Mr Popodopolous Posted January 3 Posted January 3 7 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: 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. Especially when in a position of strength. ie v Plymouth and Portsmouth at Home, or even if looking unlikely vs Portsmouth and West Brom. Quote
Davefevs Posted January 3 Posted January 3 2 minutes ago, Dastardly and Muttley said: One, or two of those, are always injured. Campbell-Slowey certainly won’t be trusted. It’s a very weak reserve line now, IMO. They’ll be watching the next few weeks…and either recalling JKL (which is what I’d do), or they could see Manning wanting to recruit. 1 Quote
Dastardly and Muttley Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Just now, Davefevs said: They’ll be watching the next few weeks…and either recalling JKL (which is what I’d do), or they could see Manning wanting to recruit. It’s being reported that JKL isn’t being recalled. My worry is that it looks like the board will back LM with more of his men and get Darling in. He certainly hasn’t done enough to earn more backing, but JL and BT keep throwing money after their mistake. 1 Quote
Port Said Red Posted January 3 Posted January 3 11 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: 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. Incredibly rare for any side to replace centre backs for the last few minutes except where there are injuries. It's not a sensible thing to do. 11 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: 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. Incredibly rare for any side to replace centre backs for the last few minutes except where there are injuries. It's not a sensible thing to do. Quote
Port Said Red Posted January 3 Posted January 3 11 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: 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. Incredibly rare for any side to replace centre backs for the last few minutes except where there are injuries. It's not a sensible thing to do. Quote
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 3 Posted January 3 1 minute ago, Port Said Red said: Incredibly rare for any side to replace centre backs for the last few minutes except where there are injuries. It's not a sensible thing to do. What about when 3 up? As we were in the latter stages at Home v Plymouth and Portsmouth? 2 Quote
Port Said Red Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Just now, Mr Popodopolous said: What about when 3 up? As we were in the latter stages at Home v Plymouth and Portsmouth? Still more usual to replace the forward and midfield players who go through more km's in the game. Quote
Davefevs Posted January 3 Posted January 3 1 minute ago, Port Said Red said: Incredibly rare for any side to replace centre backs for the last few minutes except where there are injuries. It's not a sensible thing to do. Incredibly rare for any side to replace centre backs for the last few minutes except where there are injuries. It's not a sensible thing to do. I think it’s rare for City to be 3-0 up, done and dusted, and have a CB on the bench who’s been out for 19/20 months who could do with getting a few minutes to ease him back in. Today’s loan decision is totally separate for me. Had McNally gone off the other day, I’d rather be giving Rob his first start having at least seen him get a few minutes in a couple of games first. He was keen to give Bell minutes in similar circumstances. 6 1 Quote
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 3 Posted January 3 (edited) 1 minute ago, Davefevs said: I think it’s rare for City to be 3-0 up, done and dusted, and have a CB on the bench who’s been out for 19/20 months who could do with getting a few minutes to ease him back in. Today’s loan decision is totally separate for me. Had McNally gone off the other day, I’d rather be giving Rob his first start having at least seen him get a few minutes in a couple of games first. He was keen to give Bell minutes in similar circumstances. Exactly and we've had two of those in Periods whereby he has been on the bench iirc? Certainly v Portsmouth. Edit I was right the first time..we had 2. Edited January 3 by Mr Popodopolous Quote
Davefevs Posted January 3 Posted January 3 1 minute ago, Port Said Red said: Still more usual to replace the forward and midfield players who go through more km's in the game. But he has a whole squad to look after. 1 Quote
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 3 Posted January 3 7 minutes ago, Port Said Red said: Incredibly rare for any side to replace centre backs for the last few minutes except where there are injuries. It's not a sensible thing to do. Even more rarer for us to send a player out on loan to get minutes following an injury. As Mr P said there has been various instances where he could have been brought on but wasn't. 1 1 Quote
RedRock Posted January 3 Posted January 3 With the Club’s injury record not overly keen on this unless, that is, we’re going to use the savings on wages to fund a loan striker. It then makes perfect sense. Quote
