Quote:+1Fiftyyearsarover
Agree with ADD ,we have plenty of cover at centre back for god sake give the young lads a chance I thing Gumbs Duggan plenty good enough they will only get better ,the way Mellon is working we are going to lose our young talent including Pilling very soon ,what is the point of the academy if no one gets a chance ,we need these promising lads to progress and if they turn out a Max power or Cresswell sell them on .you can’t keep young lads for years and when many people think they should be given a chance sideline them .just a waste of time and money .clarke only unfolded by accident not much talked about but already being watched by bigger clubs ,it begs the question has he been signed by Wigan and loaned back that’s gone quiet.it used to lift your heart when Rovers contained players like Irons,GED Brannen ,Garnet .Thomas the tank, Cresswell ,Ryan Taylor Jason Koumas ,Andy Parkinson where are the ones of that Ilk
Quote:stairwaytoheaven
Apparently we are looking at Carlisle's centre half, ex Shrews, to take on loan
Quote:looks like a wild rumour, he may well be going somewhere, might even be to PP but very little hard fact in that article.stairwaytoheavenQuote:stairwaytoheaven
Apparently we are looking at Carlisle's centre half, ex Shrews, to take on loan
This is the link to the rumour
Mark Ellis rumour
Quote:dicko111
Dont forget we dont have a reserve side any more .Most 18-20 year olds were released .We kept the likes of Gumbs ,Duggan and Drysdale on but they havent played a game so in my imagination arent match fit .Cant put them into the 1st team for that simple reason .Might as well let them go out on loan to play football anywhere just to get fit and not rust
Quote:what makes you think gumbs is no good how many times have u seen him .duggan looked good until his injury. I believe they are assets for the futureHiggosboots
McCeverley has apparently been told he’s surplus, Gumbs isn’t good enough, he’s ok as a stop gap sub appearance but we either want to get out of this league or we don’t, if we don’t then we can play Gumbs or Duggan at centre half.
Quote:Loyden1Quote:what makes you think gumbs is no good how many times have u seen him .duggan looked good until his injury. I believe they are assets for the futureHiggosboots
McCeverley has apparently been told he’s surplus, Gumbs isn’t good enough, he’s ok as a stop gap sub appearance but we either want to get out of this league or we don’t, if we don’t then we can play Gumbs or Duggan at centre half.
Quote:aktrfc
We have proven with Taylor, that although the fans seem to think we have capable back up, MM doesn't agree. If Micky has go for him, it's for a reason and MP isn't goin to let him spend money for nothing. Trust the boss. Any signing must be seen as possative until proven wrong.
Quote:DevonExileQuote:aktrfc
We have proven with Taylor, that although the fans seem to think we have capable back up, MM doesn't agree. If Micky has go for him, it's for a reason and MP isn't goin to let him spend money for nothing. Trust the boss. Any signing must be seen as possative until proven wrong.
Like Alabi,McEverley,Rokka,Waring.It seems that what you are saying is that the manager is right until proven wrong.Which is fair enough
Quote:Phil65
And how is it assessed they are good enough (or not as the case may be) if they don't play. Training is one thing, playing in a competitive match is a different ball game. Playing in a match in training against your teammates is no substitute for the real thing. Gumbs has certainly looked good enough when he has played. In my playing time and watching my three sons with their various teams, there are players who look the business in training, but couldn't replicate this in competitive games. Vice versa, there were players who were anonymous in training, but consistently rose to the occasion in a match situation. Judgement has to be balanced on the two aspects. Clarke may not have had his opportunity if fate hadn't played its hand; luck rather than judgement might be applied. No doubt, we all have differing opinions on who our best team would be, which is the beauty of football and forums. I don't buy into the bury the head in the sand, trust the manager regardless, permanently positive, Teflon Tranmere outlook. I'm generally positive, forgiving, accepting, sometimes even doe-eyed when it comes to TRFC, but I do occasionally allow myself to think WTF when I don't like what I see. Now, how did I get here? (Some of you are probably thinking WTF right now!)
