Bikey In. Duberry Out.

[Woodcote Royal]

Yeah its as simple as that.

Bikey's last 3 appearances have been worse than the last 3 of Duberry and Pearce even allowing for Duberry's nightmare on Tuesday night. I'm not slagging him because as i say at his best he's the best we've got but he's not the Messiah

Sorry to Snowball you but here are the 7 previous matches before Bikey's sending off at Cardiff followed by our last 7. I know which I prefer even if our home defeat to Southampton was disappointing to say the least.

Tue 21 Oct 08 CHAMPIONSHIP DONCASTER ROVER (H) W: 2-1
Sat 25 Oct 08 CHAMPIONSHIP QPR (H) D: 0-0
Tue 28 Oct 08 CHAMPIONSHIP BURNLEY (A) L: 0-1
Sat 1 Nov 08 CHAMPIONSHIP BRISTOL CITY (A) W: 4-1
Sat 8 Nov 08 CHAMPIONSHIP DERBY COUNTY (H) W: 3-0
Sat 15 Nov 08 CHAMPIONSHIP SHEFFIELD UNITED (A) W: 2-0
Sat 22 Nov 08 CHAMPIONSHIP SOUTHAMPTON (H) L: 1-2


Tue 27 Jan 09 CHAMPIONSHIP WOLVES (H) W: 1-0
Sat 31 Jan 09 CHAMPIONSHIP QPR (A) D: 0-0
Sat 7 Feb 09 CHAMPIONSHIP PRESTON NORTH END (H) L: 0-2
Sat 28 Feb 09 CHAMPIONSHIP NOTTINGHAM FOREST (H) L: 0-1
Tue 3 Mar 09 CHAMPIONSHIP SHEFFIELD WEDNESDAY (A) W: 2-1
Sat 7 Mar 09 CHAMPIONSHIP PLYMOUTH ARGYLE (A) D: 2-2
Tue 10 Mar 09 CHAMPIONSHIP CHARLTON ATHLETIC (H) D: 2-2

You've Snowballed me alright especially in the quoting stats that are irrelevant to what i said.

Bikey's last 3 starts were
Home V Southampton - Dreadful, 1-2
Away to cardiff in the League - Given the absolute runaround before being sent off
Cardiff again in the cup - Utterly abysmal

I've already stated that at his best he's the best we've got but unless he's on his game and in the right frame of mind he's a liability which he was in those last 3. Now the defence has started leaking a few then the risk in bringing him back is not quite the same.
However when the defence was keeping several consecutive clean sheets in his absence (which they were) then bringing him back then,when by his own admission he wasn't 100%, would have been a risk.

Sorry for forgetting the cup game but I think it was reasonable to assume that you weren't including the match in which he got sent off after 30 mins

So Bikey's "abysmal" run amounts to less than two and half games.

We clearly aren't going to agree but I'll repeat what I said in the first place, If Coppell's faith in Bikey closely matches your own, he's had ample time to replace him just as he had a year to replace Shorey/sign some competition.

Furthermore, I would suggest that any risk involved here is a figment of Coppell's imagination....................as was the case with life after Nicky Shorey.

Since Bikey has been dropped, the goals have dried up and now we've started leaking them at the other end, as even teams like lowly Charlton have come to realise just how poor a side we have become following a catalogue off poor decisions by a manager who has run out of ideas.

A home defeat to Southampton was indeed a poor result but a draw and a loss, playing with weakened teams, at Ninian Park is no disgrace, especially when compared to what we've witnessed at home recently.

Should Coppell still see the "risk" involved with playing Bikey tomorrow as too high, I think I will be far from alone in believing that out manager has well and truly lost the plot.

[Vision]

Sorry for forgetting the cup game but I think it was reasonable to assume that you weren't including the match in which he got sent off after 30 mins

So Bikey's "abysmal" run amounts to less than two and half games. .

Which exactly underlines my point. he was having a mare, got frustrated and got himself sent off. Its exactly what makes him a liability if his heaad isn't right.

