchester (harsh on Brown admittedly) as Wingbacks with Wes and Smith rotating in front of the back 3 (and covering forward runs from either DM or CW) That frees Harkins and Philly to roam further forward with less defensive responsibility - but Dayton or Kissock would provide an alternative. Personally I like the idea of the pace of Turner to stretch them in the channels but can see the argument for McDonald's experience. They are strong, physical and will press us high up the pitch. We have to pass the ball as if we are forced direct I suspect its a game we can't win. We have to start fast and commit players forwards, which we have tended to do on the occasions we have been forced into playing 3 at the back. Finally, I am not in for happy clapping, but they need our support on Tuesday, as the lack of confidence was there for all to see on Saturday......that and still being in the game after 10 minutes without having given a soft opener away!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slystallone Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 As posted on a different thread, a 4-3-1-2 for me: Oxley Brown - Wilson - Grounds - Mellor Smith - Winchester - Wes Harkins Philliskirk - MacDonald / Turner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) They were weak down their right hand side at their place. Edited March 11, 2014 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I'm not convinced. None of that really counts for anything. I can see your point on Smith, Philliskirk, JCH and Harkins but I don't think Johnson can take too much credit for Phillis - that's one's down to TP. JCH and Smith are talented players but have hardly set the world alight this season. Harkins was a good signing but might well not be here beyond the end of the season. I certainly don't think the Rooney saga reflects well on Johnson. There are two ways of looking at this one: (i) he signed a :censored: player on a long-term deal and got lucky as someone took him off our hands early doors; or (ii) he signed a decent goal scorer and wasn't able to get him firing in his team. Neither looks great for Johnson. And for all the signings that show his supposed eye for a player, there are a good few that might be used to argue the opposite. Schmeltz was another signed on a long-term deal and released within six months. Plummer was plain :censored:e; Rusnak was a jumped-up little bell end (after Johnson's talk of careful diligence on players); Joksts didn't work out; Rodgers hasn't done much; Dayton had been largely disappointing; MacDonald has struggled for fitness and form; etc. As for the football, I like the idea of actually trying to play - even from the back - but that's been abandoned and we seem to be intent on lumping the ball up from the back and bringing in players to match that philosophy. Johnson looks like nothing more than a carbon copy of Dickov to me. Started brightly, won everyone over with some impressive talk, signed a few decent players and a lot of ropey ones, got his team to play attractive football, struggled for results, abandoned the attractive football philosophy but still struggled for results, filled the squad with loanees, started looking to point the finger elsewhere for the fact his team were :censored:... I really want this to be wrong ... .... but I don't think it is. So we're into "can he learn from mistakes" time. 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.