Atkinson to Pompey on loan - Confirmed

[Mr Popodopolous]

FWIW, Dan Carter says that JKL will be staying at Crewe, no particular plans to recall atm.

[Malago]

Fingers crossed he gets through to the end of the season without further injuries.

[And Its Smith]

55 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

He’s not on a big wage in terms of peer ranking in the squad. He signed a deal whilst injured for a bit of security and wasn’t in as string a bargaining position as he would’ve been before Sunderland (a).

He hates u21 football, so he either sits in the bench and remains patient, or he goes and gets done first team footie. A champ loan is good as we get to see him at this level for hopefully 20 games. And he comes back in the summer ready to compete with a year left on his deal.

 A fit Big-Rob had something to offer to us. 

Don’t disagree with any of that. This move makes sense for all parties. And whatever his wage (let’s be honest, we don’t know for sure) can be spent in the final third 

[TammyAB]

Good move lending him to one of Cardiff’s relegation rivals

[Jerseybean]

Confirmed, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgq1d95xe0do

[Northern Red]

7 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Don’t disagree with any of that. This move makes sense for all parties. And whatever his wage (let’s be honest, we don’t know for sure) can be spent in the final third 

I wouldn’t count on it.

[Davefevs]

And of course played alongside Mousinho for Oxford in 20/21 season, before he joined us that summer.

[HengroveReds]

Just now, Davefevs said:

And of course played alongside Mousinho for Oxford in 20/21 season, before he joined us that summer.

and LM managed mousinho so that relationship there

[exAtyeoMax]

 

 

[Br1stolCityBoy]

With Atkinson going out. The club must be making financial decisions to bring someone in. Maybe 2 coming in. Hopefully a Striker and keeper. 

[GrahamC]

6 minutes ago, Br1stolCityBoy said:

With Atkinson going out. The club must be making financial decisions to bring someone in. Maybe 2 coming in. Hopefully a Striker and keeper. 

One of SL’s very few comments this season was to say we had “a couple” more players than we needed.

When Cornick goes too that will rectify that.

Unless we recall someone from loan I’ll be very surprised if we do any incoming business this month.

Edited January 3 by GrahamC

[Silvio Dante]

8 minutes ago, HengroveReds said:

and LM managed mousinho so that relationship there

Don’t believe he did - Mousinho left Oxford to take over Portsmouth in Jan 2023 and Manning took over Oxford in March 2023

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, GrahamC said:

One of SL’s very few comments this season was to say we had “a couple” more players than we needed.

When Cornick goes too that will rectify that.

Unless we recall someone from loan I’ll be very surprised if we do any business this month.

Sorry when did he say that?

Must've missed it..? If he did though I reckon your analysis is probably spot on.

[Shuffle]

2 hours ago, petehinton said:

Certainly needs the minutes, but also one that Manning, bizarrely imo, doesn’t seem to particularly rate 

Manning can only judge based on post injury whilst we all remember pre when imo he was our best defender.  I’ve seen him 4 times this season and he is way off the pre injury form.  I hope for everyone’s sake he gets games and builds back to where he was.

[Charlie BCFC]

2 hours ago, Dastardly and Muttley said:

This is a shame. Decent player, but injuries have held him back. Another with Cornick that LM won’t play.

Hope they’re not clearing space to allow him to waste even more money.

Probably won’t play him because our back 3 is playing well and he’s been injured for almost two years, just a hunch though 

[Charlie BCFC]

2 hours ago, BCFCGav said:

I’m for and against this one. Rob getting Championship game time is a big plus but we’re relying heavily on Vyner, McNally and Dickie staying fit, with only Naismith as cover. Has to be a JKL recall, as others have said.

If we stick with a back 3 then we have Naismith/Tanner/Roberts and then Campbell-Slowey in the U21 for cover. Pointless recalling Knight-Lebel when he’s playing every week for a team fighting for promotion 

[Northern Red]

2 minutes ago, Shuffle said:

Manning can only judge based on post injury whilst we all remember pre when imo he was our best defender.  I’ve seen him 4 times this season and he is way off the pre injury form.  I hope for everyone’s sake he gets games and builds back to where he was.

