Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - TonyM

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 42
General Discussion / Altrincham away
« on: September 13, 2021, 02:09:18 PM »
So a quick turnaround for the squad and a long trip to the North West on Tuesday evening. 

IC swapped his back 3 round at the weekend and might be tempted to do so again if Bird has any effects from the weekend but unlike last year we have genuine options for those spots and I don't think anyone would consider McFadden to be weakening the side.  Both wing backs have started the season well and Jones may have to bide his time, even when he is back to full fitness.  Personally I think we are as strong as we have ever been in the middle of the park with McGavin, Coleman and Rowley so it is really a case of what IC can do with the two remaining spots to give us a viable goal threat.  In his post match interview IC said he was still looking for another forward (presumably a short term loan until Gold is fit again) but acknowledged that so is everyone else and budget constraints mean we don't have loads of options.  Personally I would prefer Linton to Walker but neither has really grabbed their (limited) opportunity as of yet which is what you are ideally looking for with loanees. 

General Discussion / Re: Dagenham at home
« on: September 12, 2021, 09:44:58 AM »
Firstly 859 is a disappointing figure however you try to dress it up, really don't know how SC can turn this around as any drop in the standard price (if that is the fix?) will, in turn, upset those who have already committed to a season ticket.  We did catch up with him 2 minutes before kick off and he said there wasn't much uptake on the kids offer but maybe something like that can be tried again but with a bit more publicity?

On the field I think that we are much, much better than last year but think IC got it wrong playing Walker rather than Linton as we (again) didn't have enough movement in front of the midfield.  Walker is a tricky one, he looks like a decent player but does look a bit like someone who was available rather than someone who fitted into what the squad needs, obviously early days in terms of how much time he has had with us but then why throw him into so soon?  Morias certainly looks like he has the character we might need in a relegation scrap but look like he wants drop off rather than play on that last defender and get himself on the end of things in the box which was basically his primary role yesterday until we swapped it round.

So, lots of positives from yesterday, particularly McGavin, Coleman and Rowley (in patches) but need to find a front three combination that can compliment the rest of the team as I think the formation and players behind them are working pretty well.

General Discussion / Dagenham at home
« on: September 11, 2021, 11:08:16 AM »
Personally think we look at much better side, particularly at the back, than last season but still seem to be making silly mistakes that are getting punished - 7 conceded in 4 games is hardly something to shout about.  Hopefully the Walks can witness a better display going forward than the last game where IC's options were severely limited but with Rowley and Morias available and with the new loan signing we will be able to pick a side with more threat in attack plus attacking options on the bench.  My team for today

      McFadden, Bowry, Bird
Barrows, McGavin, Coleman, Denton
            Linton, Morias

subs - Jones, Fernandez, Clunan, Sundire, Walker (maybe a case for Gyasi for Sundire as we are at home?)

General Discussion / Re: Sponsor wanted for Saturday's game.
« on: September 11, 2021, 10:57:22 AM »
One would hope that the owner has done his sums and knows what is needed to compete at this level and indeed where the funds would come from to support it.

Here’s a few ideas what he maybe looking toward.

FA Cup run
NL payment ( each season)
Outside ‘investment’
His own pocket.

At the outset SC declared his intention of bringing EFL Level to the Walks.  Surely as an experienced businessman he has done his homework on how this could be achieved.   Or maybe he is just flying it by the seat of his pants.

No CM in the building, admission prices that are seemingly not attractive to some would indicate our owner has other cards up his sleeve to make the thing work.

Having been banging on about infrastructure on here for years, I take no pleasure in seeing where the club now finds itself, off the field at least.  Mall, in answer to your question, maybe SC thought that (to misquote Kevin Costner) 'if he built it, they would come' which seems to have been a massive miscalculation, not helped by COVID or the speed at which we progressed from step 3 to 1.  Basically there is a core of fans who will go to the Walks regularly, which has probably had a net growth during SC's tenure (up to maybe around 800-1000?), plus there is a much wider group who will come to 'big games' or when the team is doing well and there is certainly more of these now that the club's profile and that of the opposition is much higher but just not sure they will turn out if we are in a relegation scrap after Christmas. 

