Jump to content

Smallthorne Dog

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Smallthorne Dog

  1. Ive long suspected that McKirdy, Robibson and Clarke werent Askey signings or that he was heavily leant on to bring them in. I also believe he has wanted rid of Pope for a while and has been prevented from doing so. All that does is send signals to the players that the manager has no authority. When you combine this with the facy that one or two didnt like him in the first place, it has created a situation where the players rule the roost and we have gone from a cohesive unit with a strong dressing room to a circus in a matter of months. Askey isnt responsible for that, ultimately someone else at the club is. We could play Agatha Christie all day (is it Carol, Patrick, Rudgie, Sinclair, Garlick?) but that wont alter the situation. Carol needs to hold her hands up and admit the mistakes but ultimately despite it not being down to him and despite plainly having the rug pulled from underneath him, Askey cant fix it, and he has to go.
  2. Just listening to the Barrow review. As is evident from my posts earlier in the thread, i suspect that Mitch hasnt sufdenly become a problem over the last few weeks as a result of hanging around with McKirdy. I saw with my own eyes that he used to associate with the likes of Miller and Whitfield and were relatively openly taking the piss out of the manager at the end of season presentation in May 2019. So you have to question the manager in resigning him, and in signing McKirdy in the summer. McKirdy's reputation was well known, so why would a manager who is renknowned for building a cohesive squad, who all buy into the managers work ethic, sign a player like that? Outside pressure to do so? Similarly, im not convinced he ever wanted Clarke back at the club. He could have made a move for him before signing Mills if he really wanted him, and i dont think he was that keen even when Gibbo and Mills were out. So why make the signing? Pressure from the fans? Pressure from the owners? 90% of the players Askey has wanted to bring to the club since he came here haven't been good enough. So why on earth would he then go and sign players like Clarke, McKirdy and Robinson when they dont fit with his ethics or what he wants to build? Something is wrong with the manager/owner relationship. Either its too cosy, or he hasnt got the balls to tell them "no, im not bringing that player to the club".
  3. Well Askey has benched him and then sent him back prior to the end of his loan period despite Gibbo still being injured and Zac Mills being in terrible form and costing us goals and points. That says to me, that there is something more going on.
  4. Spot on Alex, i thought you were an excellent guest who offered a balanced and reasonable viewpoint
  5. On the subject of dressing room unrest, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts. Judging by the team andcsquad that were put out yesterday im assuming that Pope, McKirdy, Robinson, Clark and possibly Cullen are involved. We know Askey wanted rid of Pope at the end of last season (but that didnt happen) McKirdy and Robinson were both late additions when we thought our business was done and Clark was an emergency loan due to injuries. So whose to blame for the unrest? Do we have any sympathy with Askey as on the face of it, he signed the majority of those players and had a chance to get rid of the other. Or is something else going on behind the scenes? Have the owners had an influence in Pope staying, using the funds on McKirdy and Robinson, and bringing Clark back in because he is popular with the fans? Or is it all Askey's doing? Either way with those 5 jettisoned yesterday we got back to playing passionate, neat, quick football on the ground, with seemingly little discontent in the camp. January will be interesting.
  6. Hi Stu, I wasn't trying to suggest that you guys were not laying into the Cambridge performance because you'd had Carol on as a guest. More that the fans in general are giving Askey a bit more slack than they normally would because they don't want to be seen to be overly critical due to the massive effort Carol and her team have put in. Given that huge effort from the owners I think we all deserve a bit better from the team than we are currently getting. It's not a disaster by any stretch of the imagination, but it's definitely below expectations.
  7. I'm not one for over reaction and cant be doing with hysteria, but feel you are being overly kind in your assessments lads. I think it might be down to the Carol factor, and that nobody wants to be critical when we had such a feel good factor around the club in pre season. But for me serious questions are going to have to be asked if things don't improve quickly. Yes we have got injuries, but a lot of has been made of our squad depth, and as such we should be in a position to cover those injuries, so its not really an excuse this season. too many players are under performing, and for a team with four (supposed) quality strikers we should be scoring a lot more goals than we are. Worrall's end product hasn't been good enough, from what I've seen so far Whitehead hasn't got the quality required. Burgess has got that quality but he isn't showing it for whatever reason. we don't look incisive enough and for all our hustle and bustle we aren't creating the chances we should be. The squad has been heavily invested in, and it was widely anticipated we would be a top 6 side this season. Currently we look a lower mid table team, and it needs sorting quickly.