Quote:853OKGQuote:Phil65
And how is it assessed they are good enough (or not as the case may be) if they don't play. Training is one thing, playing in a competitive match is a different ball game. Playing in a match in training against your teammates is no substitute for the real thing. Gumbs has certainly looked good enough when he has played. In my playing time and watching my three sons with their various teams, there are players who look the business in training, but couldn't replicate this in competitive games. Vice versa, there were players who were anonymous in training, but consistently rose to the occasion in a match situation. Judgement has to be balanced on the two aspects. Clarke may not have had his opportunity if fate hadn't played its hand; luck rather than judgement might be applied. No doubt, we all have differing opinions on who our best team would be, which is the beauty of football and forums. I don't buy into the bury the head in the sand, trust the manager regardless, permanently positive, Teflon Tranmere outlook. I'm generally positive, forgiving, accepting, sometimes even doe-eyed when it comes to TRFC, but I do occasionally allow myself to think WTF when I don't like what I see. Now, how did I get here? (Some of you are probably thinking WTF right now!)
so you are saying that Gumbs could be played with McNulty rather than as his replacement?
Quote:Phil65Quote:853OKGQuote:Phil65
And how is it assessed they are good enough (or not as the case may be) if they don't play. Training is one thing, playing in a competitive match is a different ball game. Playing in a match in training against your teammates is no substitute for the real thing. Gumbs has certainly looked good enough when he has played. In my playing time and watching my three sons with their various teams, there are players who look the business in training, but couldn't replicate this in competitive games. Vice versa, there were players who were anonymous in training, but consistently rose to the occasion in a match situation. Judgement has to be balanced on the two aspects. Clarke may not have had his opportunity if fate hadn't played its hand; luck rather than judgement might be applied. No doubt, we all have differing opinions on who our best team would be, which is the beauty of football and forums. I don't buy into the bury the head in the sand, trust the manager regardless, permanently positive, Teflon Tranmere outlook. I'm generally positive, forgiving, accepting, sometimes even doe-eyed when it comes to TRFC, but I do occasionally allow myself to think WTF when I don't like what I see. Now, how did I get here? (Some of you are probably thinking WTF right now!)
so you are saying that Gumbs could be played with McNulty rather than as his replacement?
I'm challenging an earlier assertion that Gumbs is not good enough. I'd be comfortable slotting him in for McNulty or Sutton if the need arises, based on his appearances so far. I don't see the need to look elsewhere, if indeed that is the case (possibly just speculation). To the tune of that old John Lennon classic, "All we are saying, is give youth a chance"
Quote:Why Drysdale is mentioned is if the rumours were true and Championship clubs are looking at him with view to signing him and it happens you could argue he is at a similar level to say DMH who has only made one subs appearance for Barnsley and who has now gone out on loan again to Chesterfield! Also as noted on here elsewhere Clarke was in training every day with MM but only got a start when Ridelagh was injured so I am not sure you can really say MM will always pick the youngsters if they are good enough.Aldo'smuzzy
Sorry but I just don't get why Drysdale keeps getting mentioned. Just because an internet rumour suggested that a league club was looking at him doesn't mean he's worth a place in the first team squad. League clubs look at kids of all ages and routinely hoover them up, but it doesn't mean they're anywhere near ready for first team football.
Our defence has been one of our biggest strengths in this league but, if it does need strengthening for the run in for whatever reason, now is definitely not the time to throw a non-contract youth-teamer in, unless he's the real deal. Obviously he isn't, not yet anyway.
As for the argument that Pilling plays for Wales kids therefore he's ready for our first team, well just remember some of the slaughterings another Welsh international keeper routinely took on here when he played for us not that long ago.
Quote:DevonExile
Neither Duggan or Gumbs deserve the categorisation of giving youth a chance.They are both young but no longer Youth players and their debuts were made some time back. My issue is that both are more than good enough as cover and could get better.For that reason I never understood the signing of McEverly and the same would now apply if Ellis was signed.
I get the argument that the management see them daily but on that basis if they are not seen as adequate cover why were they retained,I assume it was because they were seen as good enough.
Drysdale is a different issue he is young enough that he could be seen as still developing rather than as cover.His lack of involvement,however even as part of the bench suggests that management has either written him off or they do not have a strategy for testing and developing emerging talent.
I agree with the earlier posting that Clarke's emergence was down to chance without which there is every chance that he would still be going unnoticed.As for the argument that these players are not good enough for div 2 that holds true for many regulars some of whom are past the stage that they will improve,