Full Backs

[Dazza]

News of Nicho begs a question. Are we going to start the season with just one recognised full back? Tom Cruise I believe is still "on trial" and appears to have had a mixed pre season. Dale Tonge is listed and whilst there are youngsters maybe coming good they will need selective introduction. I realise this may be a difficult question five days away from the big kick off but if we are really going to target a shot at regaining league status are we really properly armed? The question I am sure goes to the Board who have indicated they want to regain league status at the first attempt. I realise money is tight but that tight?

[Gulliball]

100% agree. Cruise hasn't signed a contract yet, and personally I would rather we looked elsewhere anyway, which leaves Ives as the only left back and he only turned 17 last week. However promising he is, we'll need another left back and I would like another right back too. MacDonald is the current back up right back, but is better in the centre, leaving only Tonge, who we can't get rid of.

I am hopeful that we have someone in mind to arrive on loan, and this is the time that quite a few other sides are announcing their loanees. If no-one else arrives then I will be disappointed, and it will be a stand out weak link in our side. Having 4 promising wingers and 6 strikers is completely wasted if your back four aren't solid.

I know we have about 8 players transfer listed that we can't seem to shift, but the squad seems quite large, yet we only have Tonge (who is transfer listed) as a senior recognised full back.

[brucie]

Its odd that Cruise hasn't signed a contract. Don't think we can moan too much with Hargreaves recruitment really. If we didn't have shysters like Hawley to pay then we would probably have had a really good team.
It does however strike me that the team seems to be a bit like Knills at the start of last season - we have five viable wingers. Not too much up front maybe although we do have Bowman. Could really do with Benyon finding his form.
Howvere we do seem weak at the back - although lets not forget we have got Pearce to come back who is by far and away our star player.
I am not convinced by Rice as our number one and our full backs are the big problem.
Its difficult to really judge the standard of the opposition but there are grounds to believe that we could and should go well.
Surely it should be play offs minimum with the squad we have.

[wivelgull]

Brucie is right. Both he and I knew straight away at the beginning of last season that we were in trouble - and it was immediately obvious that the problem lay with the full backs. That problem has not gone away.

[Trojan 67]

Halal you ya! We are playing without fullbacks and about time too!

Under Cyril's (nice one )Knowles leadership we had an effective 5-3-2/3-5-2 . . . McNichol/Kelly. After that Gurney/Gibbs . . . and under O'Farrell Bond/Kitchener. Were they really only fullbacks?

Bill and Ben (the current flob a dob all over the place fullback men) can't defend, let alone attack and score goals.

I await develpments with interest.

[madgull]

Brucie is right. Both he and I knew straight away at the beginning of last season that we were in trouble - and it was immediately obvious that the problem lay with the full backs. That problem has not gone away.

Yeah, THAT was our problem, those stupid full backs! If only they had converted all of those chances that came our way in their roles as primary goalscorers, then we'd have been fine! If only we had Dixon and Winterburn then our centre backs wouldn't have acted like strangers at seemingly random moments. It's so obvious now, I've seen the light! (read in the voice of John Cleese during the "you're a naughty boy, Fawlty!" rant.)

[Colorado Gull]

Yeah, THAT was our problem, those stupid full backs! If only they had converted all of those chances that came our way in their roles as primary goalscorers, then we'd have been fine! If only we had Dixon and Winterburn then our centre backs wouldn't have acted like strangers at seemingly random moments. It's so obvious now, I've seen the light! (read in the voice of John Cleese during the "you're a naughty boy, Fawlty!" rant.)

Well who's fault is it then you cloth eared bint!

[madgull]

Well who's fault is it then you cloth eared bint!

[lucy6lucy]

Halal you ya! We are playing without fullbacks and about time too!

Under Cyril's (nice one )Knowles leadership we had an effective 5-3-2/3-5-2 . . . McNichol/Kelly. After that Gurney/Gibbs . . . and under O'Farrell Bond/Kitchener. Were they really only fullbacks?

Bill and Ben (the current flob a dob all over the place fullback men) can't defend, let alone attack and score goals.

I await develpments with interest.

Was the formation under Cyril away at Crewe, when our full backs passed back to the keeper( versy)(when it was allowed by law) some 20 times in 5 minutes. Nice one Cyril

[Sunnysideup]

Yeah, THAT was our problem, those stupid full backs! If only they had converted all of those chances that came our way in their roles as primary goalscorers, then we'd have been fine!

All of those chances??

The one thing that will remain long in the memory from last season, is the distinct lack of good chances created in open play for the strikers to get on the end of.
Some games I watched last season (too many to be honest), we didnt even have one clearcut chance around the penalty area.

Back to the full back side of things, it was plain to see that as soon as someone like Cameron or Bodin got the ball to try and run at the opposition fullbacks from midfield, they had two opponents on them straight away (usually the opposition wide player with the fullback 3 or 4 paces behind in case they got past the first player). In contrast, our fullbacks got virtually no support when dealing with the opposition.

Some will say the fullbacks should be able to deal with opponents on their own.

Its pretty clear though, if the opposition are making sure their fullbacks dont get exposed, yet we offer little support from midfield for ours, who has the right tactic? Clearly given the results last season and the number of times the fullbacks were exposed, it sure as hell wasnt us.

[Kit_robin]

All of those chances??

The one thing that will remain long in the memory from last season, is the distinct lack of good chances created in open play for the strikers to get on the end of.

Poor sarcasm identification there, chap.

[Pea]

I wouldn't mind, but he even told you he was doing it in a Basil Fawlty stylee.

[exilegull]

Well who's fault is it then you cloth eared bint!

Henry Kissinger

[Greybeardedgull]

The Piranha brothers and Spiny Norman.

[Glostergull]

Halal you ya! We are playing without fullbacks and about time too!

Under Cyril's (nice one )Knowles leadership we had an effective 5-3-2/3-5-2 . . . McNichol/Kelly. After that Gurney/Gibbs . . . and under O'Farrell Bond/Kitchener. Were they really only fullbacks?

Bill and Ben (the current flob a dob all over the place fullback men) can't defend, let alone attack and score goals.

I await develpments with interest.

wayhay Trojan me old mucker. yer back. missed you last season. i needed a target to aim at. lol

BTW will miss chatting with Geoff Brett this season. the pub will not seem the same without him. and aussie too