Once again a tough game. Good luck at the weekend boys and I hope once again to have a nice surprise when I check the scores on Sunday morning.

watched Wycombe on television the other night:they look a big strong team but have weaknesses especially at full back on either side so maybe Daley and Osborne can attack with force.

We will need some protection just in front of our back four as they have a couple of players who can create for their big forwards.

Holt looks to be their playmaker so maybe we need to nullify him.

OK they have a mean defence but the class of Thorne may just unsettle themm: they are a large defensive unit so we have to play with speed and on the deck so I think Conlan will revert to substitute duty to be brought on later in the game if we need him offensively and, dare I say it, defensively where some of his headed clearances have been good.

Looking forward to a Waynus report in full when I wake up in my RV parked on a Pacific Ocean Beach front overnight!

and hopefully BILL TURNBULL on Breakfast on BBC will be squirming at their first loss!!

The most positive interview Thorney has given. Remember last years "i'm not sure i should be taking penalties, i've only just signed". We go to Wycombe in attack mode not the silly 4-5-1 try and get a point. Tyker - where do you think the protection in front of the back four should come from? Problem for me is Law and McLaren are both attack minded. Tom Clarke could come into midfield and Law go right side but is that changing a winning side for the sake of it? Plus Law is much more effective in the centre.

New Conlon Song

There's only 1 Barry Conlon,
1 Barry Conlon,
He used to be ****,
But now he's alright,
Walking in a city wonderland

"Wycombes' back four have conceded 6 times."
How I would like to see the same statistic from City's defence. To repeat my earlier observations: We have McCall,Jacobs and Wetherall. Three very experienced defenders, whose coaching should be creating the best defence for City in Division 2.

"'Thorney' is expecting a bit more attention from their back 4."
When defences gave George Best more attention than normal: He would act as decoy,and give their defence the run around. Perhaps as a decoy?,'Thorney' could open up their defence, to allow others to score?. So 'Drop Off' to the wings/flanks and 'D' area. Pick up loose rebounds, and shoot on sight at the target. I don't care if he hits the corner flag, but keep continuously shooting at that target,and NOT at the Keeper!!.

"Thorneys back is sore from sliding tackles." (Don't do sliding tackles!!).
Seriously, is there anything medically, that could be achieved now, to correct this back problem?
Perhaps the forthcoming FA Cup match, or matches?, could be used to treat 'Thorneys' back problem?.
He will be needed for those important run in matches, in March and April.
Remember-" THE BIGGER THEY COME-THE HARDER THEY FALL". Let's hope the 'BRADFORD ARMY' turn up in force on Saturday, to encourage the team to win.

If this lad is the hottest shot in Div 4 there is not much chance of getting shot in Bradford so might still vist VP on Friday after going to the bank.

tyker wrote:
watched Wycombe on television the other night:they look a big strong team but have weaknesses especially at full back on either side so maybe Daley and Osborne can attack with force. We will need some protection just in front of our back four as they have a couple of players who can create for their big forwards. Holt looks to be their playmaker so maybe we need to nullify him. OK they have a mean defence but the class of Thorne may just unsettle themm: they are a large defensive unit so we have to play with speed and on the deck so I think Conlan will revert to substitute duty to be brought on later in the game if we need him offensively and, dare I say it, defensively where some of his headed clearances have been good. Looking forward to a Waynus report in full when I wake up in my RV parked on a Pacific Ocean Beach front overnight! and hopefully BILL TURNBULL on Breakfast on BBC will be squirming at their first loss!!

Can tell you are going away Tyker. Are you trying to get all your words into one post with not being around for a while. (Too long-winded posts, I believe your criticism was). For the record your post was 177 words long!

Waynus wrote:

tyker wrote: watched Wycombe on television the other night:they look a big strong team but have weaknesses especially at full back on either side so maybe Daley and Osborne can attack with force. We will need some protection just in front of our back four as they have a couple of players who can create for their big forwards. Holt looks to be their playmaker so maybe we need to nullify him. OK they have a mean defence but the class of Thorne may just unsettle themm: they are a large defensive unit so we have to play with speed and on the deck so I think Conlan will revert to substitute duty to be brought on later in the game if we need him offensively and, dare I say it, defensively where some of his headed clearances have been good. Looking forward to a Waynus report in full when I wake up in my RV parked on a Pacific Ocean Beach front overnight! and hopefully BILL TURNBULL on Breakfast on BBC will be squirming at their first loss!!

Can tell you are going away Tyker. Are you trying to get all your words into one post with not being around for a while. (Too long-winded posts, I believe your criticism was). For the record your post was 177 words long!

cant you find something else to do?

baildon bob wrote:
The most positive interview Thorney has given. Remember last years "i'm not sure i should be taking penalties, i've only just signed". We go to Wycombe in attack mode not the silly 4-5-1 try and get a point. Tyker - where do you think the protection in front of the back four should come from? Problem for me is Law and McLaren are both attack minded. Tom Clarke could come into midfield and Law go right side but is that changing a winning side for the sake of it? Plus Law is much more effective in the centre.

