|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 20, 2021 8:14:03 GMT
Yeah, you're right. It's actually quite a balanced XI as well. Still short of left footers, but only because Stott has been loaned out Even that can be explained as a sign of “improvement” under the current regime - in the past we’d have loaned him out *and continued to pay his wages*. You take the wins where you can get ‘em!
|
|
|
Post by Bredburyhatter on Sept 20, 2021 11:23:31 GMT
Gannon: Ben Hinchliffe Sam Minihan Mark Kitching Liam Hogan Ashley Palmer Macauley Southam-Hales John Rooney Connor Jennings Jordan Keane Ryan Croasdale Alex Reid Rusk: Ben Barclay Paddy Madden Ben Whitfield Will Collar Arjan Raikhy Ryan Rydel Elliot Newby Tom Walker (this time) Scott Quigley Kenan Dünnwald-Turan Will Fish Ethan Ross Ethan Pye Zeki Fryers I’d fancy that top XI to beat an XI from the second list. Wonder if they've ever played each other in training?
|
|
|
Post by wnm on Sept 20, 2021 11:28:56 GMT
Gannon: Ben Hinchliffe Sam Minihan Mark Kitching Liam Hogan Ashley Palmer Macauley Southam-Hales John Rooney Connor Jennings Jordan Keane Ryan Croasdale Alex Reid Rusk: Ben Barclay Paddy Madden Ben Whitfield Will Collar Arjan Raikhy Ryan Rydel Elliot Newby Tom Walker (this time) Scott Quigley Kenan Dünnwald-Turan Will Fish Ethan Ross Ethan Pye Zeki Fryers if you go by rumour from that first list Gannon wanted Rooney & Reid Wilson wanted Hogan, MSH & Kitching Unsure about the 2 Jennings & Croasdale though? Surprised Kitching wasn’t a Jim pick up.
|
|
|
Post by didsburyhatter on Sept 20, 2021 22:16:36 GMT
Yeah, you're right. It's actually quite a balanced XI as well. Still short of left footers, but only because Stott has been loaned out Assume that's why we've taken on Fryers. Which makes the Will Fish loan even more pointless than I thought it was originally. I'd personally have Stott back at the club as at least a backup for LCB. That then leaves us with our RCBs being Hogan, Palmer, Barclay, Keane and Fish. Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing the back of Hogan. He's not a good enough captain and if there's any truth in him being a part of getting Jim sacked, God knows what tricks he's pulling behind the scenes at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by tgttiw on Sept 21, 2021 7:46:35 GMT
Still short of left footers, but only because Stott has been loaned out Assume that's why we've taken on Fryers. Which makes the Will Fish loan even more pointless than I thought it was originally. I'd personally have Stott back at the club as at least a backup for LCB. That then leaves us with our RCBs being Hogan, Palmer, Barclay and Keane. Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing the back of Hogan. He's not a good enough captain and if there's any truth in him being a part of getting Jim sacked, God knows what tricks he's pulling behind the scenes at the moment. If he got rid of Jim then he's a certain for the hall of shame. Jim gannon was a legend who lifted this club single handedly out of the mire.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Sept 21, 2021 9:08:06 GMT
If he got rid of Jim then he's a certain for the hall of shame. Jim gannon was a legend who lifted this club single handedly out of the mire. You mean someone who improved our league position season on season with players we all related too. Culture in football is or should be about winning games of football where its a results business. What more did we expect that he never brought to us or the club.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 21, 2021 9:34:02 GMT
