Rutherford
 

Things improved when he came on yesterday. The team had been moving the ball around slowly to no effect all game, but his great strength is that he does like to be busy and move it quickly. I have no data but a feeling that we have scored more and conceded less when he has been on the pitch this season. Certainly any decent manager of a team in crisis would have his name down as one of the first on the team sheet.

Re: Rutherford
 

[QUOTE=Foxy;2293268]Things improved when he came on yesterday. The team had been moving the ball around slowly to no effect all game, but his great strength is that he does like to be busy and move it quickly. I have no data but a feeling that we have scored more and conceded less when he has been on the pitch this season. Certainly any decent manager of a team in crisis would have his name down as one of the first on the team sheet.[/QUOTE]

Agree with this, although criticised by a lot on here, he does make things happen and gets the team going when he comes on

Re: Rutherford
 

Ruthers ain't good enough for a promotion team but he's good enough for a mid table team. Which is our aim.

Would start him ahead of Harris who showed no interest or effort yesterday.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Rutherford
 

[QUOTE=krux;2293298]Ruthers ain't good enough for a promotion team but he's good enough for a mid table team. Which is our aim.

Would start him ahead of Harris who showed no interest or effort yesterday.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

Was frustrated with Harris yesterday but on reflection also felt sorry for him, long balls upto a 5ft 8 line striker. Madness.

Re: Rutherford
 

It’s pretty sad to be looking at Ruthers as our great white hope. 100% foe energy and effort as usual but sadly it’s all to no effect.
Harris has now caught the general apathy that’s sweeping through the team... and the whole club.
Exciting times indeed.

Re: Rutherford
 

[QUOTE=krux;2293298]Ruthers ain't good enough for a promotion team but he's good enough for a mid table team. Which is our aim.

Would start him ahead of Harris who showed no interest or effort yesterday.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

Harsh on harris, the clueless idiots in charge played him on his own when he's the complete opposite type of striker.

[QUOTE=dixienormous;2293305]Harsh on harris, the clueless idiots in charge played him on his own when he's the complete opposite type of striker.[/QUOTE]

Very true. But he sulked, and when he lost the ball merely stopped. One moment in particular when he was slide tackled in the right back spot first half and the defender quickly got up to the loose ball whilst he sat down and pulled his socks up.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

[QUOTE=blackbrookred;2293302]Was frustrated with Harris yesterday but on reflection also felt sorry for him, long balls upto a 5ft 8 line striker. Madness.[/QUOTE]

Yep, without Hooper Oswell is the only choice there, like it or not.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Rutherford
 

[QUOTE=blackbrookred;2293302]Was frustrated with Harris yesterday but on reflection also felt sorry for him, long balls upto a 5ft 8 line striker. Madness.[/QUOTE]

It's basically that tactics like that won't work which is worrying if that's the best we can come up with.