Late late Scunny thread - Page 2

cashman · 10-08-2011, 21:08

i was quite pleased, 1st round carling cup is never a big attraction imho.

lancsdave · 10-08-2011, 21:22

I thought it was a good turnout last nught. 300 up on the last time Stanley played at home 1st round. Several Championship clubs with sub 5,000 gates. It's not a great competition for attracting crowds

mab · 10-08-2011, 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

I thought it was a good turnout last nught. 300 up on the last time Stanley played at home 1st round. Several Championship clubs with sub 5,000 gates. It's not a great competition for attracting crowds

Must addmit i was pleasantly surprised by the attendances, still think it was over priced thou

Lewi · 10-08-2011, 22:16

I was impressed with some of the new players especially first half, thought Craney was poor though. Seeing Ryan in opposition colours left me feeling a little flat and it all felt a bit like a hangover to me after the way last season ended. Hopefully Saturday will be a bit of a pick up!

lancsdave · 10-08-2011, 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by mab

Must addmit i was pleasantly surprised by the attendances, still think it was over priced thou

Can't argue with that. The first couple of rounds at least should be no more than a tenner maximium. The sponsors should contribute more. I think the only prize money in the Carling Cup is for the finalists. Pretty poor sponsorship package by todays standards

JEFF · 11-08-2011, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revived Red

I agree with everything that Smudgie has said. I was pleased by the first half performance. Craney was simply awful - young Taylor should have been brought on much earlier to replace him.

Can't say that I have seen much of young Taylor so perhaps you can explain why he should have been brought on much earlier. How good is he and how many times have you seen him play ?

Revived Red · 11-08-2011, 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

Can't say that I have seen much of young Taylor so perhaps you can explain why he should have been brought on much earlier. How good is he and how many times have you seen him play ?

1. Craney needed to be replaced - he was slow in both thought and action. Guthrie received no support whatsoever from him, nor did Craney drop back sufficiently to help in defence. His contribution to the game was nil.

2. Given the playing positions of the subs available, Taylor seemed to be the only possibility. It could have been an ideal opportunity for a youngster to shine. Guthrie had proved that the Scunthorpe defenders could not cope with speed and, just by looking at him, I would guess that Taylor would be pretty quick. I have never seen him play; I have no idea how good he is. But .... there was no way he could have been worse than Craney.

smudgie · 11-08-2011, 17:08

Id rather have you put your boots on Jeff than Craney to be honest !

cashman · 11-08-2011, 21:12

my reckoning guthrie would benefit big time if coley played 2 strikers, at least at home.

lancsdave · 11-08-2011, 21:43

Ironically Scunthorpe home to Newcastle next round

football19 · 12-08-2011, 08:58

Disagree about Craney.Thought he linked play well for 45 minutes,chances were created and on another day we could have been three up.
The problem is hes not 100% fit,he just has to put the effort in and the fitness will come.
Although he missed some good chances,I thought Gutherie worked hard,its just his running style that some may think hes going through the motions!!,I am beginning to think hes quicker that i first thought.
Question for lancs dave ---thought the young burnley lad (wes?) may have been available on loan,have you heard anything ???

lancsdave · 12-08-2011, 09:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by football19

Question for lancs dave ---thought the young burnley lad (wes?) may have been available on loan,have you heard anything ???

Not heard anything from Stanley end, just info from somebody else that it's not altogether ruled out.

No idea what the issues are though.

Revived Red · 12-08-2011, 09:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by football19

The problem is hes not 100% fit,he just has to put the effort in and the fitness will come.

I suspect you will be in a minority in thinking that Craney linked play well for 45 minutes.

But the quote above is part true and part nonsense. It is true he is not 100% fit - but he was not 100% fit when he arrived. Nothing has changed. If he is to put the effort in before the fitness comes, then please let that effort be on the training ground or in the gym. Not while he is taking up a place in the first team for 90 minutes.

football19 · 12-08-2011, 09:26

Revived red,i did mean on the training paddock,although theres no substitue for match fitness.He would still be in my starting eleven,based on the sub bench.
You cant deny the amount of chances created and football played in the first period.
I still think when we go long from the keeper it doesnt suit our style(unlike stevenage) and thats what happened and the wheels fell off

cashman · 12-08-2011, 09:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by football19

I still think when we go long from the keeper it doesnt suit our style(unlike stevenage) and thats what happened and the wheels fell off

My view is perhaps they went long cos they were knackered? n no fresh legs didn't help.