Rival Son

Accepting this will be a minority opinion, but I’m fairly comfortable with these changes, for a couple of reasons. First, the restoration of all rounds to weekends is very important step to restoring the eminence of the competition. Secondly, the scrapping of replays will increase the chances of upsets. This latter point is important in the debate. Surely, the primary aim of all clubs should be to progress as far as possible in the competition. As stated, these changes enhance the chances the lower level clubs of doing just that. However, most of the arguments against the changes seem to be based on clubs losing a pay day, rather than an opportunity to deliver a better result. It seems the financial self-interest position is as relevant to smaller clubs, as it is to bigger clubs.

The above quote is not the first comment to say this, but the absence of Santos was nowhere near the biggest of our problems tonight. The first Shrewsbury goal was almost a carbon copy of the Portsmouth goal on Saturday … when Santos played. The second goal came from a focus on defending our penalty area with all 11 players and ignoring everything outside the box … which is what we do for every corner, with or without Santos. He’d have been involved in the push and shove around the six yard box that all three defenders were tied up with. Nothing would have changed. By far the biggest problem, on the pitch, was the midfield setup and, specifically, Thomason’s woeful attempt to play the Sheehan role. Morley has been unfairly criticised for not being up to Sheehan’s standard, when he’s deputising. In my opinion, Morley in the role, is light years ahead of what we saw from Thomason, tonight. However, the overall biggest problem was off the pitch: Ian Evatt. The midfield problem (I don’t want to call it the Thomason problem; it was a tactical mistake) was evident within the first quarter of a hour. I was willing it to be changed by half an hour, and it had to be changed at half time. But it never changed. Was Morley injured, as well? If so, the formation could have been changed. But Evatt did nothing. The second major issue was the final substitutions. I far prefer Ogbeta to Williams, but I’m going to pass over Williams’ minimal contribution when he came on. This was always a 40-60 call, to try something different. The most unbelievable decision was to replace Dempsey with Nlundulu. First of all, Dempsey was almost the last player I thought should have been replaced. Admittedly, he didn’t have a great first half; Jerome, aside, who did? But in the second half, we saw a lot of the old Dempsey and, for me, he was behind or involved in most of our creative stuff. However, Nlundulu was never going to offer anything. In his loan last season, he offered nothing, and I was amazed (and annoyed) when we then paid significant money for him. in the first half of the season he showed nothing to change my (very low) opinion, before injuring himself in a bizarre and inept attempt to score a penalty. Why would be any different after his absence? He wasn’t, though all the front line weren’t helped by the loss of Dempsey from the midfield. ian Evatt: tonight and previous poor performances are on you.

To return to the Dempsey/Maghoma debate, I believe your full post makes a better case for Maghoma over Dempsey. In a game where both teams are renowned for high possession passing games, which may cancel each other out, someone with individual flair might be the key to break this stalemate. I’m not. That they offer something different, is clear to most people. In the round, this might suggest a 50:50 call dependent on tactics and/or opposition. However, it’s my belief that both Maghoma and Thomason are more effective on the left, with Dempsey at his best on the right. Maghoma or Thomason is an equally valid debate, for me.

Is this true? We have c.16k season ticket holders, and an average home attendance of c.19k, from a town of 200k residents, within a borough of 300k. This is in the third tier of English football. Beyond the borough, we have three of biggest clubs in Europe (if not the world) and another two Premier League (for now) clubs, within an hours drive of our stadium. Beyond a very few neighbouring smaller towns, such as Atherton and Leigh, with no league team of their own, their is a multitude of competition for the “floating” fan in north west. Similar sized towns and cities, such as Ipswich, Stoke, Norwich are a monopoly league club in their county and struggle to get better crowds than Bolton, when we’re at the same level. I’d argue that our support is very robust, when measured against (admittedly slightly smaller) local peers, such as Blackburn, Blackpool, Preston and Burnley, and further afield peers such as Charlton and Crystal Palace. Short of the sort of billionaire investment that delivers success and the associated glory hunters, I’d suggest our maximum core support is unlikely to ever get beyond 30k. To have two thirds of that core support buying tickets for every game in third tier football is anything but fickle, in my opinion.

Three actually. Tommy Barber sold to Aston Villa for £2,000 in 1912.

I’m as interested in the Green award as I am in the Diversity award, we are up for. However, how the heck are Forest Green not in the nominees for this?

🔫 🔫 🔫

Very poor leadership, Lostock. How are the replacements who are starting today going to respond to hearing that! I’d love it if one of the strikers scored a couple of goals, and celebrated by running over to the bench, and squirting a water bottle at him!

I agree with most of that Stig, with a couple of less controversial differences and one that will prompt howls of derision. Bod for Jerome 🟢 Dempsey for Thomason, with Maghoma on the left. 🟡 Jones for Cogley 🟢 Ogbeta retains his place 🔴 Iredale for Santos, with Toal in the middle 🟡 Iredale in is a no brainer for me, which many will agree with. Santos out? For me, yes, and it’s not just about the awful Stevenage performance. Santos has looked off it, since he returned. And is it just a coincidence he returned 8 games ago, since when the defence has looked very shaky, distribution has been both slow and, at times, panicked and, of course, results have been very poor? Tin hat on!

Nice one, JJ.

I suspect they’re confusing longest surviving - Frank Blunstone first appeared for England in 1954, but is only 89 - with oldest surviving - Tommy didn’t make his England debut until 1958, but is 94. if you receive a response from them, it might be worth pointing out the difference.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68602140 Sad news but, if I'm not mistaken, Tommy is now the oldest living England footballer. Congratulations.