  8. Just managed to catch up with the Carlisle review. Thought you were pretty much spot on with your assessments. I was more inclined to agree with Stu's assessment of the first half than Johnny and Bezza's to be honest, but it should have been obvious that the midfield was testing overrun, and things should have changed at half time. Having said that, as poor as we were, we should have been 2-0 up before they scored, and had we have taken those chances we would have won the game inspire of the poor managerial decisions. Thought you were generous to both Legge and Pope. Two senior pros who.were abysmal.on Saturday.
  9. Presumably with the references to "dogs" abuse and getting the "woof" end of the stick, it might be a Keith Lard situation [emoji6]
  10. Thought the Sproson criticism was a bit OTT fellas. We don't know what's gone on there, but I would be laying the blame at Forest's door. There would have been plenty of interest in Taylor in the summer, not least from us, but Forest pissed about with him. Clubs looked elsewhere and with the salary cap now in place, most will have used their allocated budget by this point. I suspect there were very few options left for him at this stage of the season, and Sproson has had to get him in where he can.
  11. Interesting debate regarding Amoo if he's fit. You couldn't seem to squeeze him onto the bench. My question would be will he get in when he is fit? And if not is he surplus to requirements? I've never really seen the attraction myself. He wouldn't get in ahead of either Worrall or Rodney that's for sure, and McKirdy is the other option and he gives you a goal threat that Amoo doesn't.
  12. Just listening to the pod fellas. Couple of points to make. With regard to fans being allowed in the ground, agree 100% with everything you said about Boris' ridiculous rules... But...the Hashtag United video shows exactly why the ban remains in place. While the vast majority of responsible fans will adhere to social distancing, there will always be <ovf censored> who behave like that and ruin it for everyone else. It might be 30 or 40 of them watching a tinpot team, but in league football you could have groups of 4 or 5 hundred doing the same thing. Ifollow is a farce, I had problems with the Scunny feed and the Crawley feed failed to work at all. As such I tuned into an illegal stream for the Exeter game. I wasn't comfortable with the club not benefitting but I'm not prepared to shell out for a sub standard service. As such if I tune in to an unofficial stream again, I will donate to the just giving page for the Lorne Street concourse. Either that, or if the club set up its own way of contributing, such as online golden goal or shirt of the back tickets, I'd purchase a few of those to the same value as the cost of the game on ifollow. That way 100% of the money goes to the club .
  13. Forgot to add my reasoning... Southall -was just head and shoulders above any keeper we'll ever see at Vale in my lifetime. Full backs - both were basically defensive wingers. Hughes had blistering pace, both could cross a ball accurately and Simon Simon was a cult hero with the best chant for any player while I've been a supporter. Centre Halves - Aspo was hard as nails and would run through a brick wall for the team (even played on after that horror tackle from Steve Foley in 92). Deano was so cultured and comfortable on the ball, never seemed in any difficulty in any situation. Midfield- You need a ball winner and a playmaker. Goober was a terrier, knew the dark outs and wasn't afraid to use them, but he could play a bit too. Robbie was just class, it was a toss up between him and Ray Walker but Robbie's goalscoring ability got him in there (Ian Taylor missed out as a result) Wingers - Chamberlain went on to play for England within months of being in Div 4 with us, that tells you all you need to know. Guppy gets in ahead of both McCarthy and Ainsworth because he had more trickery, was a better crosser of the ball. Strikers - Jones just on pure goals to game ratio. My Dad knows nothing about football, but even he stopped asking me who had scored for Vale when I got in from the games circa 87. Because he knew the inevitable answer .... Andy Jones. Naylor was a pocket genius... Just look at the goal v Sunderland and that tells you all you need to know. Subs - Goodlad - Underated due to the era he followed Sproson - Club legend Van Der Laan - another legend, had it all, a tackle, a pass, and goals. Foyle - Less goals than Pope but just such a more skillful player who played at at a much higher standard Walker- Vision.... Saw things happening on a football pitch about 10 seconds before anyone else did.
