|
Post by jdl on Apr 5, 2018 20:00:02 GMT
That would be the Guiseley that beat Hartlepool that beat us then?? That could be them. Lol. Ok if we don’t beat any of the 3 teams in the relegation zone that we have to play then we deserve to go down. It's not an absolute given that we'll go down under those circumstances (although perhaps it should be), but it puts us in a 4-way 'who can screw it up the most' fight with Barrow, Solihull and Woking. And if Woking's 'new' manager can pull them out of their death dive, I wouldn't give us too much of a chance against Solihull and Barrow - I fear they'll both fight harder than we will.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Apr 5, 2018 20:07:58 GMT
'letting these two go' ? Hardly, Jay wanted them to stay and they were both offered new contracts. The fact is Millsy and Flish did not want to commit to a National League level of commitment. To be honest I can't imagine our season would have been any different if they had stayed. But time for Jay to ring the changes for Saturday. Interesting that supporters on the forum seem pretty united on what needs to happen. Can we all be wrong ? I deliberately used the phrase 'letting them go' to try to keep it neutral. They both 'chose' to go, but the club put them in a situation where they didn't really have much choice. At the time, it looked like we could replace them easily and wouldn't miss them, so it was cold-hearted 'logic' v emotional attachment. But, with hindsight, it would have been much better if the club had switched to a two-level 'full-time' model (which we seem to have done anyway) and offered Mils and Flish some sort of improved part-time contract, with them doing as much training, etc as possible. Given how well they played when they were fully part-time, this would hardly have caused problems. As I intimated before, we've seen very little (I would say 'no') proof that going 'full-time' has in any way improved the club or our performance. All it's done is ensure we lost two of our best players and given us an even worse season than last year - and probably eaten into any profit we might have made.
|
|
|
Post by Sennockian69 on Apr 5, 2018 20:34:39 GMT
We are United. One team. One training programme.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Apr 5, 2018 20:51:16 GMT
We are United. One team. One training programme. One relegation?
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Apr 5, 2018 21:02:19 GMT
The run ins:
Stones:
A Guiseley A Solihull H Fylde A Chester H Halifax
Woking:
A D&R A Maidenhead H Bromley A Guiseley H Dover
Barrow:
A Orient H Eastleigh H Fleet A Guiseley A Aldershot A Bromley H Chester
Solihull:
A Hartlepool H Stones H Guiseley A Fylde A Tranmere H Eastleigh
Arguably, ours is the easiest run-in (on paper, at least!).
But, as always at this time of year, form/expectation goes out of the window. Not only will we have the usual teams fighting for their lives, or relegated and relaxed, but this year we have the added complication of a play-off system that means all the teams involved will be playing flat out right to the end.
Edit - added in Torquay's fixtures, just for completeness. Although, personally, I think they are down - and looking at their remaining fixtures does nothing to alter that view...
A Dover H Fylde H Halifax A Hartlepool H Fleet ? Guiseley?
|
|
|
Guiseley
Apr 5, 2018 21:10:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by rockstar on Apr 5, 2018 21:10:03 GMT
Looking at those fixtures it seems guiseley have a big day in who will survive.
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Apr 5, 2018 22:14:09 GMT
'letting these two go' ? Hardly, Jay wanted them to stay and they were both offered new contracts. The fact is Millsy and Flish did not want to commit to a National League level of commitment. To be honest I can't imagine our season would have been any different if they had stayed. But time for Jay to ring the changes for Saturday. Interesting that supporters on the forum seem pretty united on what needs to happen. Can we all be wrong ? I deliberately used the phrase 'letting them go' to try to keep it neutral. They both 'chose' to go, but the club put them in a situation where they didn't really have much choice. At the time, it looked like we could replace them easily and wouldn't miss them, so it was cold-hearted 'logic' v emotional attachment. But, with hindsight, it would have been much better if the club had switched to a two-level 'full-time' model (which we seem to have done anyway) and offered Mils and Flish some sort of improved part-time contract, with them doing as much training, etc as possible. Given how well they played when they were fully part-time, this would hardly have caused problems. As I intimated before, we've seen very little (I would say 'no') proof that going 'full-time' has in any way improved the club or our performance. All it's done is ensure we lost two of our best players and given us an even worse season than last year - and probably eaten into any profit we might have made. You keep saying we haven't replace our two best players, but Anderson has done pretty well filling Mills' boots and at least he can use both feet, and Flish has been injured all season so your argument doesn't really stand up.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Apr 6, 2018 0:29:52 GMT
I deliberately used the phrase 'letting them go' to try to keep it neutral. They both 'chose' to go, but the club put them in a situation where they didn't really have much choice. At the time, it looked like we could replace them easily and wouldn't miss them, so it was cold-hearted 'logic' v emotional attachment. But, with hindsight, it would have been much better if the club had switched to a two-level 'full-time' model (which we seem to have done anyway) and offered Mils and Flish some sort of improved part-time contract, with them doing as much training, etc as possible. Given how well they played when they were fully part-time, this would hardly have caused problems. As I intimated before, we've seen very little (I would say 'no') proof that going 'full-time' has in any way improved the club or our performance. All it's done is ensure we lost two of our best players and given us an even worse season than last year - and probably eaten into any profit we might have made. You keep saying we haven't replace our two best players, but Anderson has done pretty well filling Mills' boots and at least he can use both feet, and Flish has been injured all season so your argument doesn't really stand up. Flish being injured, although unfortunate, doesn't affect the logic of my argument as we didn't know he was going to be out all season at the time the decision was taken. Anderson may be as good as Mills (although I am not convinced), but he is certainly no better.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Apr 6, 2018 0:33:43 GMT
Looking at those fixtures it seems guiseley have a big day in who will survive. Indeed. But it is better to be playing them now (as we are), when they are still fighting to survive, but in their hearts know they can't possibly make it, or better to be playing them (as the others probably will be) when they are down and can relax and just enjoy the game?