Ashtongreight Posted January 3 Posted January 3 McCrorie and Bell have been given game time late in games to ease them back, why not Atkinson?, it doesn’t make sense. How else was he supposed to regain match fitness if he doesn’t get game time. When we were 3 up was the perfect time to do it, yet it didn’t happen. It was poor management imo. 4 Quote
Grey Fox Posted January 3 Posted January 3 27 minutes ago, Ashtongreight said: McCrorie and Bell have been given game time late in games to ease them back, why not Atkinson?, it doesn’t make sense. How else was he supposed to regain match fitness if he doesn’t get game time. When we were 3 up was the perfect time to do it, yet it didn’t happen. It was poor management imo. It “ makes sense” if the decision had already been made to release Atkinson at the earliest opportunity, and that he was therefore not in our plans for the future. Should a loan now give us a few bob , that’s a bonus. 1 Quote
cidercity1987 Posted January 3 Posted January 3 18 minutes ago, Grey Fox said: It “ makes sense” if the decision had already been made to release Atkinson at the earliest opportunity, and that he was therefore not in our plans for the future. Should a loan now give us a few bob , that’s a bonus. I don't get why we would have come to that opinion though. He turned into a quality Championship CB by February 2023 on a great run of form, bringing the ball out of defence Webster like and part of an improving goals conceded column. Then he gets injured and we seem to totally binned him off particularly with the somewhat unnecessary and expensive purchase of Mcnally 3 1 Quote
Grey Fox Posted January 3 Posted January 3 18 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said: I don't get why we would have come to that opinion though. He turned into a quality Championship CB by February 2023 on a great run of form, bringing the ball out of defence Webster like and part of an improving goals conceded column. Then he gets injured and we seem to totally binned him off particularly with the somewhat unnecessary and expensive purchase of Mcnally Possibly because we know the extent of his injuries? Quote
NDW4CITY Posted January 4 Posted January 4 1 hour ago, cidercity1987 said: I don't get why we would have come to that opinion though. He turned into a quality Championship CB by February 2023 on a great run of form, bringing the ball out of defence Webster like and part of an improving goals conceded column. Then he gets injured and we seem to totally binned him off particularly with the somewhat unnecessary and expensive purchase of Mcnally Agree with the first part of your post, but I don’t think McNally was unnecessary. With Dickie having been absent for a while and of course Naismith totally AWOL, McNally has been an essential part of our back 3/5. Of all the signings made over the summer, he has been far and away the best.(Perhaps not a massive compliment considering some of the signings we’ve made, but still a very decent acquisition). 5 Quote
real_bristol Posted January 4 Posted January 4 Big fan of this move. If he was getting game time I’d feel differently but there’s potential here for Rob to get back to his pre-injured self and take some points off of competitors in the process. 9 Quote
Sandhurst Red Posted January 4 Posted January 4 4 hours ago, NDW4CITY said: Agree with the first part of your post, but I don’t think McNally was unnecessary. With Dickie having been absent for a while and of course Naismith totally AWOL, McNally has been an essential part of our back 3/5. Of all the signings made over the summer, he has been far and away the best.(Perhaps not a massive compliment considering some of the signings we’ve made, but still a very decent acquisition). After his initial struggle, he's been fairly solid the last 10 games, albeit sometimes a little naive. I'm not sure if the challenge that led to Plymouth's last minute equaliser warranted a free kick, but he didn't need to go in like he did. 1 Quote
cidercity1987 Posted January 4 Posted January 4 (edited) 7 hours ago, NDW4CITY said: Agree with the first part of your post, but I don’t think McNally was unnecessary. With Dickie having been absent for a while and of course Naismith totally AWOL, McNally has been an essential part of our back 3/5. Of all the signings made over the summer, he has been far and away the best.(Perhaps not a massive compliment considering some of the signings we’ve made, but still a very decent acquisition). I agree Mcnally is a good player, as is Atkinson. It seemed totally unnecessary to upgrade Atkinson at the cost of circa £2m transfer fee and no doubt higher wages for a player who I can't see is markedly better, short term availability issues aside. Particularly if the extra cash could have been used for better strikers. Edited January 4 by cidercity1987 1 2 Quote
IAmNick Posted January 4 Posted January 4 10 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said: Even more rarer for us to send a player out on loan to get minutes following an injury. As Mr P said there has been various instances where he could have been brought on but wasn't. And what do we tell Atkinson? You'll be on the bench with no guarantee of game time, but if we're 3 goals up I'll try and get you 15m at the end when there's no stakes and the other side are likely going through the motions? How many more times do you think that'll happen? I bet he'd hardly be able to contain his excitement! Come on. He's clearly itching to play. 1 1 1 1 Quote