Assume that's why we've taken on Fryers. Which makes the Will Fish loan even more pointless than I thought it was originally. I'd personally have Stott back at the club as at least a backup for LCB. That then leaves us with our RCBs being Hogan, Palmer, Barclay and Keane. Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing the back of Hogan. He's not a good enough captain and if there's any truth in him being a part of getting Jim sacked, God knows what tricks he's pulling behind the scenes at the moment. If he got rid of Jim then he's a certain for the hall of shame. Jim gannon was a legend who lifted this club single handedly out of the mire. In spite of the way I feel about a lot of County things at the moment, I’m willing to take Hogan’s denial about directly demanding for Gannon to be sacked at face value. We do know, however, that Wilson is a fan of “Dressing Room Daddies” which gives ample scope for a disliked manager to be undermined. We also know Gannon was sacked after a victory, where he supposedly nevertheless told the team he was unhappy about the performance which may not have been to the DRD’s taste. I can see that resulting in complaints to Wilson that were short of an actual call for him to sack Gannon, which resulted in a conversation between him and Wilson where the now-infamous “cultural differences” became insurmountable. The DRD thing also potentially ties in with Rusk saying he’s unable to figure out why the team don’t do the things on the pitch that they practice on the training ground. I don’t doubt for a moment the players feel they deserve to be playing for a team higher placed than County are, and with the DRDs free to run the show once the ref’s blown the whistle for kick-off, I can see how they might be inclined to ignore what they’ve been told to do by the manager without actively saying they want him gone. Certainly after the first 15-20 minutes which seems to be the only time we pose any real threat (against 11 opponents, in any case…)
|
|
|
Post by leicesterhatter on Sept 21, 2021 10:05:19 GMT
If he got rid of Jim then he's a certain for the hall of shame. Jim gannon was a legend who lifted this club single handedly out of the mire. In spite of the way I feel about a lot of County things at the moment, I’m willing to take Hogan’s denial about directly demanding for Gannon to be sacked at face value. We do know, however, that Wilson is a fan of “Dressing Room Daddies” which gives ample scope for a disliked manager to be undermined. We also know Gannon was sacked after a victory, where he supposedly nevertheless told the team he was unhappy about the performance which may not have been to the DRD’s taste. I can see that resulting in complaints to Wilson that were short of an actual call for him to sack Gannon, which resulted in a conversation between him and Wilson where the now-infamous “cultural differences” became insurmountable. The DRD thing also potentially ties in with Rusk saying he’s unable to figure out why the team don’t do the things on the pitch that they practice on the training ground. I don’t doubt for a moment the players feel they deserve to be playing for a team higher placed than County are, and with the DRDs free to run the show once the ref’s blown the whistle for kick-off, I can see how they might be inclined to ignore what they’ve been told to do by the manager without actively saying they want him gone. Certainly after the first 15-20 minutes which seems to be the only time we pose any real threat (against 11 opponents, in any case…) I've got no idea where the dressing room daddies thing came from, or even what it is meant to mean, but it is a phrase I dislike from my very core. I think we want senior 'father figures' in the team. But getting the right ones is the issue - and from what others have said it sounds like we've not.
|
|
|
Post by ebbs on Sept 21, 2021 10:11:29 GMT
If Wilson came up with the "dressing room daddies" quote he should have been shown the door within a minute. Ridiculous saying, especially when they play at the pace of dressing room great grand daddies.