Tyker said we need some protection in front of our back four, but didn't say how this would be done. Is he proposing sneaking 12 players onto the pitch?

I agree with you that T Clarke could start in midfield. From all accounts, he was lined up for that position on Saturday until Huddersfield pulled the plug. Will that mean Ossie dropping back to the bench to accomodate law on the right. I hope not because, as you say, Law plays his best football in the middle. Perhaps McCall will rest McLaren, who he said was playing with an injury.

If Wycombe are dangerous from set-pieces and good at the back with their 'big strong team', shouldn't City start with Conlon (AGAIN, NOTICE THE CORRECT SPELLING TYKER!) even if just for defensive duties??

Some very interesting views being aired. For the record, I think Stuart will start with the following team:

Evans - O'Brien, Lee, M.Clarke, Moncur - Daley, T.Clarke, McLaren, Law - Thorne, Conlon.

In fact, he could throw Heckingbottom back into the team to give us slightly more height. He mentioned something about this just before the MK Dons game.

What is leftwanting talking about? His post is neither witty nor funny. Give it up fella, you are just getting boring now.

I am hoping to wake up on Sunday morning to some good news. Be a very good result if we come away with two points. The missus is a Wycombe supporter so would nice be on top for a change.

Like to hear Thorney bag one.

Guys

What do you think to City playing a sweeper? I think this would help shore up or defensive problems and pose something different for opponents to try and deal with - It also in theory give us a little more room to build from the back with and encourage us to pass. What does everyone think? Possible candidates for the role would be Clarke or even Mclaren? - Just a suggestion anyway, please don't crucify me for thinking out of the box

skippy. waynus will not like it as it is an idea he did not suggest himself.

The missus is .............. so would nice be on top for a change.

not sure what that means especially on a Sunday morning!!

tyker wrote:
skippy. waynus will not like it as it is an idea he did not suggest himself. The missus is .............. so would nice be on top for a change. not sure what that means especially on a Sunday morning!!

be carefull you will be removed from site and i repeat,worth a try we cant be any worse.

it would appear that for obvious reasons thorne will be double marked, so being unselfish i suggest stu.tells him to keep floating out to the wings leaving the in-form daley supported by boulding to counter attack from the opposite side and take it in turns to forage down the middle. that in theory is plan A. plan B.is to hammer the ball all over the place and pretend we are at home. sorry also to woodface who must have been on the swan beer in northbridge because we don't get two points anymore. two pints yes!

Bradford have scored 29 goals this season and 13 of them have been away from home. Okay where coming up agaisnt a strong defence but that shouldn't mean we changed systems. On the flip side Wycombe are not good scorers having only got 15 this season. Every team but one equals or betters that record in this league. We should just go at them and expect the back four to do what they did against MK Dons especially agaisnt a weaker attack.

Woodface wrote:
I am hoping to wake up on Sunday morning to some good news. Be a very good result if we come away with two points. The missus is a Wycombe supporter so would nice be on top for a change. Like to hear Thorney bag one.

Not only was I sniggering like a schoolboy that you want to be 'on top for a change', but couldn't help wonder how we get two points?

How long have you been down in Aus as we increased the points from 2 to 3 back in 1981? LOL

tyker wrote:
skippy. waynus will not like it as it is an idea he did not suggest himself. The missus is .............. so would nice be on top for a change. not sure what that means especially on a Sunday morning!!

Haven't you got some packing to do?

Two quick points.
1) When have I EVER dismissed someone else's idea just for raising it before me?

2) What did it have to do with Skippy? (i.e. skippy. waynus will not like it as it is an idea he did not suggest himself". It was posted by Gitygentleman.

CityGentleman wrote:
Guys What do you think to City playing a sweeper? I think this would help shore up or defensive problems and pose something different for opponents to try and deal with - It also in theory give us a little more room to build from the back with and encourage us to pass. What does everyone think? Possible candidates for the role would be Clarke or even Mclaren? - Just a suggestion anyway, please don't crucify me for thinking out of the box

A good comment and SHOULD open up some proper debate instead of people trying to score points over each other.

Your suggestion would certainly make us tighter at the back. However, would it not invite pressure by having less players in midfield/up front?

If the sweeper was an option, we wouldn't really be able to play with wingers. The full-backs would have to become wing-backs. Would YOU play Daley up front instead of Boulding or keep the wingers and play just one up front. We need strength in the middle of the park regardless of formation.

Who would YOU play (and where) using this formation?

