Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 5, 2008 15:45:23 GMT
That is what I think is strange, he was not the captain for nothing. Maybe we may be being a bit hard on him, I don't seem to remember how he played against us last season, but Bucks must have seen enough.
As I say his real problem will be, will he get the chance to show us who have yet to be convinced wrong. I hope he does as we may end up being the losers.
|
|
|
|
Post by andygulls on Aug 5, 2008 20:57:52 GMT
I really don't think Brough, will get a look in at all, he may be gone by January, he will want to play games, I fear his chances will be very limited. I must admit of all the new signings I feel he is the one that may just be feeling a little left out. According to Buckle himself,he was brought in with a view to playing him at Centre Half, but after a couple of indifferent performances in the early pre-season friendlies the idea of playing him there seems to have been shelved, for the time being at least. I cant imagine he will be happy being sat in the stands for too long, if that is indeed where he ends up, as lets face it he was not only a fixture in FGRs side last season, he was also their captain, and that for a team that only just finished outside the play offs too. Let us not rush into judgement yet on Brough. He has been ill during this pre season as well - we will need an opportunity to judge him later. Buckle signed him as one of our first signings in the close season - so are we already saying that PB is a poor judge of player? As to the Woods / Johnson saga - well I am very disappointed - but the season is long and I guess many changes will yet provide us with surprise! |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 5, 2008 21:02:36 GMT
Hi Andy you say As to the Woods / Johnson saga - well I am very disappointed.
In what way? that it did not happen, or that Buckle wanted it to happen?
I did say I hope Brough, gets a chance to show us we were wrong, but do you think he would be first choice? so thats why I think his chances will be limited.
|
|
|
|
Post by andygulls on Aug 5, 2008 21:10:58 GMT
Hi Andy you say As to the Woods / Johnson saga - well I am very disappointed. In what way? that it did not happen, or that Buckle wanted it to happen? I did say I hope Brough, gets a chance to show us we were wrong, but do you think he would be first choice? so thats why I think his chances will be limited. Dave The key will be how he responds in training and in the "fringe games" like the Setanta Shield. In my view the second centre back position is open at present. The leading candidate would appear to be Hargreaves, with Woods, Ellis, Robertson (for as long as he is with us) and Brough fighting it out. Perhaps Bucks may have thoughts at some stage of playing with a central 3 - Whatever the second centre half spot is open to be won - Just glad we have some useful competition! |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 5, 2008 21:19:10 GMT
Andy knowing where he came from and the fact that he was captain, was one thing that made fans jump for joy when he signed for us. I really do believe that he could be our best defender, but without getting picked, will we know.
There will be games that he will get to play and yes he needs to keep working hard in training etc. The big problem is, he is not the sort of player who wants to sit on the bench. That is why I feel he could go in January,If only to look for regular first team football.
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Aug 5, 2008 23:29:51 GMT
Altough I know little about Johnson, I was hoping we could get him in place of either Woods or Robertson. I am a big believer in having one left-footed centre back whenever possible. This is particularly desirable when you have Nicho pushing up as it is far easier for a lefty to move across and clear up behind him when necessary. Toddy is our best centre back. Ellis, Robertson, Woods and Brough all have their strengths and weaknesses but all are right-footed, so I don't see any of them as the ideal partner for Toddy.
I think Bucks has gone on record as saying one of the reasons for the Hargreaves experiment is that he has a good left foot - as indeed has Hodges. Either of them could do a job I suppose, but I wouldn't mind having someone big and quick and left-footed - although they don't grow on trees.
|
|
|
|
Post by ealinggull on Aug 5, 2008 23:57:36 GMT
I guess we are still looking for at least one more centre-half then, with the exits of messrs Woods & Robertson being 'managed'. Is that the correct HR parlance these days?
Seems like we have a shrewd yet steely-determined manager on our hands, for which I (for one) thank the new board.
Shape up or ship out seems to be the bye-word.
Ambition is a wonderful thing to see, isn't it?!