|
|
|
Post by houldsworthhatter on Sept 21, 2021 10:12:22 GMT
In spite of the way I feel about a lot of County things at the moment, I’m willing to take Hogan’s denial about directly demanding for Gannon to be sacked at face value. We do know, however, that Wilson is a fan of “Dressing Room Daddies” which gives ample scope for a disliked manager to be undermined. We also know Gannon was sacked after a victory, where he supposedly nevertheless told the team he was unhappy about the performance which may not have been to the DRD’s taste. I can see that resulting in complaints to Wilson that were short of an actual call for him to sack Gannon, which resulted in a conversation between him and Wilson where the now-infamous “cultural differences” became insurmountable. The DRD thing also potentially ties in with Rusk saying he’s unable to figure out why the team don’t do the things on the pitch that they practice on the training ground. I don’t doubt for a moment the players feel they deserve to be playing for a team higher placed than County are, and with the DRDs free to run the show once the ref’s blown the whistle for kick-off, I can see how they might be inclined to ignore what they’ve been told to do by the manager without actively saying they want him gone. Certainly after the first 15-20 minutes which seems to be the only time we pose any real threat (against 11 opponents, in any case…) I've got no idea where the dressing room daddies thing came from, or even what it is meant to mean, but it is a phrase I dislike from my very core. I think we want senior 'father figures' in the team. But getting the right ones is the issue - and from what others have said it sounds like we've not. It probably means dressing room leaders although sounds worse. I think some posters are taking it to extremes, much as I don’t like the saying.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Sept 21, 2021 10:18:31 GMT
I've got no idea where the dressing room daddies thing came from, or even what it is meant to mean, but it is a phrase I dislike from my very core. I think we want senior 'father figures' in the team. But getting the right ones is the issue - and from what others have said it sounds like we've not. It probably means dressing room leaders although sounds worse. I think some posters are taking it to extremes, much as I don’t like the saying. Didn't Wilson say it in his interview with McKnight? Dressing room daddies, lol. What a horrific turn of phrase.
|
|
|
Post by leicesterhatter on Sept 21, 2021 10:27:43 GMT
It probably means dressing room leaders although sounds worse. I think some posters are taking it to extremes, much as I don’t like the saying. Didn't Wilson say it in his interview with McKnight? Dressing room daddies, lol. What a horrific turn of phrase. Being someone with a short attention span, I had literally no interest in watching that. Why would you use a phrase like that which is so open to ridicule when there's a perfectly good pre-existing term for it? Vile.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Sept 21, 2021 10:55:00 GMT
Didn't Wilson say it in his interview with McKnight? Dressing room daddies, lol. What a horrific turn of phrase. Being someone with a short attention span, I had literally no interest in watching that. Why would you use a phrase like that which is so open to ridicule when there's a perfectly good pre-existing term for it? Vile. As suedehead noted Wilson said it in that podcast thing he did with McKnignt. And he said it more than once so if wasn’t like it was a one off aberration.
|
|
|
Post by Nik on Sept 21, 2021 10:57:10 GMT
Sounds like an awful roleplay adult film.
Dressing Room Daddies: XXXtra Time
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 21, 2021 11:01:46 GMT
I've got no idea where the dressing room daddies thing came from, or even what it is meant to mean, but it is a phrase I dislike from my very core. I think we want senior 'father figures' in the team. But getting the right ones is the issue - and from what others have said it sounds like we've not. It probably means dressing room leaders although sounds worse. I think some posters are taking it to extremes, much as I don’t like the saying. It came from this, as I’m sure many may have guessed, about 18 minutes or so in: The exact wording was: “…but really importantly I think we need the senior players, we need the sort of the daddies if you like of the dressing room, that have seen it and done it all before, that are, that we really emphasise their value, and that they really buy into the wider project and that they invest in contributing on the pitch as well as off the pitch.” Which apart from the nauseating turn of phrase seems eminently sensible so long as players and manager are on the same page. However I genuinely feel we’re seeing - for the second time now - what can happen when they’re not. Recent events have made the next bit quite interesting, actually: “…what I think is right is that you pick one [style of play], and you really recruit against that and you really execute that. So that’s whether you’re really efficient and play in the opposition half or whatever, or if you try and build and make a big pitch, and try and get 700 passes a game. I’m OK with both, I just think the worst thing is to be confused, is to be not one or the other and therefore neither.” Trouble is, we *do* seem to be trying to be not one or the other and therefore neither. We pass it around at the back, but we don’t have the players to continue to pass it further up the field so we just hoof it up there instead, where we don’t necessarily have the right players to keep it up that end either and it just all goes terribly wrong. The contrast between what SW says he likes to see and what we are getting at the moment is really stark. Which makes the tacit approval of SR’s performance even more perplexing.
|
|