We clearly aren't going to agree but I'll repeat what I said in the first place, If Coppell's faith in Bikey closely matches your own, he's had ample time replace him just as he had a year to replace Shorey/sign some competition.

Furthermore, I would suggest that any risk involved here is a figment of Coppells imagination....................as was the case with life after Nicky Shorey..

Or life after Steve Sidwell which you were convinced would be perfectly fine.
Once again though you've refused to see what ive said and have decided that its just anti-Bikey (despite me clearly stating its not) and have dived in. As for replacing Bikey i think its safe to say that Coppell thinks Centre half isnt the problem position you seem to think it is. Bikey at his best would make us better no doubt and its unlikely we'd be able to pick up anything like someone of his calibre within our budget. Its not that he lacks faith in Bikey as such but perhaps more that he rates the likes of Ingimarrsson,Pearce,Duberry and Cisse better than you obviously do.

Coppell's faith in Bikey is there (I'm not sure there are too many players he would have signed after his Swedish headbutt) but equally he's more aware than anyone of when he's in the right frame of mind given that he has close contact with him every day. Surely you can see that Bikey is somewhat temperamental and that his mental frame of mind is something that needs to be looked at carefully when assessing whether to pick him or not.? Its simply not just a question of he's the best defender we should play him regardless.

Since Bikey has been dropped, the goals have dried up and now we've started leaking them at the other end as even teams like Charlton have come to realise how poor a team we have become after a catalogue off poor decision by a manager who has run out of ideas

A home defeat to Southampton was indeed a poor result but a draw and a loss playing with weakened teams at Ninian Park is no disgrace, especially compared to what we've witnessed at home recently.

Should Coppell still see the "risk" of playing Bikey tomorrow as too high, I think I will be far from alone in believing that out manager has well and truly lost the plot.

He wasn't dropped though was he? He got sent off and suspended and then picked up an ankle injury whilst we went through a spell where we were keeping clean sheets. Even before the reserve game last week he said himself he hasn't been 100%. Perhaps in the cup game had he aquitted himself as Pearce did then he would have been first in line after Ivar's injury. Unfortunately , he didn't, in fact he gave arguably his worst performance in the shirt. Quite possibly this was because he wasn't 100% fit but once again this only confirms to me that he wasn't ready to come back into the team at that stage.

I've already said (but you seem to have ignored it) that i think he will be brought back into the side this weekend simply because the last 2/3 of games we have looked shaky defensively, particularly at set pieces so i'm not disagreeing with you. However I suspect it will Bikey's mindset this week in training that may well determne whether its the "no brainer" you're convinced it is.

[Sun Tzu]

Of course slow centre backs play deeper.....................that is part of the problem which creates the space for opponents to run into.

The dangerous space is behind the back four though, not in front of it

But, when faced with putting in a tackle or retreating, most will opt for the latter because, should the tackle fail, they will never catch the attacker

No defender will miss a tackle then be able to get back on their feet and catch a pacy forward haring off goalwards.

[quote="Woodcote Royal"]Off course backing off plays into the opposition hands but the only solution is to have some pace in your defence.[quote="Woodcote Royal"]
No it's not, the solution is that your centre backs play as a pair so whilst one tackles the other covers. Of course having pace is an asset, but centre back is probably the outfield position where it is lowest on the list of requirements.Plenty of top centre backs have not been greyhounds and as you have already conceded it's usually only used when the more important skills have let you down. Given the choice between two identical players I'd pick the faster one, but given the choice between a slower play who has good positional sense and a faster one who gets pulled out of position I'd take the former. Rather someone who avoids getting into trouble than someone who manages to escape from trouble.

[Woodcote Royal]

Sorry for forgetting the cup game but I think it was reasonable to assume that you weren't including the match in which he got sent off after 30 mins

So Bikey's "abysmal" run amounts to less than two and half games. .

Which exactly underlines my point. he was having a mare, got frustrated and got himself sent off. Its exactly what makes him a liability if his head isn't right.

How does this underline your point. In your opinion, Bikey had 2 games plus 30 mins playing abysmally. I wasn't there that night but many thought his red card totally unjustified.