In terms of where the money comes from now, the NL payment is already budgeted for and I would imagine SC's 'pocket' is only so deep, personally I think outside investment looks unlikely (unless it comes with a change in ownership) so we are probably hoping for a cup run which would be a welcome 'sticking plaster' but certainly can't be relied upon every season.  The underlying problem is that we achieved promotion through financial doping and IC's management and neither of these are now things that can give us an edge at step 1 - there are owners with much, much deeper pockets and/or clubs with much larger fanbases and/or managers of comparable stature to IC which is why the weaknesses elsewhere at the Walks are now more clearly visible imo.

General Discussion / Re: 856 Foundation
« on: September 11, 2021, 10:38:19 AM »
Great post Kev and, although I didn't know Lee other than a 'known face' at the Walks and a good friend of a friend, I would fully support the idea of doing something at todays game to highlight the issue.  Probably the easiest would be for the applause idea at 8:56 into the game and then to make sure the club's media team prime todays commentary team with the fact that it is going to happen so that they are ready with an explanation and hopefully something helpful to say on the topic.  I know there is the 8:56 banner so again, if they are primed, it may be come at a point in the game where they could also cut to an image of the banner.

General Discussion / Re: Sponsor wanted for Saturday's game.
« on: September 10, 2021, 10:47:48 PM »
Surely sponsors should be queuing up to get a piece of the televised action?

Maybe there is a credibility / trust issue with local businesses????

I still don't understand what people think sponsors will get for their money at NL level.  Realistically it is a pretty niche TV audience and in truth many advertisers in the ground are more than likely fans who want to make a contribution to the club rather than looking at it as a purely commercial investment or what sort of return they will get from it.  Either way, pricing has to be seen as 'reasonable' and judging by the number of blank spaces around the ground a large number of previous sponsors didn't think it was this season. 

No match sponsor this close to the game!? Wow what a joke.
Then again who needs to make money through sponsors when you can just rinse the supporters instead... :banghead;

Perhaps there isn't the level of sponsorship sufficient to subsidise the club to the extent required, so if not sponsorship and not fans where do you suggest SC now looks to find the money to run the club?  The Sport England grant will only go so far.

General Discussion / Re: Sponsor wanted for Saturday's game.
« on: September 10, 2021, 02:13:02 PM »
I think it is the 'played in front of supporters' bit that makes it the first one for the new club.  I am hopeful of breaking the 1000 mark but not much more but accept that may be optimistic.

General Discussion / Re: Fotlsc
« on: September 09, 2021, 08:01:26 PM »

Are you the new FOTL committee member?

In a word, no, but as a member of both the FotL and the B&G Trust I try to support events / fundraising activities as and when I can.  Would love to see more fans engaged with one or both organisations.

General Discussion / Re: Fotlsc
« on: September 09, 2021, 01:59:32 PM »
Some in attendance were disappointed with the turnout but I think it probably reflected where the FotL finds itself, after a season mostly without fans and attached to a club that hasn't put fan engagement at the forefront of its operations, everyone needs to accept it will take time to build up to where it was, let alone where some would like it to be.  The two hours weren't all spent discussing things the FotL can affect, although in the absence of a genuine fans forum with SC there are very few alternatives for fans vent their frustrations, even if it did mean the meeting got a bit 'off topic' at times.

In terms of moving the FotL forward, they gained a new committee member who comes on as secretary and there were constructive comments about how the profile of existing fundraising, particularly the 100 Club could be raised and a number of possible fundraising activities were suggested for the committee to consider.  Mallard, to answer you question directly, the meeting wasn't there for 'plans (to be) formulated' but a chance for the committee to engage with members and non-members alike as to how they can move forward which I think it probably achieved.  On a personal note I would hope this is the start not the end of such meetings as it is probably worth doing a couple a season - there were some good ideas from the floor and it's now down to the committee to go away and think about what they can progress and hopefully by the next open meeting they will be able to be judged on their actions as well as words. 

