I seem to recall a Wintle debate a few seasons ago. Today he was an integral part of the team; his work rate, his regaining of possession and delivery out wide to Tanner especially first half plus the essential experience he brought meant his influence on the game today was massive. Joel Colwill was a revelation. He deserves his place in the team NQAT. Turnbull allegedly was sanctioned today for breaching club rules. Quite simply IMO he was not missed.
My player ratings today Turner 8 Kpacio 8 Fish 5 Lawlor 5 Bagan 6 Wintle 8 J Colwill 7 R Colwill 9 Ashford 6 Tanner 7 Salech 6.
I respect your opinion Nin, but for me Wintle is a "Steady Eddie" and hasn't changed. Nothing wrong with that if you need someone to steady the ship and that was probably the case yesterday with youngsters behind him and in front as well. The oldest man on the pitch did his job but he's hardly dynamic. The fact he didn't get the armband nor was BBM's second choice means he's probably a good option off the bench to close a game down and he's certainly VFM for that. I like the bloke and he's an essential part of the squad. Given the other young starters yesterday, you could probably liken his inclusion to the "Ralls" approach over recent years. He was probably only on there because of the Chambers/Turnbull/Robertson problems - that's only my opinion of course.
Ditto yours’ OS To corroborate my views Glen thought so as well It’s going to be interesting to see how BBM picks his midfield combo’s as the season progresses.
It's quite amazing when you quote Glen when he agrees with you, but rubbish his opinions other times..........
Two advantages over Ralls, he's younger and fitter. Other than Chambers who filled the role a few times last season, he's the only senior player we have in the defensive midfield role. He will have ups and downs if form but the we have 2 or 3 good youngsters to fill the gap.
Just watched the extended highlights. Pressure on us largely came from our mistakes. We pressed hard and often won the ball back high up the pitch. Passing was slick with players working hard off the ball. Wingers staying wide with underlapping fullbacks created space out wide. We created a lot of opportunities. It looks as if goals will come. A good start. Cut out the errors at the back. Polish up on finishing. An entertaining watch.
City should have thought deeper about why they didn’t bring him back last January especially as Siopis left. His influence on the youngsters this season IMO cannot be underestimated. Turnbull doesn’t come into the equation for a first team place unless there’s an injury crisis; unsure why he was bought in the first place for a reported £2m.
I think Wintle was on a season long loan to Millwall which made a January return to cover for Siopis difficult unless Millwall agreed to it. Having said that, he didn't get much game time at Millwall and I think at lot of his appearnces were as a sub.
.......and another thing........ Didn't bite at the "wonderful Wintle diagonal passes" to Tanner because I couldn't remember who'd made them at the time. Just watched the full 90 back and it was Fish from the left CB spot that made by far the best of them. The two Colwills also played him with some lovely diagonals from more of a midfield position. Not knocking Wintle at all. He was strong and had a very influential game given the youngsters around him, but get it into perspective. That's what he was put in there for and it came off - good team selection and player management by BBM in the absence of Chambers.
So if Chambers was available he’d have played instead or as well as Wintle? I presume you meant the latter.
It's all conjecture, but if he was available, I don't think Chambers would have done a better job than Wintle on the day. The question about would he have played Chambers instead or as well as is a good one. Chambers would certainly have started even if only because you'd obviusly want your newly appointed captain to take the field on the opening day - the point is where would he have played him? If both Chambers and Wintle ran out, then one of the youngsters would have been on the bench. It could have been Lawlor if he wanted Chambers as a CB, but I suspect he'd have wanted him just in front of them in Wintle's slot. The question would then be should he play both and go more defensive minded for the first game at home and leave out Joel Colwill. I think BBM wanted to put a stamp on that opening home game and it would have been an "instead" rather than "as well as".
He's definitely driven by the attacking side of football. That isn't to say he doesn't see defence as important. Pre-season he regularly talked about transition. And getting at their back line as quickly as possible. Not letting them have time to set their back line. What was interesting about what I saw on Saturday was the variety of passes to get us forward. Triangles to play through the lines, long diagonals to the wide players with the odd long ball up the middle. It'll keep defences guessing. It was also good to see everyone was comfortable with the ball. One touch, two touch passes. Its not going to be plain sailing, far from it. An encouraging start to B B-M's tenure though. More of the same on Thursday please.
That may be an exaggeration by someone Bluey - Vale Park only holds 15K and we're only entitled to 10% for league games. Unless of course, the club has asked and been given more because of the demand.
Fans travel groups are quoting the 2000 and apparently another block now available. Sounds like Port Vale want the money.