And this is the point that some seem be missing, probably deliberately in a few cases.

He was excellent pre injury but that was 2 years ago now, we simply don't know how he'll come back and to say he should currently be playing ahead of Vyner or McNally based on 2 years ago is fanciful at best.

 

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

I think maybe because the 0 was more important than anything else? I felt at times during the second half that we seemed to be playing as though we’d rather it ended 3-0 than 4-1.

I can see the sense of it…just worry that we’ve thought before we’ve got defensive cover sorted, and then the injuries come along! 

That could be true , and worries and annoys me. Surely with the good of the long term and team in mind, he plays Atkinson for the last 20 and builds him up ready to step in or start. it would have made sense as he's one of the few left sided CB's we have. 
 

41 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

FWIW, Dan Carter says that JKL will be staying at Crewe, no particular plans to recall atm.

If we don't have another CB incoming that is a concern. With our injury record and the ones who could fill in either coming back from injury or the only one available for their position , we are an injury or two away from panic stations , again.
 

4 minutes ago, Charlie BCFC said:

Probably won’t play him because our back 3 is playing well and he’s been injured for almost two years, just a hunch though 

I get that , but it's back to asking why at 3-0 or 4-0 he didn't give him a run. It's not just getting Atkinson fit , but resting one of the others. 
Same with McGuane , why wait so long and not give him minutes in games that were already done? 

[1960maaan]

8 minutes ago, Charlie BCFC said:

If we stick with a back 3 then we have Naismith/Tanner/Roberts and then Campbell-Slowey in the U21 for cover. Pointless recalling Knight-Lebel when he’s playing every week for a team fighting for promotion 

Naismith worries me , Tanner & McCrorie are coming back from injury and sharing minutes , Roberts could be our only fit LB for weeks.  As for Campbell-Slowey , I don't think he's made his debut yet so expecting him to help with a push to the top 6* is a bit much. At least Knight-Label has been playing League football . 

* I'm not expecting a charge to the top 6 , but we are in thinking distance so should be thinking that way.

[RedM]

1 hour ago, Mr Hankey said:

As much as i like Atkinson, i think people maybe underestimating the impact of having pretty much 2 years out - perhaps he just hasn't come back in training the way they hoped he would? Maybe 6 months away can get him back to where we need him, or perhaps it's 6 months away for him to earn himself a move whilst we recoup some money & save some wages?

I would think there is a reason he hasn't been gradually eased back, he was pretty much first choice pre injury wasn't he, pre Manning of course.

I realise he has been out a long time, I was at Sunderland when it happened, but he has also been available for a while too, yet largely overlooked. 

[mozo]

1 hour ago, Nugget said:

Great move for all if true. See how he fares for next season to prove his fitness & get game time. 

 

55 minutes ago, Malago said:

Fingers crossed he gets through to the end of the season without further injuries.

Yeah I think this move makes sense for all parties, and we watch on and hope he comes through unscathed.

[BCFCGav]

16 minutes ago, Charlie BCFC said:

If we stick with a back 3 then we have Naismith/Tanner/Roberts and then Campbell-Slowey in the U21 for cover. Pointless recalling Knight-Lebel when he’s playing every week for a team fighting for promotion 

Tanner and Roberts need to focus on battling to play in their own positions. Roberts may well have to given Pring’s knock. I think once you start forcing players out of position you’ve already lost the battle.

Campell-Slowey shout I agree with though. I like academy cover. 

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, BCFCGav said:

Tanner and Roberts need to focus on battling to play in their own positions. Roberts may well have to given Pring’s knock. I think once you start forcing players out of position you’ve already lost the battle.

Campell-Slowey shout I agree with though. I like academy cover. 

If Manning is gonna persist with WBs, then Tanner is better at RCB3 than RWB.  

[BCFCGav]

Just now, Davefevs said:

If Manning is gonna persist with WBs, then Tanner is better at RCB3 than RWB.  

I agree but then who covers for Ross. Sykes or Yu do a job but I’d think we should enter the market for a true RWB.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If Manning is gonna persist with WBs, then Tanner is better at RCB3 than RWB.  

