Just had a quick glance at the Dave Seddon Twitter page where he reports AN saying we are likely to have two more players back from injury tomorrow in addition to Hugill returning from suspension. Who might they be - presumably two from Fisher, Davies, Earl though I suppose one of them might be Vermilj. If so then there might I suppose be a case for restoring Fisher and Earl straight away - Fisher because Woods is possibly not really fit in any case and Earl because though O'Connor is starting to look defensively sound he provides an extra dimension going forward. But the pieces of the jigsaw are starting to come back into place. I wonder if AN is pondering restoring Clarke to the starting line-up.
Two More Back
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 14,846
It will be interesting to see if things improve when we are almost back to full strength. Admittedly, Spurr, Maguire and Cunningham (arguably the biggest miss, despite Earl's performances) will still be out but with Rudd back as well, to put pressure on the sometimes erratic Maxwell, there would seem to be no good reason why results should not pick up. As for Clarke, I think he was in the squad on Saturday purely for his influence on the younger players and I doubt he'll be back in the side until he's played a few 'bounce' games.
Yes let's see. Cunningham has obviously been a big loss not so much because of his defensive work as for the energy and drive he adds to the left flank when going forward - Robinson in particular would have benefitted from having that as a support. But in their respective ways both Earl and Maguire have gone a long way to making up for that which is why Maguire's absence is so unfortunate. Right now I would like to see Earl and Harrop make up our left side - they would probably provide the best balance of skill, drive and creativity.
Given that Woods is apparently barely fit then if Earl is not back the best option would surely be to continue with O'Connor who is at least beginning to look fairly solid at left-back.
https://twitter.com/pnefc/status/932587164923301888
Note only Fisher and Davies (Players who were injured) feature in this little clip in training gear...
I can only assume we welcome them back
Note only Fisher and Davies (Players who were injured) feature in this little clip in training gear...
I can only assume we welcome them back
Seen you use the term "beginning to look fairly solid" a few times over the past couple of days. I'd have to disagree.
Thought O'Connor was poor against Villa and Ipswich, and was ok on Friday night against a team that didn't really look to attack. Still got caught out positionally a few times but used his pace to recover. If Fisher is fit, then it's a no brainier to start Woods at LB.
Fair enough - I was going off a mix of comments on here and what I saw when I watched the match last Friday. As I've indicated Earl is obviously a class above and if he is fit then I would reinstate him right away.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 13,345
It certainly seems that Davies and Fisher are back in contention.
Fisher at right back would be pretty definite but do you bring Davies back or stick with Boyle?
Also do you switch Woods to left back whilst he is still likely to avoid 50/50 situations or stick with o’Connor?
Personally I would stick with Boyle and O’Connor until the others have trained more.
Fisher at right back would be pretty definite but do you bring Davies back or stick with Boyle?
Also do you switch Woods to left back whilst he is still likely to avoid 50/50 situations or stick with o’Connor?
Personally I would stick with Boyle and O’Connor until the others have trained more.
- Joined
- May 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,141
Not for me. Woods was rusty for Bolton for sure but he’s very experienced and would be a much better option on the left than O’Connor who is an accident waiting to happen defensively, as is Boyle. I really do hope Fisher and Davies are fit.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2004
- Messages
- 19,671
You have to question why the keeper thought giving a goal away rather than an indirect free kick was the better option.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 8,763
You've reminded me of an incident from my 'playing?' days. The back pass rule was introduced in 1991, I think. Playing in the North Lancs league, at the time, the opposition keeper picked up a back pass. It was the first game of the season and we all appealed for the indirect free kick. The keeper claimed he didn't know about the new back pass rule and the ref, a proper one, not a club official, let him off, warning him that a free kick would be awarded if he did it again.