IAmNick Posted January 4 Posted January 4 9 hours ago, Ashtongreight said: McCrorie and Bell have been given game time late in games to ease them back, why not Atkinson?, it doesn’t make sense. How else was he supposed to regain match fitness if he doesn’t get game time. When we were 3 up was the perfect time to do it, yet it didn’t happen. It was poor management imo. Surely wing backs and forwards especially are far, far more likely to be changed for tactical reasons than a CB so there's much more opportunity there? Quote
Dr Balls Posted January 4 Posted January 4 30 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said: I agree Mcnally is a good player, as is Atkinson. It seemed totally unnecessary to upgrade Atkinson at the cost of circa £2m transfer fee and no doubt higher wages for a player who I can't see is markedly better, short term availability issues aside. Particularly if the extra cash could have been used for better strikers. I can kind of see the logic in bringing in McNally in the summer and sending Atkinson out on loan now to get games at this level. However if the “Board” then sanction Manning going out and buying another centre back during this transfer window that he just happens to have had play for him before I.e. Darling, then we know that’s frankly bonkers when there are/were so many other options available already within the club. And it signifies that they are prepared to throw money at Manning in a way that they were not with Pearson, despite the finances still being dependent on selling players at a significant profit. 1 Quote
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted January 4 Posted January 4 42 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said: I agree Mcnally is a good player, as is Atkinson. It seemed totally unnecessary to upgrade Atkinson at the cost of circa £2m transfer fee and no doubt higher wages for a player who I can't see is markedly better, short term availability issues aside. Particularly if the extra cash could have been used for better strikers. McNally is my player of the season so far, which in itself justifies his signing in my book. It’s hard to imagine how we would have coped defensively without him this season, given our injury issues. Do you remember when we had to resort to playing George Tanner in the middle of a back three? McNally’s signing was a great piece of business. 9 1 Quote
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 4 Posted January 4 29 minutes ago, IAmNick said: And what do we tell Atkinson? You'll be on the bench with no guarantee of game time, but if we're 3 goals up I'll try and get you 15m at the end when there's no stakes and the other side are likely going through the motions? How many more times do you think that'll happen? I bet he'd hardly be able to contain his excitement! Come on. He's clearly itching to play. That's irrelevant. I was talking about that there has already many instances where he could have been brought on previously. 2 Quote
IAmNick Posted January 4 Posted January 4 (edited) 10 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: That's irrelevant. I was talking about that there has already many instances where he could have been brought on previously. Two. And no doubt if he'd come on and we'd conceded we'd be saying how ridiculous it was to change our CBs for no reason when we're coasting! Edited January 4 by IAmNick 4 1 Quote
tin Posted January 4 Posted January 4 Great signing for Pompey that weakens us. IMO he’s one of our best three CBs. 4 1 Quote
Upper Mid Table Posted January 4 Posted January 4 They have clearly been told they need to reduce the wage budget, so this will be the first of a few going out but sadly all one direction I think! 1 Quote
Upper Mid Table Posted January 4 Posted January 4 I think people seem to be missing the most obvious reason which will become clear this January, they have been told to reduce the wage bill! 1 Quote
1960maaan Posted January 4 Posted January 4 4 minutes ago, IAmNick said: Two. And no doubt if he'd come on and we'd conceded we'd be saying how ridiculous it was to change our CBs for no reason when we're coasting! If you aren't going to bring him on when coasting then you aren't when the game is tight, so what's the point of him being on the bench? At least when we are in command he could have proved he was ready . I think people would accept the reason he was given minutes at the end of a game we were coasting, but what if they was an injury and he was needed and he struggled ? Quote
Davefevs Posted January 4 Posted January 4 56 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said: McNally is my player of the season so far, which in itself justifies his signing in my book. It’s hard to imagine how we would have coped defensively without him this season, given our injury issues. Do you remember when we had to resort to playing George Tanner in the middle of a back three? McNally’s signing was a great piece of business. I can’t recall GT playing as the central CB in a 3, only RCB3. Can you jog my memory? 1 Quote
