Dan Lavercombe out

midtable · Post by **midtable** » 10 Mar 2016, 23:18

Goalkeeper Dan Lavercombe is out for 3 weeks. This is according to physio Gareth Law's twitter account.

lucy6lucy · Post by **lucy6lucy** » 11 Mar 2016, 01:11

midtable wrote:Goalkeeper Dan Lavercombe is out for 3 weeks. This is according to physio Gareth Law's twitter account.

Oh shit. That is a hammer blow.

PhilGull · Post by **PhilGull** » 11 Mar 2016, 09:09

Do Wigan have an alternative they can loan us?

Orange Gull · Post by **Orange Gull** » 11 Mar 2016, 11:28

A massive blow, this and the news that Blissett will not be available for the game against Aldershot is news we really do not need right now. The OS says that Fisher is ready to fill in for Lavercombe so I guess that clears up that question. I wish him the best of luck but it's very concerning that we are in effect going to be playing a Western League goalkeeper.

northlondongull · Post by **northlondongull** » 11 Mar 2016, 12:45

Hopefully KN and RH have the contacts to get in a cheap/free decent keeper. I am thinking of big Nev territory preferably...

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 11 Mar 2016, 13:01

Cometh the hour, cometh the man...

Post by **Dave** » 11 Mar 2016, 13:43

Unfortunately the club will not have signed two non-contract keepers, then to spent time and money putting them through coaching sessions with the clubs keeper coach, just to run off and sign a loan keeper at the first injury hurdle to the no1 keeper.

It is the practicalities of the situation here, if the club wanted to bring in loan cover they should have done it when Spiess left, however, stop, think, if the club had gone down that road they'd have tied their hands in a knot over Lavercombe now, wouldn't they. No club rarely if ever gets a loan keeper in, or gets an agreement from the parent club for a loan keeper to sit on the bench, so any sale of Lavercombe in January which happened with a loan back was going to be with a Lavercombe's your no 1 clause and everyone wanted that, which would mean we'd have to have gone the route of signing a local back up keeper anyway.

The only other alternative, was not to sell Lavercombe in January, but the funds were needed for squad replenishment, almost certainly would have been relegated with what we had.

It will be Grant Fisher, backed up by Corderoy, both have played at a higher level than when they were signed by the club, Fisher has played Southern league which is a couple steps below were our club sits right now. We're going to have to trust Fisher and the clubs judgement in signing these two keepers.

The timing of Dan's injury couldn't have been worse, but that's the situation that now presents itself and the bridge now has to be crossed, Fisher deserves our support, what we don't need is fans over analysing everything he does.

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 11 Mar 2016, 14:08

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » 11 Mar 2016, 14:26

forevertufc wrote:Unfortunately the club will not have signed two non-contract keepers, then to spent time and money putting them through coaching sessions with the clubs keeper coach, just to run off and sign a loan keeper at the first injury hurdle to the no1 keeper.

It is the practicalities of the situation here, if the club wanted to bring in loan cover they should have done it when Spiess left, however, stop, think, if the club had gone down that road they'd have tied their hands in a knot over Lavercombe now, wouldn't they. No club rarely if ever gets a loan keeper in, or gets an agreement from the parent club for a loan keeper to sit on the bench, so any sale of Lavercombe in January which happened with a loan back was going to be with a Lavercombe's your no 1 clause and everyone wanted that, which would mean we'd have to have gone the route of signing a local back up keeper anyway.

The only other alternative, was not to sell Lavercombe in January, but the funds were needed for squad replenishment, almost certainly would have been relegated with what we had.

It will be Grant Fisher, backed up by Corderoy, both have played at a higher level than when they were signed by the club, Fisher has played Southern league which is a couple steps below were our club sits right now. We're going to have to trust Fisher and the clubs judgement in signing these two keepers.

The timing of Dan's injury couldn't have been worse, but that's the situation that now presents itself and the bridge now has to be crossed, Fisher deserves our support, what we don't need is fans over analysing everything he does.

Good posting - plenty of interesting points.

I suppose when you think about it, in this situation it will be better for the players to be playing in front of someone they have been training with for the last few months and will have some kind of rapport with. Rather than picking up a supposedly more talented keeper on the way to tomorrows game and hoping he integrates OK.

Also, its possible here to draw comparisons with the 46-year old Barry Richardson having to play for Wycombe earlier in the season. He kept a clean sheet, mainly due to the excellent defending in front of him limiting the work he had to do. Lucky for us our back 4 are in good form at the moment - hopefully they can maintain this for the next few weeks

royalgull · Post by **royalgull** » 11 Mar 2016, 15:55

This can't be mucked around with, Blissett missing is a big blow because he's our 1 player in goalscoring form and we need his physical presence, Lavercombe missing is potentially crippling. The 2 lads on non contract cover are here for an emergency 20mins here or there not for 3 weeks of season defining games. This is a loan replacement only job.

And Wycombe signed a loan replacement the day after.

Post by **Dave** » 11 Mar 2016, 16:31

I totally agree Ian (Royalgull) but the problem here is going to come down to money, as it frustratingly always does for TUFC, if we want someone decent who's going to able to hit the ground running, and that is what's going to be required here, then TUFC are going to have to pay for it.

Yes the club can give Rovers a call about Puddy, or see if they could get Pym down from City, but there's no guarantee they'll be able to do a better job that Fisher, Fisher's not played yet, so we don't actually know.

Agree with the sentiment a loan keeper is needed, and whilst I don't know it might, I'm pretty sure that isn't going to happen.

royalgull · Post by **royalgull** » 11 Mar 2016, 16:38

Pym would be a good shout, Exeter have a couple of young lads who have played in the league and i'm sure they could do us a favour and let us borrow one for a few weeks

Taking a punt on the likes of Finch for 20 mins here and there in a game is one thing, taking a punt on an amateur keeper for a prolonged period is another and one we can't take in my opinion.

RussianGull · Post by **RussianGull** » 11 Mar 2016, 16:47

royalgull wrote:This can't be mucked around with, Blissett missing is a big blow because he's our 1 player in goalscoring form and we need his physical presence,

Smith has scored a couple of late ^.^

arcadia · Post by **arcadia** » 11 Mar 2016, 17:23

royalgull wrote:Pym would be a good shout, Exeter have a couple of young lads who have played in the league and i'm sure they could do us a favour and let us borrow one for a few weeks

Taking a punt on the likes of Finch for 20 mins here and there in a game is one thing, taking a punt on an amateur keeper for a prolonged period is another and one we can't take in my opinion.

Nicholson is proving people wrong if there is a chance of anything happening I'm sure it will happen.

Post by **Dave** » 11 Mar 2016, 17:37

Wonder whether we're going to get our wish, a player signing about to be announced according FB.

Torquay United Fans Forum