Ryan Spencer.

[DICK]

When will he be given a chance. Last night 2, 3 then 4-0 down and a change was needed, if only to try somthing different. Last Saturday 3-0 up and only given 5 minutes. How will he ever make an impact with such limited opportunities. I understand he is even played out of position in the Reserve matches. Ryan is a skillful experienced former Conference regular, surely he can be accomadated in the side. At present we have little pace and invention in the team especially in midfield, only Carbone and Haddow have good pace. It was clearly evident last night how slow our midfield players are, they were harried and chased down by the Staines players. We had the ball in good positions but only moved across the pitch, once a forward ball was played, it was given away. In some cases we seemed to be affraid to have a shot from range, the goals total from the midfield is also poor, in fact I believe Wilkinson has only scored twice in 5 seasons. Give Ryan a chance surely we cannot continue to improve with both Metcalf and Wilkinson in the same team, we need more variation.

[Martin]

Pace? Conference regular? Shooting? Are we talking about the same bloke?

 

Spence has his assets but I am not sure that pace and shooting are all that high up. Spencer does have good vision and is a good link between midfield and attack. Maybe he should have had longer on Saturday but there really was little point in bringing him on yesterday. Presumably Moller went off injured, Hodgey definately was (please get fit soon) and Haddow was being kicked up in the air every five minutes. He could not have turned the course of that game in the second half.

[Radders]

Sorry Martin, predictable response coming, but what you say there is total crap. Substitutes are available, as I think I said last week, to CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE GAME not just to be used for injuries. Even if Moller was injured why not bring on an attacking option when the team were 3-0 or whatever down? Why just give up? Surely that's what you're suggesting Martin when you say there was no point bringing him on yesterday. There was little point bringing him on for 5 minutes on Saturday as the game was wrapped up. The midfield last night was crap, all three players had their worst game of the season. Why not bring Spencer on after an hour when we're 2-0 down and still in with a chance? In the Hampton game the substitutions that were made were left too late and were made after they scored. If we had made a change and taken off the ineffectual Seedel straight after we made it 1-1 we might have taken the initiative and won that game. For me only 1 of Metcalfe and Wilkinson should be starting every game because our whole attitude at the moment is too defensive. The reason we scored so many last year, and were successful, was because we played an attacking formation with only the one defensive midfielder (Wilkinson) because he was the only one we had. Now we have Metcalfe it seems Denton feels he has to play both and so we are becoming too defensive minded.

 

END OF RANT!!!!!

 

We're going to win on Saturday, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

[evadne]

We're missing Veli, he provides the unusual, which you don't get from the current midfield (with the occasional exception of Chopper). Any news on his and Ian Hodges' injuries?

[Martin]

Presumably Radders it is only the first and last sentance of my original post that you think is "total crap." I just feel after an hour of yesterday's game it was bloody obvious we were going to lose. No-one could have turned that game in our favour. We pushed on and were hit on the break twice. Should we have gone more attacking still and lost seven or eight? To be honest if I was in charge with half hour to go and two nil down I would have switched to a 3-2-5 formation and thwacked the ball long. That probably would not have done us any good either. At the end of the day we lost and we should move on.

 

 

[Radders]

Martin, why was it obvious we were going to lose after an hour? After their second there was a ten minute period where we really started to get back in the game and attack them as they sat back. It was only when they broke away for the third that the game was up. At 2-0 with half an hour to go a game is never lost. With fresh legs and different ideas any game in that situation could still be salvaged.

 

I'd like to point out that even if Spencer hadn't been on the bench yesterday I would say exactly the same thing if it was Harris or Hakki or any other attacking player sat there when we needed new ideas.

[Matt]

I don't want to get into a heated debate here, as I can see both sides of the story regarding Spencer and yesterday's game. But I'd have to agree with Radders on the point about subs being there to change the course of the game. At 2-0 and 3-0 down, Eddie made no attempt to bring more attacking options on (i.e Steer and Spencer). Whether you like Ryan Spencer or not (I'm undecided, frankly), at 3-0 down you simply have to push forward. Stranger things have happened than scoring 3 or 4 goals in 15 or so minutes. Yes we could have gone on to lose 5-0 or 6-0 if we'd pushed forward more, considering how well Staines played, but if you don't give it a try, you never know. One goal could have given the team a huge confidence boost. Better to try for a point than give up on game completely, surely, unless Eddie was trying to protect our +1 goal difference ?! A manager, and his players, should never, ever, give up on what seems a lost cause, even if it is 3-0.

[PJ-STFC]

Is it possible that Eddie was also considering the injury situation? From the accounts given it was an unusually physical match. If we had pushed hard in attack with some fresh players, is it not possible they would have come under increased 'attention' too, running a serious risk of the team being under-strength through injuries for the next few games? I am not sure I like a manager to play like that, but I could quite understand if he did: conserving what he had without risking all to chase a lost cause.

 

The team has bounced back from defeats like this in the past, so let's hope Eddie's 'encouragement' will do the trick again for Saturday.