|
|
|
Post by hongkongstone on Apr 6, 2018 3:31:57 GMT
Based on my 12000 mile pilgrimage to the Stone to watch two 2--1 defeats last weekend then IMHO the team for Guisely should be as follows:
Worgan Wynter, De Havilland (assuming he has recovered), Finney Twumasi, Lewis, Richards, Phillips, Wraight (if fit) Luer, Lafayette
Subs: Hare, Paxman, Loza, Turgott, Reason
This is based on seeing - Anderson exposed and overrun for Daggers first goal - DSY and Lafayette to similar to play in the same line-up - Phillips worked his socks off in both games - Luer looks like he knows where the goal is - Need oome creativity in midfield - And please, for the love of sky fairies, NO MORE HEAD TENNIS!
(puts on tin helmet and stands back)
|
|
|
Post by nws on Apr 6, 2018 6:56:15 GMT
You keep saying we haven't replace our two best players, but Anderson has done pretty well filling Mills' boots and at least he can use both feet, and Flish has been injured all season so your argument doesn't really stand up. Flish being injured, although unfortunate, doesn't affect the logic of my argument as we didn't know he was going to be out all season at the time the decision was taken. Anderson may be as good as Mills (although I am not convinced), but he is certainly no better. Based on what I watched on Monday (and yes it is only a snapshot) I would much rather have had Mills at left back because I am pretty certain he would have marked the winger and tackled him at times.
|
|
|
Post by butlerisalegend on Apr 6, 2018 6:59:01 GMT
Based on my 12000 mile pilgrimage to the Stone to watch two 2--1 defeats last weekend then IMHO the team for Guisely should be as follows: Worgan Wynter, De Havilland (assuming he has recovered), Finney Twumasi, Lewis, Richards, Phillips, Wraight (if fit) Luer, Lafayette Subs: Hare, Paxman, Loza, Turgott, Reason This is based on seeing - Anderson exposed and overrun for Daggers first goal - DSY and Lafayette to similar to play in the same line-up - Phillips worked his socks off in both games - Luer looks like he knows where the goal is - Need oome creativity in midfield - And please, for the love of sky fairies, NO MORE HEAD TENNIS! (puts on tin helmet and stands back) I agree with that team except surely Coker needs to be involved if fit?
|
|
|
Post by toonarmy on Apr 6, 2018 7:02:51 GMT
Based on my 12000 mile pilgrimage to the Stone to watch two 2--1 defeats last weekend then IMHO the team for Guisely should be as follows: Worgan Wynter, De Havilland (assuming he has recovered), Finney Twumasi, Lewis, Richards, Phillips, Wraight (if fit) Luer, Lafayette Subs: Hare, Paxman, Loza, Turgott, Reason This is based on seeing - Anderson exposed and overrun for Daggers first goal - DSY and Lafayette to similar to play in the same line-up - Phillips worked his socks off in both games - Luer looks like he knows where the goal is - Need oome creativity in midfield - And please, for the love of sky fairies, NO MORE HEAD TENNIS! (puts on tin helmet and stands back) No tin hat needed
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 6, 2018 7:30:57 GMT
defence will need a tweak or two latest report is that Will de Havilland is definite to NOT play !
|
|
|
Guiseley
Apr 6, 2018 7:35:01 GMT
via mobile
ade likes this
Post by 61666 on Apr 6, 2018 7:35:01 GMT
'It's time to be ruthless', says Jay in the banner headline on the back of the KM. The team sheet will be an interesting test of that statement and given our long term ineptitude up front, just maybe, the strongest signal would be to leave out Loza, Sam-Yorke and Turgott completely. Not on the bench. Stay at home and have a think about your performances, then we'll see how you look in training next week. The KM also indicates Prestedge may feature. Not sure about that, but Jay seems to think he could be effective against Guiseley. However, a completely fresh line up in attack would mean Guiseley would not know much about how to play against them and given our utter predictability of late, suggest that is no bad thing.
|
|