Gol Posted January 4 Posted January 4 I think its a good move tbh after 2 years out Rob needs minutes, which he's not going to get with us. With regards to those concerned with having back up, I would argue this is now where we use the pathway to the academy, either put Campbell- Slowey as the back up CB or use Roberts/ Pring as LCB and Morrison as LWB 1 Quote
Davefevs Posted January 4 Posted January 4 16 minutes ago, Gol said: I think its a good move tbh after 2 years out Rob needs minutes, which he's not going to get with us. With regards to those concerned with having back up, I would argue this is now where we use the pathway to the academy, either put Campbell- Slowey as the back up CB or use Roberts/ Pring as LCB and Morrison as LWB Happy to be wrong, but I reckon Manning will go back to a back-4 rather than start JCS as a LCB3 in a back-3. Although it would not surprise me if he gave him his debut as a sub at some point to try to prove the pathway. Quote
Br1stolCityBoy Posted January 4 Posted January 4 15 hours ago, 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 incoming business this month. I’ve never heard that, but I’ve been told by a reliable source that we have to get rid of players to buy this January. Let’s be fair a few months ago we were struggling for CBs with Atkinson and Dickie both injured. So to get rid of Atkinson is strange! 1 Quote
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 4 Posted January 4 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Br1stolCityBoy said: I’ve never heard that, but I’ve been told by a reliable source that we have to get rid of players to buy this January. Let’s be fair a few months ago we were struggling for CBs with Atkinson and Dickie both injured. So to get rid of Atkinson is strange! Have to get rid to buy? Is that Club imposed do you know or is that to fit with our Financial Forecasts etc? Struggling to reconcile it with some other clubs tbh. (*Cough* Stoke). Edited January 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote
Davefevs Posted January 4 Posted January 4 Surely it’s just as simple as we did our business in the summer…if you want to invest in the squad this January you have to generate the budget yourself. There are no financial worries, just budgeting. 4 Quote
Sturny Posted January 4 Posted January 4 Just feels like it's not also for gametime but also a goodbye. He's only 26 but players that age going out of loan more often leave and don't return to make an impact on the first team it seems like. Can't think of many player examples for us going out on loan at that age and returning into the first team? Yes it's probably best for club and player that he goes out on loan, but I think he's also likely leaving in the summer. 1 Quote
Nagys Knees Posted January 4 Posted January 4 15 minutes ago, Sturny said: Just feels like it's not also for gametime but also a goodbye. He's only 26 but players that age going out of loan more often leave and don't return to make an impact on the first team it seems like. Can't think of many player examples for us going out on loan at that age and returning into the first team? Yes it's probably best for club and player that he goes out on loan, but I think he's also likely leaving in the summer. I think a lot will depend on how he gets on at Portsmouth, the injury has really put him back unfortunately, but if he does well there then he will definately have a long term future with us. 39 minutes ago, Br1stolCityBoy said: I’ve never heard that, but I’ve been told by a reliable source that we have to get rid of players to buy this January. Let’s be fair a few months ago we were struggling for CBs with Atkinson and Dickie both injured. So to get rid of Atkinson is strange! Having seen him for the U21s on his return from injury I can assure you that he was no where near ready to playing football at Championship level. Time has passed but he hasn’t had game time so this loan is a no brainer for me, I’m assuming we can recall him if needed. 2 1 Quote
tin Posted January 4 Posted January 4 1 hour ago, Br1stolCityBoy said: I’ve never heard that, but I’ve been told by a reliable source that we have to get rid of players to buy this January. Let’s be fair a few months ago we were struggling for CBs with Atkinson and Dickie both injured. So to get rid of Atkinson is strange! Totally agree. Who’s the better defender, Atkinson or Naismith? There’s only one winner IMO. I’d have been fine moving Naismith out, but find it odd Atkinson’s been shipped out instead. 1 Quote
NDW4CITY Posted January 4 Posted January 4 7 hours ago, Sandhurst Red said: After his initial struggle, he's been fairly solid the last 10 games, albeit sometimes a little naive. I'm not sure if the challenge that led to Plymouth's last minute equaliser warranted a free kick, but he didn't need to go in like he did. Agreed! 1 Quote