We clearly aren't going to agree but I'll repeat what I said in the first place, If Coppell's faith in Bikey closely matches your own, he's had ample time replace him just as he had a year to replace Shorey/sign some competition.

Furthermore, I would suggest that any risk involved here is a figment of Coppells imagination....................as was the case with life after Nicky Shorey..

Or life after Steve Sidwell which you were convinced would be perfectly fine.

Because Sidwell was replaceable, as I said at the time and, even if we weren't fully aware of the situation, Sidwell's refusal to sign a new contract for most of 2 seasons should have meant that his departure did not come as a complete surprise to the club.

In other words, this was another case of our manager hoping and praying that one of his favourites would not leave and doing very little to replace him until he'd actually left....................another decision that led to our totally avoidable relegation.

Once again though you've refused to see what Ive said and have decided that its just anti-Bikey (despite me clearly stating its not) and have dived in

This certainly wasn't my intention. I accept that you don't see Bikey as the devil incarnate but I disagree with your views on his exclusion and the perceived risks of playing him.

As for replacing Bikey, I think its safe to say that Coppell thinks Centre half isnt the problem position you seem to think it is. Bikey at his best would make us better no doubt and its unlikely we'd be able to pick up anything like someone of his calibre within our budget. Its not that he lacks faith in Bikey as such but perhaps more that he rates the likes of Ingimarrsson,Pearce,Duberry and Cisse better than you obviously do.

I know Coppell doesn't agree with me But it wasn't my team that lost 2 home games on the trot and then failed to beat the team 10 points adrift at the bottom of the table, with the defense he selected looking anything but secure against what will be a League One strike force next season

So let me get this right. The defender whose selection poses a significant risk that justifies his exclusion for several months (not to mention much of last season) would cost too much to replace with someone of a similar calibre but our manager prefers the cheaper options in our squad who have been selected whilst out Promotion hopes have significantly diminished.......................fair enough

He wasn't dropped though was he? He got sent off and suspended and then picked up an ankle injury whilst we went through a spell where we were keeping clean sheets. Even before the reserve game last week he said himself he hasn't been 100%. Perhaps in the cup game had he acquitted himself as Pearce did then he would have been first in line after Ivar's injury. Unfortunately , he didn't, in fact he gave arguably his worst performance in the shirt. Quite possibly this was because he wasn't 100% fit but once again this only confirms to me that he wasn't ready to come back into the team at that stage.

I suspect it will Bikey's mindset this week in training that may well determine whether its the "no brainer" you're convinced it is.

Which all forms part of Coppell's highly inconsistent selection process. Bikey was suspended and he never returned because it provided a useful opportunity to replace him.

This didn't stop him playing Glen Little the other night when, as much as I like the guy, he looked like he was on stilts rather than the legs of a proffessional footballer

If Bikey doesn't play tomorrow, it will be the clearest sign yet that Steve Coppell's time here has run it's course and that we should prepare for another season at this level and a mass exodus of those players who gave us an excellant chance of a swift return to the top flight.

Amongst those we will be unable to replace will, indeed, be Andre Bikey, who has been given every incentive over the last 2 seasons to have sought alternative arrangements and had them in place months ago.

[Vision]

Your final paragraph applies to most players. Whilst we're flitting between 2 divisions then evryone's future is open to debate..

Little played because Kebe was injured and Henry on loan. If Pearce or Duberry had been injured then i suspect Bikey would have played.

The Steve Sidwell that left was not the Steve Sidwell we bought, Likewise Shorey,Kitson and many others. We cannot directly buy those players , we have to make them.

Finally the Cardiff league game perfectly encapsulates the issue surrounding Bikey. He was shocking the previous game and was given the runaround for 30 mins in this before getting himself sent off. In the Cardiff cup game there were 2 centre halves looking to push for a first team place. One actually played very well on the day, the other was Bikey. If you can't see how those 3 games would give Coppell pause for thought about bringing him back when less than 100% fit whilst the team were keeping clean sheets then there's not much point in further discussion.