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 6, 2008 16:56:02 GMT
I guess we are still looking for at least one more centre-half then, with the exits of messrs Woods & Robertson being 'managed'. Is that the correct HR parlance these days? Seems like we have a shrewd yet steely-determined manager on our hands, for which I (for one) thank the new board. Shape up or ship out seems to be the bye-word. Ambition is a wonderful thing to see, isn't it?! I don't think Woods will go now, but while I may agree with your point about " Shape up or ship " I do worry that Buckle could be guilty of letting his personal feeling get in the way at times. Despite what Merse may say about Raynor, I simply believe, he was never the disruptive player in the dressing room. No,a case of Being unhappy and saying so, was more the case. Yes get rid of players who do not perform, or those who really disrupt the team, but they is a line that has to be drawn and the good of the team and club, must come first. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalgull on Aug 6, 2008 18:43:02 GMT
I don't think Woods will go now, but while I may agree with your point about " Shape up or ship " I do worry that Buckle could be guilty of letting his personal feeling get in the way at times. Despite what Merse may say about Raynor, I simply believe, he was never the disruptive player in the dressing room. No,a case of Being unhappy and saying so, was more the case. Yes get rid of players who do not perform, or those who really disrupt the team, but they is a line that has to be drawn and the good of the team and club, must come first. Dave, I know exactly who Merse got his Rayner information from - me - and I got it from someone who I would assume was in the know....disruptive would be being nice about him! |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 6, 2008 19:49:31 GMT
I don't think Woods will go now, but while I may agree with your point about " Shape up or ship " I do worry that Buckle could be guilty of letting his personal feeling get in the way at times. Despite what Merse may say about Raynor, I simply believe, he was never the disruptive player in the dressing room. No,a case of Being unhappy and saying so, was more the case. Yes get rid of players who do not perform, or those who really disrupt the team, but they is a line that has to be drawn and the good of the team and club, must come first. Dave, I know exactly who Merse got his Rayner information from - me - and I got it from someone who I would assume was in the know....disruptive would be being nice about him! Yes I believe you were told that, but when? you see my information was that Raynor was fine up until the Yeovil game. I was told that it was Rice who had rocked the boat, as he had words with Buckle, because he was not playing games. It seems he was promised more, when his move to the club was agreed. Also Merse said this a few days ago. " Let's hope that another "incident" hasn't lead to one of our keepers being shown the exit door by the manager" So what does Merse mean by these remarks, well maybe he does not mean Buckle, rather the player. Maybe Merse thinks Raynor was involved in an "incident" No he was just unhappy not to be playing the Yeovil game and sorry but there is no way he should not have been playing. |
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Aug 6, 2008 21:19:54 GMT
 Take it from me, Rayner was involved in more than one "incident" and with more than one person on more than one occasion. Surely no-one believes for one moment that the manager jeopardised the whole promotion effort for no good reason do they? There are things that can be said, there are beans that can be spilled; but basically if I learn or if I'm told something in confidence that's where it stays. At the end of the day, managers have to either be allowed to manage and stand or fall by their decisions; or they have to be replaced - for to interfere with the manager's decisions is to undermine the whole fundamental stability of the club and the long and the short of it is that the manager has to be more important to the club than any player..................end of!
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 6, 2008 21:46:30 GMT
Yes I do  because if what he did was so bad, why would any manager bring him back. I'll tell you why, because there were those in greater power, who felt he should not have been sent out on loan, who felt it was down to Buckles own problems he had with the player. Those same people, were the ones who made Raynors return happen, to try and save the promotion that had been jeopardised, by the manager putting the no1 keeper out on loan. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalgull on Aug 6, 2008 21:48:33 GMT
Yes I do because if what he did was so bad, why would any manager bring him back. I'll tell you why, because there were those in greater power, who felt he should not have been sent out on loan, who felt it was down to Buckles own problems he had with the player. Those same people, were the ones who made Raynors return happen, to try and save the promotion that had been jeopardised, by the manager putting the no1 keeper out on loan. Sorry Dave - wrong on all levels. |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 6, 2008 22:03:48 GMT
Like I said Andy you know what you were told, as I know what I was told. Not sure where your information came from,but I know I trust mine.
Merse said
"Surely no-one believes for one moment that the manager jeopardised the whole promotion effort for no good reason do they"
The question I asked was and still was not answered, If a player has done something so bad, that you were prepared to jeopardise the chance of promotion, why would you bring him back. Based on that question, I will stick with my last post.
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Aug 7, 2008 7:26:15 GMT
There is no point in raking over old ground and a goalkeeper who walks out in a tantrum leaving his club with NO substitute keeper on the bench for a First round F.A. Cup tie has by that very act done enough in my book not to warrant sympathy. Rice might have been agitating the manager for some action, Rayner was not the keeper he was thought to be - witness Burton away, some very poor dealings with crosses at Histon, and later Cambridge at home and finally St Albans away. Rice had been selected for the cup tie at Bath and done very well, so if the manager had decided on the (not unknown in other clubs) policy of utilising his number two keeper for cup ties; he was perfectly at liberty to without any one calling him to question nor Rayner acting like a spoilt child and committing the heinous crime of walking out pre-match. As I said yesterday, when a club employs a manager they must do so in the knowledge that he can't and won't keep all of the players happy all of the time. That when the inevitable disputes arise, they back their manager one hundred per cent,one hundred per cent of the time. Anything less and the manager is "A Dead Man Walking"Playing second string keeper at a club is a very difficult and onerous position to be in and some of them are notoriously difficult characters to keep happy (witness Lehmann at Arsenal) and motivated. When it was Rayner's turn to play second fiddle, he couldn't handle it and that is clearly unacceptable from the manager's point of view and particularly from Rice's aspect for he should have been receiving the same professional companionship, back up and assistance from Rayner that he had been giving for a couple of months or more. What is the point in constantly referring to Rayner's Saga? He's gone, he's history. It only had brief relevance because Rice might be going out on loan at a time when his replacement has yet to be revealed. One of the prime factors in pre-season is the opportunity it gives the management of exactly what needs adjusting and who needs a different approach to their training. I would say that Bucks has concurred that Rice will be second choice to Poke (no surprise there) and that having him endure a second successive season with little or no competitive playing action is not conducive to the player's career or usefulness to the cause. If there is another keeper (or indeed Wayne Fisher is considered good enough) available to sit on the bench and Rice can be recalled at 24 hours notice in the event of losing Poke for whatever reason, then what is the problem apart from the very remote possibility of not having Rice on the bench in the very match where Poke had to come off? I guess that is the main argument Bucks has had to deal with.
|
|
Take it from me, Rayner was involved in more than one "incident" and with more than one person on more than one occasion.
because if what he did was so bad, why would any manager bring him back.