Cider man Posted January 4 Posted January 4 1 hour ago, tin said: Totally agree. Who’s the better defender, Atkinson or Naismith? There’s only one winner IMO. I’d have been fine moving Naismith out, but find it odd Atkinson’s been shipped out instead. Nobody will pay Naismith wages even on the championship or abroad although I'd doubt there would be interest abroad Quote
Silvio Dante Posted January 4 Posted January 4 2 hours ago, Nagys Knees said: I’m assuming we can recall him if needed. You don’t get a recall option when you send players out to league clubs in January…. 2 Quote
Robbored Posted January 4 Posted January 4 2 hours ago, tin said: Totally agree. Who’s the better defender, Atkinson or Naismith? There’s only one winner IMO. I’d have been fine moving Naismith out, but find it odd Atkinson’s been shipped out instead. City have three established CBs in Vyner, Dickie and McNally with Naismith back in the squad. Atkinson has been injured for months and months and needs game time to get 100% fit which he isn’t likely to get at AG so it’s makes perfect for Pompey to give him the game time that he needs. It’s a win win situation for all concerned. Unless one of the current CBs gets suspended or injured Naismith is likely to be sat on the bench, Quote
Loosey Boy Posted January 4 Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, Cider man said: Is there a view too buy on the Atkinson deal? No, straight loan until end of season Quote
Port Said Red Posted January 4 Posted January 4 I have just realised that if he goes straight into their team tomorrow it will be his first playing return to the Stadium of Light since his injury there almost 2 years to the day it happened. Quote
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted January 4 Posted January 4 8 hours ago, Davefevs said: I can’t recall GT playing as the central CB in a 3, only RCB3. Can you jog my memory? Perhaps I dreamt it (), but it was late last season (I think)… Quote
Silvio Dante Posted January 4 Posted January 4 8 hours ago, Upper Mid Table said: They have clearly been told they need to reduce the wage budget, so this will be the first of a few going out but sadly all one direction I think! Damn. I was hoping Styles, Tomlinson, Malik, Horan and Payne could be the difference makers in the second half of the season. Quote
Davefevs Posted January 4 Posted January 4 34 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said: Perhaps I dreamt it (), but it was late last season (I think)… Ahhhh, last season….yes, Huddersfield (h). McCrorie Tanner Roberts Sykes Pring 1 Quote
Admin Ian M Posted January 4 Admin Posted January 4 35 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said: Damn. I was hoping Styles, Tomlinson, Malik, Horan and Payne could be the difference makers in the second half of the season. Unfortunately, Liam Payne didn't make it to 2025. 1 Quote
Gol Posted January 4 Posted January 4 8 hours ago, Davefevs said: Happy to be wrong, but I reckon Manning will go back to a back-4 rather than start JCS as a LCB3 in a back-3. Although it would not surprise me if he gave him his debut as a sub at some point to try to prove the pathway. I hope not we’ve hot a good run of form with the back 3. More likely to see pring/ roberts ans LCB with Morrison being the younster brought in at LWB imo. Quote
mozo Posted January 4 Posted January 4 9 hours ago, Davefevs said: Surely it’s just as simple as we did our business in the summer…if you want to invest in the squad this January you have to generate the budget yourself. There are no financial worries, just budgeting. Definitely! And with SPH, Stokes and JKL, there's extra padding if we need it. Quote
BobBobBobbin Posted January 4 Posted January 4 7 hours ago, Silvio Dante said: You don’t get a recall option when you send players out to league clubs in January…. technically (very technical) We could recall him on Jan 31st as that would be the 28th day of his loan and still within the window... Quote
Loosey Boy Posted January 4 Posted January 4 If we were interested in Darling, would it suggest that Vyner or Dickie could been interesting other clubs? Quote
petehinton Posted January 4 Posted January 4 10 minutes ago, Hocca said: Witcoop…..the one bloke who’d make me doubt if water makes things wet, just cause he claims it does. 2 Quote
Ashtongreight Posted January 4 Posted January 4 (edited) 15 hours ago, IAmNick said: Surely wing backs and forwards especially are far, far more likely to be changed for tactical reasons than a CB so there's much more opportunity there? All the more reason to do it when we were 3-0 up, it was the perfect opportunity to give him game time. If he had no intention of using him why put him on the bench. It’s bad man management imo. He’ll never get match fit if he doesn’t play. Edited January 4 by Ashtongreight 1 1 Quote
Port Said Red Posted January 5 Posted January 5 22 hours ago, Port Said Red said: I have just realised that if he goes straight into their team tomorrow it will be his first playing return to the Stadium of Light since his injury there almost 2 years to the day it happened. I got mixed up on this, it was actually February 17th that we played there, for some reason I thought it was the weekend of my birthday. Anyway, he isn't playing/starting today so it's a moot point. Quote