[Woodcote Royal]

The dangerous space is behind the back four though, not in front of it

Once again, how did we concede our 2nd goal at Plymouth. Ask Federici how dangerous the area in front of his flat footed defence was that day.

No defender will miss a tackle then be able to get back on their feet and catch a pacy forward haring off goalwards.

Ah, so because the slow and cumbersome Ingimarsson lost his footing stronger faster defenders would have done, too.

Even if Bikey had gone to ground, he is still quicker than the ageing Phillps by a distance.

the solution is that your centre backs play as a pair so whilst one tackles the other covers. Of course having pace is an asset, but centre back is probably the outfield position where it is lowest on the list of requirements[/b]

Sorry but this is just nonsense.

Defences without pace are at a significant disadvantage to those that have it, and the higher level you go in the game the bigger the handicap becomes.

[Sun Tzu]

The dangerous space is behind the back four though, not in front of it

Once again, how did we concede our 2nd goal at Plymouth. Ask Federici how dangerous the area in front of his flat footed defence was that day.

Very dangerous, the out of position Duberry and the non tackling midfield led to them scoring a cracker from 25 yards. Nothing to do with pace amongst the centre backs though

No defender will miss a tackle then be able to get back on their feet and catch a pacy forward haring off goalwards.

Ah, so because the slow and cumbersome Ingimarsson lost his footing stronger faster defenders would have done, too.

Even if Bikey had gone to ground, he is still quicker than the ageing Phillps by a distance. [/quote]

It would be exceptional for any defender to miss a tackle then be able to turn and chase down a forward as he heads for goal. I certainly wouldn't base my selection on the ability to do it.

the solution is that your centre backs play as a pair so whilst one tackles the other covers. Of course having pace is an asset, but centre back is probably the outfield position where it is lowest on the list of requirements[/b]

Sorry but this is just nonsense.

Defences without pace are at a significant disadvantage to those that have it, and the higher level you go in the game the bigger the handicap becomes.[/quote]

Of course having pace is an asset (as I said). But it is not the basis on which you chose your centre backs. Your full backs are there to provide cover and the central defenders play as a pair. I can't understand your obsession with this one attribute. I can;t think of a single example of a centre back who has been selected on the basis that he is a fast runner. Wingers, forwards, full backs perhaps. But at centre back speed of thought is much more crucial than speed of movement (see Darius Wdowcjek....). I'm not arguing that speed is irrelevant, it's just not the key factor you are making it out to be.

So how does this affect our selection ? Well the key question is who are our best pairing in central defence. Which two players individually and collectively will provide us with a reliable partnership ? For me it is the two who will work together the best, who will be guaranteed to be in the right position and mark their players. It will be the ones who will clear their lines most effectively (which sometimes will need an agricultural hoof, sometimes a sort pass and sometimes to carry the ball). It will be the ones who are strong in the tackle and in the air. Pace to get out of mistakes is great but as I said I would look for the player who avoids those situations through intelligence above those who rely on it to cover other inadequacies. I may well opt for Bikey and Pearce - they fill most of the criteria although definitely have some drawbacks. We know Bikey wanders, and is Pearce experienced enough to keep him tethered ?

[Woodcote Royal]

Your final paragraph applies to most players. Whilst we're flitting between 2 divisions then evryone's future is open to debate..

Little played because Kebe was injured and Henry on loan. If Pearce or Duberry had been injured then i suspect Bikey would have played.

The Steve Sidwell that left was not the Steve Sidwell we bought, Likewise Shorey,Kitson and many others. We cannot directly buy those players , we have to make them.

Finally the Cardiff league game perfectly encapsulates the issue surrounding Bikey. He was shocking the previous game and was given the runaround for 30 mins in this before getting himself sent off. In the Cardiff cup game there were 2 centre halves looking to push for a first team place. One actually played very well on the day, the other was Bikey. If you can't see how those 3 games would give Coppell pause for thought about bringing him back when less than 100% fit whilst the team were keeping clean sheets then there's not much point in further discussion.

So how did we manage afford to replace Shorey for 600K? Because he wasn't as good as the doting East Stand thought he was and, guess what? Neither was Sidwell.