General Discussion / Re: Eastleigh away
« on: September 03, 2021, 05:17:15 PM »
So, three games in and we have played one playoff certainty, one likely mid-table side and one who are probably going to be well into the bottom half so three points is probably what we have hoped to return.  Eastleigh haven't started well so a good time to go there and if we can play with the same confidence as Monday and with Rowley & Linton likely to give us a bit more going forward we should be looking to pick up at least a point.  I thought Bowry played well on Monday so probably keeps his spot in the starting lineup so only real decision will be whether McGavin replaces Clunan, personally I would stick with Clunan as he will have better options available in front of him than Monday.
      McFadden, Bowry, Bird
Barrows, Coleman, Clunan, Denton
          Linton, Gold

subs - Fernadez, McGavin, Jones, Sundire, Gyasi

General Discussion / Season so far / squad
« on: August 31, 2021, 02:00:25 PM »
So, three games in and two home defeats without a goal for the Walks faithful (those that are left) to cheer what are people's early season thoughts?  Personally I am reasonably happy, (bear with me) particularly as some of the big problems of last season seemed to have been addressed -
  *  we now look like all (most) of the squad are on the same page
  *  we have a more commanding keeper, although I would still like him to come and collect crosses a bit more
  *  the centre of the defence looks pretty solid, given Bowry's contribution yesterday we now look like we have four genuine NL standard players to select 3 from
  *  Denton and Barrows have done OK and the swap in formation seems to play on their strengths rather than times last season where they were asked to do too much, both attacking and defensively, and came up sort plus Jones must be close to full fitness to add to the competition
  *  in midfield, I thought Coleman was excellent yesterday and Rowley had a good game vs Southend and also took plaudits from Yeovil and was sorely missed yesterday.  I thought Clunan did OK yesterday but he isn't a driving/attacking midfielder that we are crying out.  Sundire and Gyasi were both well off where we needed them to be yesterday and when they came on vs Southend, lets hope it is just a case of adjusting to the step up for Sundire.  Gyasi is a different case - he played almost half a season last year but doesn't appear to have much idea about how to beat NL standard defenders or much else - Culverhouse has always looked for players with 'football intelligence' and unfortunately I don't think Gyasi is learning quickly enough.  The new lad from Ipswich struggled to get into the pace of the game yesterday but hopefully with more time with the squad and game minutes he can stake a claim for a starting spot.
  *  up front is difficult to assess as yet with Morias' sending off limiting IC's options and Linton missing yesterday didn't help, we still look light here but just hope that at some point Omotayo has someone to play alongside him otherwise it is going to be a long season for the lad, I don't think you can doubt his effort but its been a pretty thankless task so far at home.  As others have said elsewhere, getting NL standard forwards isn't easy or cheap so if the current crop don't work out it may be we have to look to get another loanee
  *  off field still looks step 3 at best with so much seemingly reactive rather than having the right people in the right positions to make the right decisions at the right time.  Running a club at step 1 with a predominately volunteer workforce is almost impossible but Lynn seem intent to continue with this model.  I appreciate this probably means more money, than would otherwise be the case, for the playing budget but it just isn't sustainable and could easily be argued that it is already having a negative financial impact.

General Discussion / Re: The game today v Chesterfield
« on: August 31, 2021, 01:24:09 PM »
...The team played dreadful, all that passing around at the back leads to lost procession.  The two new "strikers" where hopeless, they just didn't seem to try or care like Marriott and Gash did, no wonder we all sang in unision " we want Gash back" at least we got a reaction from Burrows from that, so he at least cares. If I was the manager I would be ringing up Gash and Marriot and pleading with them to play part time again.

N&L, can I just ask where you think Lynn are in 'the pecking order' at NL?  This seasons squad does at least look it has been assembled with a plan to compete and, hopefully, stay in the NL unlike last seasons which was well on course for relegation even before furloughing players. 