I dunno why Dave but I still have reservations about the Back 3 and whether it's best for us.

It's a useful way to shoehorn in all 3 CBs and even in some cases Twine but is it best for the side as a while? Jury out IMO.

[Gillies Downs Leeds]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If Manning is gonna persist with WBs, then Tanner is better at RCB3 than RWB.  

And also Roberts at LCB3 rather than LWB in my opinion. Don't see him as a wing back at all.

[Robbored]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If Manning is gonna persist with WBs, then Tanner is better at RCB3 than RWB.  

Well…….before McCorie’s injury how many games has Tanner played at RWB? I certainly can’t remember many if any at all……..

He played at RWB because LM had no other options.

[bexhill reds]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I dunno why Dave but I still have reservations about the Back 3 and whether it's best for us.

It's a useful way to shoehorn in all 3 CBs and even in some cases Twine but is it best for the side as a while? Jury out IMO.

I think we look more balanced, especially with McCrorie at RWB, gives Twine and Mehmeti more scope to roam without having to cover the full backs if in a back 4

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, bexhill reds said:

I think we look more balanced, especially with McCrorie at RWB, gives Twine and Mehmeti more scope to roam without having to cover the full backs if in a back 4

I dunno..maybe with very specific personnel but 2 v 1 in wide areas is a risk as is outnumbering in midfield in some areas...if Naismith, Vyner and Dickie say then.

[bexhill reds]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I dunno..maybe with very specific personnel but 2 v 1 in wide areas is a risk as is outnumbering in midfield in some areas...if Naismith, Vyner and Dickie say then.

I guess Manning is countering that with the mobility and energy of Bird and Knight with Twine and Mehmeti eventually tracking back to help in the middle.

Although formation wise Manning's teams appear to be very fluid depending on who is in possession.

Our undoing of late has been mistakes rather than formations.

[redsquirrel]

36 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

That could be true , and worries and annoys me. Surely with the good of the long term and team in mind, he plays Atkinson for the last 20 and builds him up ready to step in or start. it would have made sense as he's one of the few left sided CB's we have. 
 

If we don't have another CB incoming that is a concern. With our injury record and the ones who could fill in either coming back from injury or the only one available for their position , we are an injury or two away from panic stations , again.
 

I get that , but it's back to asking why at 3-0 or 4-0 he didn't give him a run. It's not just getting Atkinson fit , but resting one of the others. 
Same with McGuane , why wait so long and not give him minutes in games that were already done? 

might it have been  a case of loan already arranged. anyone knows these and other deals are often arranged ages before they hit the o/s. and as for him on the bench,no different to cornick is it.  just my thoughts .

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, bexhill reds said:

I guess Manning is countering that with the mobility and energy of Bird and Knight with Twine and Mehmeti eventually tracking back to help in the middle.

Although formation wise Manning's teams appear to be very fluid depending on who is in possession.

Our undoing of late has been mistakes rather than formations.

Chicken and Egg isn't it. Can tactics make a side more susceptible, how truly comfortable is Vyner in a Back 3 as opposed to paired with Dickie in a 4-3-3 say.

Formations are neutral sure but the lack of In-Game Management aside, I know the key areas I'd be targeting as an opposition coach.

[italian dave]

44 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

That could be true , and worries and annoys me. Surely with the good of the long term and team in mind, he plays Atkinson for the last 20 and builds him up ready to step in or start. it would have made sense as he's one of the few left sided CB's we have. 
 

If we don't have another CB incoming that is a concern. With our injury record and the ones who could fill in either coming back from injury or the only one available for their position , we are an injury or two away from panic stations , again.
 

I get that , but it's back to asking why at 3-0 or 4-0 he didn't give him a run. It's not just getting Atkinson fit , but resting one of the others. 
Same with McGuane , why wait so long and not give him minutes in games that were already done? 

Fair comment, and I’d also have liked from a spectators perspective to have seen us go for more goals. But I still understand it.

And, although it probably won’t have crossed LM’s mind, what crossed mine was a certain game v Sunderland a few years back. When LJ felt comfortable enough with a 3-0 lead to start giving players from the bench time for the sake of it!!