Lanterne Rouge Posted January 5 Posted January 5 Pompey 1 down already, Sunderland are all over them Quote
LondonBristolian Posted January 5 Posted January 5 On 03/01/2025 at 23:46, Grey Fox said: Possibly because we know the extent of his injuries? I think this is is the unspoken question here. At the beginning of 2023, I'd have said Atkinson was a player we were likely to struggle to hold onto but ultimately make a very good profit on. And the prospect of releasing that player or letting them go on loan to a club lower in the division would have been preposterous. But Atkinson has missed nearly two years of football and still needs to prove his fitness. If Atkinson gets back to the form and fitness of two years ago then it would be ridiculous to move him on. But the harsh reality is he'll have year on his contract in the summer and his time at Portsmouth will probably determine whether we look to hold onto him or decide it is time to move him on in the summer whilst we can still get a fee. I really hope we do keep him and he gets back to where he was but I don't know enough about his fitness to know how realistic that is or isn't. 3 1 Quote
Numero Uno Posted January 5 Posted January 5 4 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said: I think this is is the unspoken question here. At the beginning of 2023, I'd have said Atkinson was a player we were likely to struggle to hold onto but ultimately make a very good profit on. And the prospect of releasing that player or letting them go on loan to a club lower in the division would have been preposterous. But Atkinson has missed nearly two years of football and still needs to prove his fitness. If Atkinson gets back to the form and fitness of two years ago then it would be ridiculous to move him on. But the harsh reality is he'll have year on his contract in the summer and his time at Portsmouth will probably determine whether we look to hold onto him or decide it is time to move him on in the summer whilst we can still get a fee. I really hope we do keep him and he gets back to where he was but I don't know enough about his fitness to know how realistic that is or isn't. It’s taken a little while for some common sense on the Atkinson situation to arise. It could take 6 months or longer for Atkinson to get back to his best and we don’t even know if he’ll ever get there. I swear people think these lads are machines that can just be fixed and off we go again, same as it ever was……. 4 Quote
LondonBristolian Posted January 5 Posted January 5 4 minutes ago, Numero Uno said: It’s taken a little while for some common sense on the Atkinson situation to arise. It could take 6 months or longer for Atkinson to get back to his best and we don’t even know if he’ll ever get there. I swear people think these lads are machines that can just be fixed and off we go again, same as it ever was……. Exactly, And in that context, half a season at a club where he's got a good chance of playing regularly feels like giving him the best chance of getting where he needs to be. 3 Quote
Noddy99 Posted January 5 Posted January 5 On 03/01/2025 at 22:35, Ashtongreight said: McCrorie and Bell have been given game time late in games to ease them back, why not Atkinson?, it doesn’t make sense. How else was he supposed to regain match fitness if he doesn’t get game time. When we were 3 up was the perfect time to do it, yet it didn’t happen. It was poor management imo. 15mins doesnt give you match fitness, we have Tanner and Roberts that can play in the 3 or we can go back to a 4 if required, Sykes is close to being back so thats 3 that can play RWB and Naismith is also close. We have the cover for Atkinson to go out on loan. He needs play regularly for 2 reasons, either his future with City or a chance for City to get the most money for him in the summer. Neither would happen if he is sat on our bench for the rest of the season 1 Quote
Jose Posted January 5 Posted January 5 You’d think they’d stop with Pack at CH after our place. Poor. Quote
Port Said Red Posted January 5 Posted January 5 49 minutes ago, Numero Uno said: It’s taken a little while for some common sense on the Atkinson situation to arise. It could take 6 months or longer for Atkinson to get back to his best and we don’t even know if he’ll ever get there. I swear people think these lads are machines that can just be fixed and off we go again, same as it ever was……. All I can tell you is what he has told me. He has been training flat out with the rest of the squad and has no reactions (swelling/ pain/ lack of movement etc). I know some have said that he didn't look great in the U21 games, but I know he dislikes those kind of matches, so I don't know how much effort he has been putting in to them. He thinks he is fit, which I think is half the battle, hopefully he can prove it over the next 4/5 months. Pompey were very keen to have him, not surprising as Mousinho knows him so well. Quote
steviestevieneville Posted January 5 Posted January 5 Pack really ain’t a centre half is he here’s big Rob Quote
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.