  14. An best Vale XI from my time as a fan is such a hard thing to do. I could change it 100 times and still not be happy with it. I've gone for... GK Neville Southall RB Simon Mills LB Darren Hughes CB Dean Glover CB Neil Aspin CM Andy Porter CM Robbie Earle LW Steve Guppy RW Mark Chamberlain ST Andy Jones ST Tony Naylor Subs GK Mark Goodlad CB Phil Sproson CM Robin Van Der Laan CM Ray Walker ST Martin Foyle. So many Vale legends and personal favourites I could have made a whole new team with the players I've had to leave out.
  15. When you say "the law needs to be more flexible" I'm presuming you mean changing the burden of proof? From beyond reasonable doubt to on the balance of probability? Then we can expect a lot more miscarriages of justice. Personally I would rather someone who probably committed a murder getting put away for manslaughter than an innocent person getting banged up for 20 years on the basis that limited evidence suggested they were more likely than not to have done it.
  16. I'm not disagreeing with you that the charge of manslaughter was lenient. However the Crown Prosecution Service,with all the evidence at hand must have believed a conviction for murder would be difficult to achieve. Nobody knows if the defendants were lying (their demeanor would suggest so) but for a murder charge to stick the prosecution would have to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that those men knew the policeman was attached to the car, they intended to drag him along and they intended to kill him. Without any material witnesses and with only the evidence of the body and the state it was in and the (probably dubious) word of the defendants, I would challenge you to say how they could possibly convict BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? I'm sure we've all got reasonable suspicion. But that isn't what the law requires for a conviction.
  17. Why shouldn't those individuals be treated equally under the law? You can't make exceptions dependant on the perceived severity or morality of the crime. Or because of the lack of remorse or respect shown by the perpetrators. Otherwise it's a make it up as you go along legal system. Those individuals were charged with a crime and tried for it. We might not agree that the sentence was correct, but we didn't hear the case, or were party to the full facts. That doesn't mean that we should have trial by newspaper because of it.
  18. By that reckoning, we should just ask the families of all murder victims what the punishment should be and have that as our justice system. Vigilante rule.
  19. Why does supporting a fair and just asylum system equate to supporting criminal activity and people trafficking? The two are completely separate entities. Hopefully an asylum system that is fit for purpose would weed out those seeking to exploit the system for criminal gain. If it didn't and some slip through the net, then they should be brought to justice for their crimes and deported. You can't simply do away with asylum and immigration on the premise that a percentage of those coming in would commit criminal activity. Of course finding those who break the law and bringing them to justice would be far easier if the party of law and order hadn't spent the last 10 years decimating the police force.
  20. You are wasting your time I'm afraid TheSage. Since Thatcher's days, Tory Britain has bred a unique brand of self interest into our society. The "I'm alright Jack" mentality.... and if "I'm not alright Jack" it must be the fault of the illegal immigrants, black lives matter, the gays, bloody trans weirdos, the poles, Romanian beggars etc etc. Funnily enough its never the fault of the greedy, Eton educated, tax dodging multi millionaire cabinet ministers making laws that fill their own pockets while harming the interests of the nation as a whole. Because if the Daily Mail tells us to vote for them, it must be the right thing to do.
  21. Regal Beagle - The answer is to use the system we already have. These people are asylum seekers. We process them through the asylum system. If they are deemed to be genuine they stay, if they are deemed not to be genuine they are deported to their country of origin. It's always worked that way, why should now be any different?
  22. Another good topic to try and get the inside story on, would be the whole Paul Wildes episode. Him and Norman seemed such an odd couple, how did it come about, what was the relationship dynamic, where did it all go wrong, and was Wildes departure the beginning of Norma's descent into madness?
  23. Not a good time to become a Vale fan [emoji1]. I was lucky enough to start going in the early 80's so got all the glory years in my teens and early 20's.
  • Create New...