I'll grant you he was a valuable member of our team who would have cost a lot more than Armstrong but no more, for instance, than Fae.

I still can't see why Coppell was reluctant to turn to Bikey after we let in 7 at Portsmouth having had the likes of Andy Johnson in his pocket earlier in the season. If that wasn't the worst performance by our defence in the last 2 seasons, I don't what was and, guess what? Find me some pace in the back four that played that day

We could have afforded to replace Bikey had our manager wished to but unless he gets his head out of his backside over the next nine games, Schards prophecy of mid table mediocrity will become the norm for the foreseeable future with Doobs and Pearce huffing and puffing against the strike forces of next season's promotion contenders.

[Woodcote Royal]

Of course having pace is an asset (as I said). But it is not the basis on which you chose your centre backs. Your full backs are there to provide cover and the central defenders play as a pair. I can't understand your obsession with this one attribute. I can;t think of a single example of a centre back who has been selected on the basis that he is a fast runner. Wingers, forwards, full backs perhaps. But at centre back speed of thought is much more crucial than speed of movement (see Darius Wdowcjek....). I'm not arguing that speed is irrelevant, it's just not the key factor you are making it out to be.

So how does this affect our selection ? Well the key question is who are our best pairing in central defence. Which two players individually and collectively will provide us with a reliable partnership ? For me it is the two who will work together the best, who will be guaranteed to be in the right position and mark their players. It will be the ones who will clear their lines most effectively (which sometimes will need an agricultural hoof, sometimes a sort pass and sometimes to carry the ball). It will be the ones who are strong in the tackle and in the air. Pace to get out of mistakes is great but as I said I would look for the player who avoids those situations through intelligence above those who rely on it to cover other inadequacies. I may well opt for Bikey and Pearce - they fill most of the criteria although definitely have some drawbacks. We know Bikey wanders, and is Pearce experienced enough to keep him tethered ?

All top defences have pace in them somewhere.................it's a vital ingredient that can't be ignored when selecting a pairing, as you describe, because it's also vital to how the whole team performs as a unit, especially when so much of your attacking play depends on over lapping full backs.

Sonko was vital to Murty steaming forward and bailed him out countless times by getting back to tackle a speedy winger..................neither Doobs or Pearce can do this.

We are now not just lightweight in the centre but slow at the back, hence the number of times we have been exposed though the centre recently.

On Tuesday night this problem was compounded even further with Rosenior having to play behind the largely immobile Glen Little and then fans wonder why Rosy had such a poor game

I agree totally that it's all about partnerships but one that must contain some pace.

[brendywendy]

changes promised for tommorrow

hopefully bikey will be one, dont care who for
would like hunt to be another out too

[Wizard]

Bikey played in the reserve match against Cork this week (didn't notice if anyone else has noticed). Appears in one of the pictures. So would presume he won't play tomorrow.

[AlexY25]

Bikey played in the reserve match against Cork this week (didn't notice if anyone else has noticed). Appears in one of the pictures. So would presume he won't play tomorrow.

I really hope he does play. Coppell keeps moaning about the goals our defence give away, Bikey seems like an obvious option. Unless Ingimarssons gonna hop around playing.

[PEARCEY]

Bikey played in the reserve match against Cork this week (didn't notice if anyone else has noticed). Appears in one of the pictures. So would presume he won't play tomorrow.

I didn't notice this. Sounds like the bench for him again...difficult to understand Coppell's logic

[Chuckle Brother]

Many (including me) were answering the critics of the Pearce-Doobs partnership by saying, "Look at the goals-against column"

Well now the GA column is looking VERY rough indeed 2-1-1-2-2,

08 conceded in the last 5 games (1.6 per game)
26 conceded in the previous 31 games (0.84 per game)


so virtually twice as leaky

Interesting that Harper didn't start in 4 of those 5 games.

Apologies as can't be bothered to read the subsequent 4 pages after your post.

But what point are you trying to make about Harper ? (apart from the stat obviously ?)

Because if it's the one I think I'm not sure I agree with it.