Completely agree with your concerns on the potential for us to suddenly find ourselves short. 

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, redsquirrel said:

might it have been  a case of loan already arranged. anyone knows these and other deals are often arranged ages before they hit the o/s. and as for him on the bench,no different to cornick is it.  just my thoughts .

Tbh I have no idea how loans are planned and arranged but I’d assume that BT is involved - maybe there’s a poster on here who will know?

As for Atkinson. I doubt he’ll be sat on the bench at Pompey having seen Pack and Towler both playing out of position at AG. 
From memory Pack is a defensive midfielder and Towler a full back - maybe Pompey have similar injury issues as City do………

 

 

[bexhill reds]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Chicken and Egg isn't it. Can tactics make a side more susceptible, how truly comfortable is Vyner in a Back 3 as opposed to paired with Dickie in a 4-3-3 say.

Formations are neutral sure but the lack of In-Game Management aside, I know the key areas I'd be targeting as an opposition coach.

It's definitely an interesting debate, if we play 4 at the back I'd rather go down the 442 route just to bulk up the midfield which allows Twine to play as the 10, and have Tanner at RB, but 442 is old school now

[Davefevs]

30 minutes ago, BCFCGav said:

I agree but then who covers for Ross. Sykes or Yu do a job but I’d think we should enter the market for a true RWB.

That’s why I keep saying if Manning wants to avoid being a “clubs in the bag” manager and wanting to cover all formations and 2 in every position, he has to a) stick with something or b) recruit versatile players, yet run the pros and cons of injuries to versatile players.  And if he is gonna stick with a back-3 he can get a RWB…or recall TGH, or accept that Tanner is less effective there, as is Sykes.  Yu isn’t a RWB full stop for me.

i think he wants his cake and to eat it.  We shall see.

21 minutes ago, Gillies Downs Leeds said:

And also Roberts at LCB3 rather than LWB in my opinion. Don't see him as a wing back at all.

In which case he has Elijah Morrison whilst Pring is out.

[Port Said Red]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

He’s not on a big wage in terms of peer ranking in the squad. He signed a deal whilst injured for a bit of security and wasn’t in as string a bargaining position as he would’ve been before Sunderland (a).

He hates u21 football, so he either sits in the bench and remains patient, or he goes and gets done first team footie. A champ loan is good as we get to see him at this level for hopefully 20 games. And he comes back in the summer ready to compete with a year left on his deal.

 A fit Big-Rob had something to offer to us. 

This, this and this. 

He has been resigned to being our fifth choice centre back for some time and understands LM's position on that as he hasn't seen enough of him to trust him. He was disappointed he didn't get on when McNally went down injured on Boxing Day, but that's football.

Other than that, he doesn't really feel he has had an opportunity, he feels the main three have worked really well together 95% of the time.

He would much rather play first team football elsewhere than U21's here or sit on the bench, he likes competitive football. He left Fulham because he hated playing U21's football, which shows he would rather play a competitive game at any level then what he considers "fake" football.

Whether he comes back or not really depends on multiple factors. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, bexhill reds said:

It's definitely an interesting debate, if we play 4 at the back I'd rather go down the 442 route just to bulk up the midfield which allows Twine to play as the 10, and have Tanner at RB, but 442 is old school now

Each t9 their own, I'd be getting at the space left either by 2 v 3 or Twine drifing.. unless it is 4-3-1-2.

[1960maaan]

10 minutes ago, redsquirrel said:

might it have been  a case of loan already arranged. anyone knows these and other deals are often arranged ages before they hit the o/s. and as for him on the bench,no different to cornick is it.  just my thoughts .

It may have been , but it still leaves us short at CB whenever it was arranged as we've only recently been able to go to a 3 as we didn't have 3 fit `CBs.
Now we have 4 senior fit CB's while we start with 3 , and sending one on loan ? 
One injury and we are forced to another shape change or playing an academy kid with no experience .

There is another explanation , Manning doesn't feel confident enough to drop one of the CB's . Dickie get's fit and instead of continuing with a 4 we go to a 3/5 . Conspiracy theories eh? This will disproved (or not ) if one of the 3 get a nock and Campbel-Slowey gets a start or we go to a 4 again. 
Or indeed we sign another CB. 

