brightonyellow
Active member
- Joined
- 21 May 2019
- Messages
- 476
Jordan Tunnicliffe?
I think most people are concerned that having a 6th choice CB that we don't want to play feels like a total waste of money.
Jordan Tunnicliffe?
I can understand why. The characteristics of McNally are going to be difficult to replace and his qualities really suit a back three. It's also why he shone so well because we allowed him freedom to get forward (you only need to look at the 'highlight reels' to know what people appreciate!). With respect, John Mousinho, Elliott Moore or many more traditional centre halves they can't do that so it definitely blunts us offensively because centre halves are generally more static. Without that offensive centre half with pace and composure to carry the ball through the midfield lines, we are less likely to get the ball forward and transition from defensive unit to offensive, quickly.I find it strange that losing one defender means the idea of three at the back is gone from Robinson. Should he not have an idea of how he wants us to play and then get players into suit that, rather than trying to build a whole formation around one player!
How on earth do you know what he's paid?He’s got a contract for pittance due to his PFA role?
It’s just a weird thing to get annoyed about. An influential guy off the pitch, who has never let us down on it, will be available to play in case of emergency. Sack the manager!
I don't think anyone is annoyed that he has got a contract in order to fulfil his PFA role. I think it's much more the case that we are restricted to a squad size of 22, and that if he's registered he takes the place of another option... which is madness when we've been wafer thin at the back for the last 2 seasons and he didn't get much of a look in last season.He’s got a contract for pittance due to his PFA role?
It’s just a weird thing to get annoyed about. An influential guy off the pitch, who has never let us down on it, will be available to play in case of emergency. Sack the manager!
But if it was someone else taking his squad place - then presumably they'd be seen as fulfilling the same role i.e. back-up when everyone else is unavailable. Whoever has that 4th/5th centre-back role after Moore, Brown, New Bloke & possibly Golding, is going to be there as rarely used cover.I don't think anyone is annoyed that he has got a contract in order to fulfil his PFA role. I think it's much more the case that we are restricted to a squad size of 22, and that if he's registered he takes the place of another option... which is madness when we've been wafer thin at the back for the last 2 seasons and he didn't get much of a look in last season.
Yes, if we are paying him anyway we probably have enough squad places to give him a spot. I like it when he comes on with a few minutes to go to shut up shop, or take a pen.But if it was someone else taking his squad place - then presumably they'd be seen as fulfilling the same role i.e. back-up when everyone else is unavailable. Whoever has that 4th/5th centre-back role after Moore, Brown, New Bloke & possibly Golding, is going to be there as rarely used cover.
If it was a player who plays a different position taking his squad place, then we'd end up with one less defensive option and be in a worse place?
Off to Wrexham apparentlyJORDAN TUNNICLIFFE TO LEAVE THE CLUB
Crawley Town Football Club can confirm that defender Jordan Tunnicliffe will leave the club upon the expiration of his contract on the 30th of June.www.crawleytownfc.com
What about Brown?Stuart Findlay (first choice) & Eoin Toal as a centre back to develop in cups/training for 12 months would be my CB picks.
Owen Beck as a loan left back from Liverpool would be my LB pick.
You’d then have a first choice defence of:
Long, Moore, Findlay, Beck
With a your cover as:
Forde, Toal, Brown, Seddon
He's already in the building so doesn't come into the who should we sign at centre-back debate.What about Brown?
It was in reply to @AH back 4 line ups plus subsHe's already in the building so doesn't come into the who should we sign at centre-back debate.
How on earth do you know what he's paid?
I find it far more odd to get annoyed about things you're pretending I have said - "sack the manager" indeed.
Yes , how odd. Why do you decide not to play 3 at the back based on the sale of one player. McNally was very good, but not that good to stop your plans and go back to the drawing board!! He said he knew he was going so surely we should have been targeting a like for like.He says now McNally gone that they won't look to play 3 at the back and Mousinho seems to be having a squad place.
Think that’s the challenge - need someone who has that recovery pace and ability to bring the ball out to make the three work. Burnley have just spent the best part of £2m to find that ability.Yes , how odd. Why do you decide not to play 3 at the back based on the sale of one player. McNally was very good, but not that good to stop your plans and go back to the drawing board!! He said he knew he was going so surely we should have been targeting a like for like.
The seemingly mild debate about whether or not it is worth including Mous in the squad or not has once again raised the spectre of the whole 'positive v negative' debate - which is beyond boring now and quite frankly unnecessary.
If you're questioning whether or not Mous should be in the squad you're instantly a doom-monger and you want KR out! zzzzz
The reality is that the vast majority on here are perfectly positive, but we can still point out areas of concern and debate these. That is normal.
For example, I agree with the majority of what @battman posts, but we can still have a strong debate about the merits of 'The Model'. Likewise @tonyw was involved in a lively conversation on this last night and @Ricky Otto - specifically around McNally - this morning. None of us are negative posters, we're just all debating the nuances of OUFC life. Even the likes of @greatunclekip has this week acknowledged the good signing of Ciaron Brown!
Ok, there are a handful of posters who are more negative than others. If you don't like what @Leysboy et al say - fair enough - argue the points don't dismiss him as negative. If it's getting too repetitive for you, stop replying! You can even ignore said individual/s. Don't, however, use this as an opportunity to shutdown legitimate debate. It's helping to create this unneccessary binary culture.
Aside from the fact that often there are genuine and legitimate concerns to address - it is now becoming more boring to hear the OTT pushbacks (the favourite genre of post this week appears to be, on the back of any signing or activity anywhere "here comes the forum meltdown lol" - but of course the meltdown invariably never comes. It is a tired and pointless trope).
Stop pretending there is more negativity than there is. Recognise this place is a bubble and (aside from not being a reflection of the wider support) it means that just a handful of individuals with a consistent message (sometimes negative) can feel as though certain views are more widespread than they are.
Of course some people enjoy amplifying the negativity as they get to extol their divine virtues ever more so, but they are as much (if not more) to blame.
The vast majority on here are aligned on 90% of OUFC matters. The rest is up for debate and fairly, without having to put people into a little box for your validation.
As I say, the vast majority are perfectly positive (though most of us don't try to use that 'positivity' as a character trait - or as a substitute for a personality).