I note that M4CC4 71, Wibsey is suggesting Tom Clarke in midfield! I guess in a defensive role. However this season City have been at their best when penetrating with wide players. I guess I would give Osbourne a start as we need to score. Perhaps iof we are ahead you could then bring on Tom Clarke. I would start with Boulding and probably be prepared to bring on Conlon the destroyer after about 70 mins. Any views?

soulman wrote:
I note that M4CC4 71, Wibsey is suggesting Tom Clarke in midfield! I guess in a defensive role. However this season City have been at their best when penetrating with wide players. I guess I would give Osbourne a start as we need to score. Perhaps iof we are ahead you could then bring on Tom Clarke. I would start with Boulding and probably be prepared to bring on Conlon the destroyer after about 70 mins. Any views?

I understand what you are saying, but as Tyker has already said, Wycombe are a big strong side. We need height in the side, especially when defending set pieces. As such, I am sure Stuart will start with Conlon up front.

I don't know where I stand on the T.Clarke debate. Personally, I prefer him in defence to Matt and would like to see him back there. However, M.Clarke played well on Saturday and Stuart may be reluctant to drop him again.

At the beginning of last week, the T&A reported that McCall was considering playing Tom in central midfield due to Furman's injury. As Huddersfield wouldn't let him play, Stuart played Law there instead.

We need to keep pace on the wings, but add height to the centre of midfield and up front for this game.

Will he revert back to 'his' original thoughts and play T.Clarke in midfield? Only time will tell.

Never mind playing Clarke in MIDFIELD he would be much better playing in HUDDERSFIELD reserves - more prospects of getting on.

skippy wrote:

Waynus wrote:

tyker wrote: watched Wycombe on television the other night:they look a big strong team but have weaknesses especially at full back on either side so maybe Daley and Osborne can attack with force. We will need some protection just in front of our back four as they have a couple of players who can create for their big forwards. Holt looks to be their playmaker so maybe we need to nullify him. OK they have a mean defence but the class of Thorne may just unsettle themm: they are a large defensive unit so we have to play with speed and on the deck so I think Conlan will revert to substitute duty to be brought on later in the game if we need him offensively and, dare I say it, defensively where some of his headed clearances have been good. Looking forward to a Waynus report in full when I wake up in my RV parked on a Pacific Ocean Beach front overnight! and hopefully BILL TURNBULL on Breakfast on BBC will be squirming at their first loss!!

Can tell you are going away Tyker. Are you trying to get all your words into one post with not being around for a while. (Too long-winded posts, I believe your criticism was). For the record your post was 177 words long!

cant you find something else to do?

What like actually counting to 177? My god Skip, can't you find something else to do?

oops Soz Skip .... thought it was you who'd been learning how to count.... I take it back ;-)

The interesting thing for me in the above posts is that we genuinely have selection difficulties. We seem to have a well balanced squad with a handful of versatile players who can play in more than one position. I think this is why we stand such a good chance of promotion. Just a shame I haven't seen a game in more than a month!

Another positive is the fact that our loan players are here for a while. TJ may well sign, Nicky Law has to be thinking about it too as he's clearly not in the running at Sheff Utd and even Tom Clarke must be preferring city to the ridiculous goings on at hudds.

On that note, we really all should be delighted with the state city are in. A bit of consistency always pays in football and we have good chairmen, good manager, assistant and coach. Between them they have put together a good squad which we should be delighted about.

Hudds however have no manager and are throwing names around on a daily basis, none of whow are ever going to take the role because they know that they'll be sacked before they've had a chance to have a proper impact. Plus, some of their key players are loanees and will be returning to their own clubs.

It also makes me laugh that every name ever associated with the job has some connection with Bradford!

City have built some excellent foundations over the last two or three years..... now a third of the season in, 1 point from the top and playing nothing like the potential they've got. The futures Orange..... not blue & white :-)

Reckless wrote:
City have built some excellent foundations over the last two or three years..... now a third of the season in, 1 point from the top and playing nothing like the potential they've got. The futures Orange..... not blue & white :-)

Another great post Reckless. I couldn't have said it better myself....although I would have used three times more words. LOL

More like 33.

Now now boys, stop this bickering.... what is the common theme of our existence on this little forum thingy?

We are (well most of us) all fans of our beloved team, through thick & thin, like a marriage (allegedly)... although the present Mrs Reckless might not agree haha.

So it's time to put our differences aside and concentrate on cheering on City. Up The Bantams.

DonHutchinsAfro wrote:
Bet she would, if I asked her she'd say 'he's thick, and I'm thin'. Good point though, let's all love each other, unless they have a blue and white stripe running through em. Then pick up a Beeston fan and knock the feckers out.

AGREED :-)

nearly bed time here, I wanna wake up to a win, it's the best Sunday morning feeling, well almost hahah.... that'd be a win and also knowing I'm then off for 18 holes of Golf at Patawalonga Golf Course at 12 noon.

COME ON CITY.