 

PJ <img src="/images/graemlins/chat.gif" alt="" />

 

[Barry Scott]

what worries me is the distinct lack of pace we have up front since Boot left, but maybe that's just me

[Dominic]

Quote:

PJ-STFC said:
From the accounts given it was an unusually physical match.

Unusually physical ,have you not see Staines play before?! <img src="/images/graemlins/boxing.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Spence is a funny one - just thinking at Braintee the other day when he was on the bench when was the last time he started a game.

 

In fairness to Ryan I feel a little sorry for him. I'd say he deserves a run in the side to show what he can do. Last season he was injured and when he did play early part of the season he was played right-wing back. Now we all know Spence can't tackle, so he effectively has been playing out of position.

 

Spencer is a right midfielder or central midfielder, but playing 4-4-2 he's not going to be able to play right-midfield and is he going to get a central midfield role in the position he would like to - in Veli's or chopper's position just behind the front 2. He played pretty well in his first season with us.

 

Personally i'd go back to 4-4-2, and play Spence right wing.

[GarySTFC]

Personally, I don't rate him over and above what we have in the first XI at present. Nice a guy as he is off the pitch, I just don't think he's strong enough to play in the middle, or fast enough to play on the wing. The ideal role for him as Chris says in the one which Hakki and Harris occupy, but when all are on equal form, I'd have him third choice.

 

Having said that, he looked quite bright when he came on against Braintree and make some intelligent runs from the 'hole' position. It would be interesting to know what Ryan thinks is his best position in the side though and given the choice where he would like to play.

 

In many respects, I don't think Radders enfatuation with the player is doing him much good as it causes people to scrutinise the players every move and with that, people will pick up faults. The same could be said of every player mind, not just Spence.

 

At present, he's a good attacking option to have on the bench should we need him. He's proven ability at this level and above can only do us in good stead, but if Eddie decides he's got stronger options in that position and leaves out 'favourite players', I'd back the manager all the way. He's the one who got us into this division, so he's obviously doing something right with team selection, subs and training.

 

Given the way some teams have played against us this season (Staines, Hampton and to a lesser extent Braintree) I think injuries will mount up and all the players in the squad will get their chance at some point. It's up to them to take that chance and prove they want to stay in the first team.

[Guest]

When would that option be Gary? when we are 2 nil down against Stains going nowhere, and Chopper is having his worst game of the season.

[Martin]

Quote:

Radders said:
Martin, why was it obvious we were going to lose after an hour?

I am not sure what the score was after an hour but it was at least two possibly three nil at that point. Given that this was always a game I felt we would struggle in and the fact that basically I had a feeling for the whole day we were going to get well and truly done and then there we are two nil down with half an hour to go and looking incredibly shakey when faced with pacey counter attacks I would say it was fairly obvious we were going to lose.

Given the injury situation I maintain that there was little point in bringing Spencer on. Why bring him on anyway? Save him for the glory of the Capital League and possibly on Saturday when it may be necessary to freshen the midfield.

Clearly this is something we are not going to agree on. I do agree that generally speaking more tactical and attacking substitutions should be made but from my point of view I don't think that after an hour on Tuesday was the right time to use the vision of Spencer.

[St Leonard]

Quote:

Gary-STFC said:
At present, he's a good attacking option to have on the bench.

But whats the point in that if the lad doesn't get a chance? Also like Dick said, he played nearly a full season in the Conference the year before he joined Slough, so the lad must have something but the manager isn't getting it out of him or isn't giving him the chance.

[Guest]

Yes Gary 2 nil down going nowhere.

[Radders]

'In many respects, I don't think Radders enfatuation with the player is doing him much good as it causes people to scrutinise the players every move and with that, people will pick up faults. The same could be said of every player mind, not just Spence.'

 

Gary, I DON'T have an enfatuation with Spencer as you so eloquently put it. That has been brandished upon me by the rest of you. Yes I believe he is a good player and easily good enough to make our first team but, as I believe I stated many times early season in the friendlies, I agreed with many others that I wouldn't start with him in a 3-5-2 as I would play Harris, Hakki and Metcalfe in centre midfield, due to the fact I wasn't sure if he would fit well into that kind of formation. However, we started the season with only the one attacking player which isn't my preference and now Hakki is injured I still believe our starting midfield 3 should be 2 attacking and 1 defending so I would be playing Spencer with Harris and Metcalfe. As I think this thread is showing there are a number of other people who share the belief that he should be given a chance, and it is my personal belief that players like Spencer and Steer would be better off leaving for clubs where they will get a game rather than sit around and more often than not be unused substitutes. And by the way my belief is that Spencer and Steer would both be definate starters in probably 90% of other teams at this level.

 

 

[Ted]

If Hakki isn't playing we certainly need Spencers creativity.

 

Last season we slumped when Spencer got injured, but picked up again when Hakki arrived.There should always be at least one of them playing in midield to play a creative role.

[BFR]

Reading some comments in the paper this morning, Spencer is said to have been eased back to first team activity following a lay off.

[Barry Scott]

well he did miss a good portion of last season with a knee injury