[bexhill reds]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Each t9 their own, I'd be getting at the space left either by 2 v 3 or Twine drifing.. unless it is 4-3-1-2.

Love a sensible non-tribal football debate. Refreshing on here at times.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, bexhill reds said:

Love a sensible non-tribal football debate. Refreshing on here at times.

It is, likewise appreciated- refreshing.

[BobBobBobbin]

31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I dunno why Dave but I still have reservations about the Back 3 and whether it's best for us.

It's a useful way to shoehorn in all 3 CBs and even in some cases Twine but is it best for the side as a while? Jury out IMO.

When everyone (McCrorie and Pring specifically) is fit it's easily the best formation for us; It's not even close imo. 

However, as soon as Ross or Cam aren't in the side (considering there's about as much chance of Harry Cornick getting minutes as there is Elijah Morrison) it's not anywhere near as good. 

We should be recruiting a back up RWB to cover RMc AND persisting with this set up (and more aggressive game plan). It maximises Knight, Bird, Twine, Anis and Wells (And would likely get more out of Sincs when he's back). 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, BobBobBobbin said:

When everyone (McCrorie and Pring specifically) is fit it's easily the best formation for us; It's not even close imo. 

However, as soon as Ross or Cam aren't in the side (considering there's about as much chance of Harry Cornick getting minutes as there is Elijah Morrison) it's not anywhere near as good. 

We should be recruiting a back up RWB to cover RMc AND persisting with this set up (and more aggressive game plan). It maximises Knight, Bird, Twine, Anis and Wells (And would likely get more out of Sincs when he's back). 

Still think it has weaknesses but I'd only be repeating myself.

[BobBobBobbin]

11 minutes ago, bexhill reds said:

It's definitely an interesting debate, if we play 4 at the back I'd rather go down the 442 route just to bulk up the midfield which allows Twine to play as the 10, and have Tanner at RB, but 442 is old school now

How do you play a 10 in a 442?

[1960maaan]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Each t9 their own, I'd be getting at the space left either by 2 v 3 or Twine drifing.. unless it is 4-3-1-2.

I'd be all over that. I am a big fan of McGuane and would love to see him with Knight and Bird .
Equally it would be interesting to see Twine behind 2 strikers . 

[1960maaan]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Still think it has weaknesses but I'd only be repeating myself.

Every formation has weaknesses , otherwise all teams would play one way. 

The beauty and the beast of the game.

[bexhill reds]

Just now, BobBobBobbin said:

How do you play a 10 in a 442?

Well I guess 4 4 1 1 to be a formation pedant, but the implied suggestion was Twine playing up and round the main striker.

[BobBobBobbin]

Just now, bexhill reds said:

Well I guess 4 4 1 1 to be a formation pedant, but the implied suggestion was Twine playing up and round the main striker.

Ok, well we've played that a lot this season. 4411 is just 4231 repackaged!

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Every formation has weaknesses , otherwise all teams would play one way. 

The beauty and the beast of the game.

 

2 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

Ok, well we've played that a lot this season. 4411 is just 4231 repackaged!

Can be..depends ln who the 1 is IMO.

Twine as the 1 behind the striker exposes his shortcomings without the ball vs a genuine 4-3-3, Twine wide left exposes Pring.

Edited January 3 by Mr Popodopolous

[bexhill reds]

Just now, BobBobBobbin said:

Ok, well we've played that a lot this season. 4411 is just 4231 repackaged!

We do seem to be a very formation fluid side at present, appears to be the modern trend, you could pick have a dozen different formations over the course of a game, still doesn't stop the 90th min equaliser / winner sadly.

[BobBobBobbin]

3 minutes ago, bexhill reds said:

We do seem to be a very formation fluid side at present, appears to be the modern trend, you could pick have a dozen different formations over the course of a game, still doesn't stop the 90th min equaliser / winner sadly.

This is true;

Formation is actually pretty irrelevant. Modern football isn't as simple as the old days where a RM had a set job in and out of possession. Now there are 3 phases of the game where each player has a specific role and their "position" isn't actually that important. We've played 4-4-2 a lot out of possession under Manning; it's his standard block shape. 