Not sure who you were referring to but we only had one 'striker' on the pitch and none on the bench - we only have three in the squad and one was suspended and another presumably picked up a knock at Yeovil so it's hardly surprising that Omotayo often looked isolated and fighting a losing battle - even when he won the ball or held it up there was little to no support and this is perhaps where I would agree with Gyasi and Sundire looking well off the standard needed at this level.  This then had the knock on effect that the back three and Coleman and Clunan had (very) limited options when they looked to move the ball forward, particularly with how well Chesterfield's full backs played against Barrows and Denton.

All of that said, much like Norwich playing Leicester, Chesterfield will not define our season, they are one of the pre-season favorites and will be in and around the playoffs whereas we have to try and avoid being dragged into a relegation battle which means picking up points against sides that are likely to be down there ie Yeovil.  So looking forward we can welcome Rowley back into the side next weekend to provide a bit more invention and hopefully Linton will be fit which should give us a bit more balance going forward, the bench still looks very, very thin but IC has spent his budget and as I said earlier we do look a lot more competitive than last year.

General Discussion / Re: Incoming . . .
« on: August 27, 2021, 11:56:21 AM »
Hopefully Rowley can make that midfield spot just behind the front two his own, certainly showed enough on Saturday given he only joined in the week so hadn't played much with those around him.

KES, I wouldn't necessarily group the midfield like that, I think we probably have three 'sitting' midfielders who are unlikely to go beyond the forwards but all of whom can pass and move the ball reasonably well in much the same way England set up with Rice & the lad from Leeds / Henderson.  Playing three centre halves gives the wing backs much more licence to get forward and, as has often been the case under IC, are where a lot of our attacking threat comes from.  Sundire looked a bit more of an 'up and down' midfielder when he came on but one of the key things I heard from IC's post match comments on the radio was that we have to move the ball quicker, I thought we looked better at that than most games last season but still room for improvement and again something that has been a mark of IC sides but was sadly lacking last season.

General Discussion / Re: Clunan
« on: August 26, 2021, 10:46:25 PM »
I’ve heard very positive things about Joe Gascoinge who has come through the youth set-up. Would it not be worth giving him a run in the first team? Or even get him out to a local club for some match time, maybe Heacham? If he does well then you could swap them over and Clunan could go on loan to develop other local sides?

I think Gascoigne is a good way off NL level at present but if a loan to a step 3/4 side (not Heacham's level) can be found to get him some exposure to adult football he is still young enough to come back a better player and stake a claim next season. 

As for Clunan, I think he can still have a role within the first team squad this season but I don't think him and Coleman are strong enough as a pair to play in the system we used Saturday (3 central defenders, 2 wing backs, 2 holding midfielders, a no10 and 2 up front), maybe the lad from Ipswich will help and then it might be a choice as to Clunan or Coleman alongside or maybe we lose a centre half and go with three in the middle of the park.

General Discussion / Re: Is this the end of the King.
« on: August 26, 2021, 10:31:12 PM »
Don't write him out of next season just yet guys.... let's see how things unfold......I know Tony didn't agree, but I personally felt,Richards, King, Carey and a Dilly nipster, when all on song, was a pretty strong NL midfield.

I would still have Richards in the squad but he has gone to Brackley (NLN) having reportedly had a trial at Dagenham, Carey obviously has (rightly) got a chance in the EFL but I don't think any of our other midfielders from last year are now at NL clubs and I don't think we had any rivals when we signed King from Halifax all of which probably tells its own story.

It would be a real shame if this is the end of King at the club, my problem has never been with his ability but as Daz has said, we have a finite (and limited) budget so have to get every last bit of value out of it and we just can't afford to have a player regularly unavailable.  As for coaching, we have to be careful of just saying "find an ex-player a role", wouldn't it be better to have a Jarvis type player/coach who has (or is working towards) the relevant badges and more coaching skills and experience?

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 42
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal