McAtee's Shoulder

There’s always been questions about medicals at football clubs. Plenty have signed players knowing they’re injured or carry certain injuries because they want their man.

Think the wally off socceram, what’s his name? Erm…Bullard, he was a crock but Hull desperately wanted him, their head medical geezer wasn’t even at the ground for the medical…he was stood next to me having a pint, his words were ‘no point me being there, I’d say we don’t want him and shouldn’t sign him, the club think otherwise’.

Mcatee was having this operation regardless, this way means we’ve still got him when fit again and we managed to obtain some cash for him.

I suspect he could be back a little quicker. After all, he’s an extremely fit lad…

Quoted from ska face

Forgive me if I sound like I’ve been hammering the weapons grade copium, but I’m not too heartbroken over this. We all assumed it was possible, if not likely, after it was first mentioned in April, and since then we’ve managed to get a promotion and big fee for him. If he had the op back then we’d still be in the conference, but now facing a few months without him and with no money to find a replacement.

I also think it’s good that we’re being forced to move away from a system basically built around allowing McAtee to be most effective. When Maher’s fit I’d like to see us play with 3 at the back and Glennon & Efete as wingbacks. That might allow us a bit more freedom to go with 2 up top, giving Taylor someone a bit closer to work with. Whether it happens or not is a different question, maybe unlikely, but I do think we were overly reliant on a single system working well, and McAtee was central to that.

Great post.  

I'd go one further and say we're not only overly reliant on that system, we're actually defined by it.

Last season was a great example of it.  When McAtee was first injured Fox was deployed in that role, in an attempt to recreate what McAtee offered.  Against Orient, without the ability to play McAtee in that role (having to play further forward) the rest of the team didn't seem quite sure how to go about play.  To the point that McAtee ended up abandoning the No 9 role and then coming deeper and wider to get to the play, which resulted in us having the absolute sum of zero in the final third other than the occasional burst from Kiernan.  It's as much about the reliance and dependence on the Taylor/McAtee pairing as it is the individuals involved.

3 at the back makes the most sense to me.  We've a glut of excellent options at centre-back and an equally rich array of attacking full-back options. The areas, for me anyway, where we lack options is a) a central focal point, be it as a No 10 or a No 9 and b) wingers in the 4-4-2 sense.  We've got a fair few who look like they can play further up field wide in the attack but not your traditional wingers.  4-4-2, or any variation of makes little sense to me at the minute.  It heavily leans towards a 3-4-3 type with Glennon and Efete stretching teams from wide and two of JMD/Kiernan/Khan/Wearne operating really high up the pitch.

The only issue with that is that it very quickly and easily becomes 5-4-1 and/or your midfield gets over run.

On Saturday, Green operated really deep. To the point he was virtually a third centre-back.  Efete and Glennon both positioned themselves ahead of him so we're sort of playing a wingback type system anyway.  I liked the energy in the midfield so would be reluctant to change that, plus with Green dropping so deep you really need another two in there (two of Morris/Holohan/Cliton).  The problem is the gap between midfield and attack, both centrally and from wide.  I thought Kiernan was pretty effective when he went more central and both JMD and Wearne showed they can stretch play if allowed.  

intercourse knows.  I've convinced myself for and against every formation in the five minutes it took to write the above.  Who'd be a manager, eh?

Ironic though that Luton, the team  relegated to NL because their points deduction (in the year we scraped  avoiding elegation to NL because of it ) are now where they are  and in a position to buy our best player and loan us another, i can still remember us sticking 7 past them at BP! Times change i suppose, at least we are rid of the main reason there is a gap between the clubs and hopefully we will soon close that gap.

Quoted from petethemariner

Ironic though that Luton, the team  relegated to NL because their points deduction (in the year we scraped  avoiding elegation to NL because of it ) are now where they are  and in a position to buy our best player and loan us another, i can still remember us sticking 7 past them at BP! Times change i suppose, at least we are rid of the main reason there is a gap between the clubs and hopefully we will soon close that gap.

You can resent what they’ve done or you can aspire to emulate it. Luton are a traditionally unfashionable club from a much maligned town, mismanaged out of the football league by those at the wheel, but now find themselves thriving due to their modest but resilient and passionate fan base, and even more crucially progressive new owners.

Perhaps we’re not as far away from ‘Luton’ as you might think…

Quoted from Kris2

The idea of passing and failing a medical comes more from media than what is actually the case in Football. You don't really fail a medical, they are assessing the player for any risks and then giving their report to the people with the money to decide if they want to take that on. They'll have access to the medical history and assessments from doctors and will have decided on the risks going forward with the transfer. Nobody doing a medical has any say or not on if the player is signed and it's not a formal test they need to pass to be signed. They clearly got the full info on the shoulder issues and where it's going so they'll know about the plan ahead for it and have decided things are fine.

This.

People repeatedly talking of failing a medical should read the above post. I watched something recently, from a podcast type thing, where someone in a medical role clarified that players don't pass or fail a medical. As the post above explains, it's more like a risk assessment report with info provided to the people involved in recruitment, who then decide how they use that information and whether to take on the level of risk (and how it effects any finances in the deal and when they might look to sell on the player).

Edit: found links

Short version with the relevant part (but on Facebook videos) - https://fb.watch/eO0R70-4ae/

Full episode on YouTube - https://youtu.be/_dexioc0MOw

Quoted from Poojah

Perhaps we’re not as far away from ‘Luton’ as you might think…

Hmmm....Flight FR1878 is now landing at London Humberside Airport

Quoted from Knut Anders Fosters Voles

Hmmm....Flight FR1878 is now landing at London Humberside Airport

Now that would be amazing,   Ryanair FR 1878  is Memmingen to Thessaloniki


https://www.google.com/search?.....=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Quoted from Poojah

You can resent what they’ve done or you can aspire to emulate it. Luton are a traditionally unfashionable club from a much maligned town, mismanaged out of the football league by those at the wheel, but now find themselves thriving due to their modest but resilient and passionate fan base, and even more crucially progressive new owners.

Perhaps we’re not as far away from ‘Luton’ as you might think…

Feel you could be right Poojah, there are similarities between both clubs, i dont resent Luton, quite the contrary, i admire what they have achieved
and pray we can emulate it in time.

A bit ironic if we have a great season and get promotion and Luton get relegated, at least we would know who the forwards we would be playing against.

Didn't we average about a point a game without McAtee last season? And two with him in the side?