I have a personal preference for 3 at the back formations; I believe they give you the most flexibility in how you attack with the most cover in the key areas of the pitch. My personal preference is a 352 because I like "partnerships" which that formation encourages throughout the spine of the team and it gives you a solid "rest defence". 

But you can play any formation in million different ways. You can Tiki-Taka in a 442, you can long ball in a 4231. It all boils down to the game plan rather than the formation. 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, BobBobBobbin said:

This is true;

Formation is actually pretty irrelevant. Modern football isn't as simple as the old days where a RM had a set job in and out of possession. Now there are 3 phases of the game where each player has a specific role and their "position" isn't actually that important. We've played 4-4-2 a lot out of possession under Manning; it's his standard block shape. 

I have a personal preference for 3 at the back formations; I believe they give you the most flexibility in how you attack with the most cover in the key areas of the pitch. My personal preference is a 352 because I like "partnerships" which that formation encourages throughout the spine of the team and it gives you a solid "rest defence". 

But you can play any formation in million different ways. You can Tiki-Taka in a 442, you can long ball in a 4231. It all boils down to the game plan rather than the formation. 

 

Can't fully agree, I very much get what you're saying and formations are ostensibly neutral but try dominating the ball with 2 central midfielders..trickier.

[Supersonic Robin]

Surprised and a bit disappointed by this.

Prior to his injuries, Atkinson was one of our best defenders. I'd argue that peak Atkinson was just as good as, if not better than, Vyner and McNally currently are. Of course, there's a big question mark around whether or not Atkinson will get back to that level.

I'd have been inclined to keep Atkinson and slowly give him more minutes. The depth certainly wouldn't hurt whilst we're playing a back 5.

Hopefully Atkinson can stay fit for the rest of the season and be back in contention for us next year.

[Robbored]

8 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

How do you play a 10 in a 442?

I posted many times that 4-4-2 is template for any other formation. Move one player and you have a completely different one.

To accommodate a 10 then it’s simple enough to go 4-4-1-1 which we’ve seen LM do in various matches.. We have Twine, Bird, Knight all more than capable at 10.

3-5-1-1 accommodates Mehmeti. LMs has an abundance of options.

 

[frenchred]

I think this is a reflection directly on manning and if our season goes tits up, again it's on him

It's just rank bad management that he has not given Rob (or Morrison) minutes when games have permitted. If we get an injury (or 2) in the centre half department and are left relying on calamity Naismith we are in trouble

Why he couldn't give certain members game time to cover for injury scenarios is just rank bad management

[Jerseybean]

Pompey perspective, https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/football/portsmouth-fc/portsmouth-boss-john-mousinho-explains-decision-behind-loan-transfer-of-bristol-city-defender-4930026

 

City angle, https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-city-confirm-rob-atkinson-9835667

[BobBobBobbin]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Can't fully agree, I very much get what you're saying and formations are ostensibly neutral but try dominating the ball with 2 central midfielders..trickier.

I don't want us to "dominate the ball". We are shit at it. 

I want us to play aggressive, attacking football. 

3421 is also a box shape and more a 4 man central midfield than a 2. 

352 is a 3. 

10's are still midfielders. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

I don't want us to "dominate the ball". We are shit at it. 

I want us to play aggressive, attacking football. 

3421 is also a box shape and more a 4 man central midfield than a 2. 

352 is a 3. 

10's are still midfielders. 

That I broadly agree with. Albeit if would be nice if Twine was better without the ball, especially in that shape IMO.

[Dr Balls]

8 minutes ago, Supersonic Robin said:

Surprised and a bit disappointed by this.

Prior to his injuries, Atkinson was one of our best defenders. I'd argue that peak Atkinson was just as good as, if not better than, Vyner and McNally currently are. Of course, there's a big question mark around whether or not Atkinson will get back to that level.

I'd have been inclined to keep Atkinson and slowly give him more minutes. The depth certainly wouldn't hurt whilst we're playing a back 5.

