Re: Why can't we play 442 v Barrow & Maidstone
 

[QUOTE=Funny_Old_Game;2239170]Been thinking for a while that Pearson runs this team. Seems it’s true.[/QUOTE]

What's he supposed to say?

Na, all he does is run around, no end product. Of course he's going to back his teammate whether he believes it or not.

Re: Why can't we play 442 v Barrow & Maidstone
 

Yes you would expect Pearson to back Rutherford, but I also think the renewed attacks on Rutherford are uncalled for, yes he was invisible Saturday but so was the rest of the midfield.

We have said it season after season he's been here that he is a grafter puts more than a shift in, unfortunately he lacks that little bit of skill if he had that he would be playing higher up, it's a shame because as Pearson said he never hides.

I feel he would be better coming off the bench for the last 30 mins against tired players, probably say the same about Beavon to.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Why can't we play 442 v Barrow & Maidstone
 

[QUOTE=Phils-an-alki;2239192]Hardly going to say he doesn't create or score enough goals is he. Which is fact.[/QUOTE]

Its a criticism you could level at all the midfield and forwards we've got.

Re: Why can't we play 442 v Barrow & Maidstone
 

[QUOTE=RED2309;2239243]Its a criticism you could level at all the midfield and forwards we've got.[/QUOTE]

Yes that's true. So you do agree Rutherford isn't good enough then..

Re: Why can't we play 442 v Barrow & Maidstone
 

[QUOTE=John Neals Dynasty;2239218]Yes you would expect Pearson to back Rutherford, but I also think the renewed attacks on Rutherford are uncalled for, yes he was invisible Saturday but so was the rest of the midfield.

We have said it season after season he's been here that he is a grafter puts more than a shift in, unfortunately he lacks that little bit of skill if he had that he would be playing higher up, it's a shame because as Pearson said he never hides.

I feel he would be better coming off the bench for the last 30 mins against tired players, probably say the same about Beavon to.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

I don't think 'attacks' is the right word. A lot of fans just don't rate him but most appreciate what he does do i.e. non stop running. Attacks makes it sound personal, which it isn't.
You can't be as anonymous as he was (he was the stand out player to go missing imo) and expect to not get criticised, never gonna happen.

[QUOTE=Phils-an-alki;2239257]I don't think 'attacks' is the right word. A lot of fans just don't rate him but most appreciate what he does do i.e. non stop running. Attacks makes it sound personal, which it isn't.
You can't be as anonymous as he was (he was the stand out player to go missing imo) and expect to not get criticised, never gonna happen.[/QUOTE]


Agree attacks wasn't the correct word probably criticism more appropriate
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Why can't we play 442 v Barrow & Maidstone
 

[QUOTE=John Neals Dynasty;2239259]Agree attacks wasn't the correct word probably criticism more appropriate
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

I'd play Stockton and Oswell tonight personally, I know Stockton hasn't impressed but he must be better than what we've seen so far. Plus he scored at Gateshead...

[QUOTE=Phils-an-alki;2239261]I'd play Stockton and Oswell tonight personally, I know Stockton hasn't impressed but he must be better than what we've seen so far. Plus he scored at Gateshead...[/QUOTE]



I would to strikers need games to get sharper not 15 minutes
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Why can't we play 442 v Barrow & Maidstone
 

Lainton

Roberts
Pearson
Lawlor
Jennings

Wright
Young

Grant

Rutherford
Oswell
Tollitt

Bench-

Dibble
Kennedy
Stockton
Beavon
Mcglashan
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]