Hopefully Atkinson can stay fit for the rest of the season and be back in contention for us next year.

Agree.

Atkinson had many of the attributes usually associated with Dickie, particularly the ability to bring the ball out of defence. And although he wasn’t quite at the same level as Flint in the goalscoring stakes, he was pretty good with both his head and his feet up front. A centre back combination of Towler (who had his work cut out with Pack as his partner last weekend, but actually did well in the second half and then got a good goal against Swansea on New Year’s Day) and Atkinson could do well for Portsmouth.

[BobBobBobbin]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

That I broadly agree with. Albeit if would be nice if Twine was better without the ball, especially in that shape IMO.

Big critic of Twine. 

But he's been good last few games where we've played a more attacking and direct style.

In both phases.

I'll slate him when he is poor because he should be held to a high/er standard. But not when he's been good. And he has been. 

[Davefevs]

47 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Every formation has weaknesses , otherwise all teams would play one way. 

The beauty and the beast of the game.

[1960maaan]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I'd love to know what Mr Carradine was saying , not sure if I should be insulted or aroused  

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I'd love to know what Mr Carradine was saying , not sure if I should be insulted or aroused  

Grasssssshopper!

[Dredd]

Disappointed in this one.

Fully fit he's better than McNally.

He can cover both him and Dickie. 

It leaves Naismith as our only specialist CB cover (don't rate him) and Roberts/Tanner who can 'do a job'

[Port Said Red]

4 minutes ago, Dredd said:

Disappointed in this one.

Fully fit he's better than McNally.

He can cover both him and Dickie. 

It leaves Naismith as our only specialist CB cover (don't rate him) and Roberts/Tanner who can 'do a job'

You can't drop any of the back three on current form, neither Roberts or Tanner have looked out of place when playing inside, and Naismith's passing ability will always give him an edge. As I said Rob just wants to play, he would have gone on loan last Jan if he could have a guarantee of football 

[Dredd]

1 minute ago, Port Said Red said:

You can't drop any of the back three on current form, neither Roberts or Tanner have looked out of place when playing inside, and Naismith's passing ability will always give him an edge. As I said Rob just wants to play, he would have gone on loan last Jan if he could have a guarantee of football 

Current form won't necessarily last though, and I'm more concerned about the injury position given Naismith record.  I agree Tanner and Roberts can do a job - Roberts finished the season on fire at LCB and I'm shocked he didn't start the season there - but we've bought and paid for a CB so we don't have to put a square peg in a round hole. 

[Port Said Red]

1 minute ago, Dredd said:

Current form won't necessarily last though, and I'm more concerned about the injury position given Naismith record.  I agree Tanner and Roberts can do a job - Roberts finished the season on fire at LCB and I'm shocked he didn't start the season there - but we've bought and paid for a CB so we don't have to put a square peg in a round hole. 

My point was that Rob sees this as the most likely way of playing this season, it's not just about the club.

[Dredd]

16 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

My point was that Rob sees this as the most likely way of playing this season, it's not just about the club.

There's definitely something positive in there with him wanting to play first team games, but ultimately it IS all about the club. They signed him for a fee, paid his wages (through a long term injury) and if the message from the club is 'sorry you stay and provide cover and you need to take your chance when you get it' then that's what should happen. I don't think he's engineered a move so they are probably supportive of the move. I'm just personally disappointed that he's not in the squad for the rest of the season as I really rate him. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

34 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

You can't drop any of the back three on current form, neither Roberts or Tanner have looked out of place when playing inside, and Naismith's passing ability will always give him an edge. As I said Rob just wants to play, he would have gone on loan last Jan if he could have a guarantee of football 

No but you can bring him on for the last 10-15 mins to build up minutes. 

For whatever reason Manning hasn't done that. 

[Dastardly and Muttley]

3 hours ago, Charlie BCFC said:

If we stick with a back 3 then we have Naismith/Tanner/Roberts and then Campbell-Slowey in the U21 for cover. Pointless recalling Knight-Lebel when he’s playing every week for a team fighting for promotion 

One, or two of those, are always injured. Campbell-Slowey certainly won’t be trusted. It’s a very weak reserve line now, IMO.