Viking Supporters Co-operative

Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: mushRTID on February 13, 2010, 05:58:09 pm

Title: Shackell
Post by: mushRTID on February 13, 2010, 05:58:09 pm
It said in the programme he was expected to be out for 4 weeks after an op 2 weeks ago.

Was his substition precaution or has a big gamble backfired? Anybody know why he went off?
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: TheRev on February 13, 2010, 05:59:46 pm
It looked like he was holding his groin from where I was sat.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: MrFrost on February 13, 2010, 06:09:52 pm
I thought it was a crazy decision to play him and wasn't surprised to see him go off. He has been touted as being three week away from recovery. Why take the risk?
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: Norfolk N Chance on February 13, 2010, 06:11:11 pm
dosent say alot for SOD belief in Hird
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: MrFrost on February 13, 2010, 06:12:13 pm
I actually thought Hird had a great game today when he came on.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: Superspy on February 13, 2010, 06:18:24 pm
SOD on radio sheffield.

shackell trained 2 days and felt confident he could last an hour, unfortunately the gamble didnt pay off and his groin tweaked.


roberts felt a click in his knee against leicester and played through with it, initially they thought it could be a cruciate(sp) issue, but they arent sure, he's having a scan on monday to tell us whether it will be long term or short.

no news on martis.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: Chrisd_123 on February 13, 2010, 06:31:53 pm
Martis just looked as if it was cramp again so hopefully he'll be fine for Tuesday.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: VikingJames on February 13, 2010, 06:33:23 pm
If Hird continues to play like he did today, we don't need to rush Shackell back.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: scuzzer on February 13, 2010, 06:35:35 pm
I agree, Hird was awesome and did a great job on that lump Adebola! He was due a good game and certainly got it today.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: Donnyboy on February 13, 2010, 06:42:50 pm
All the back six or seven we're great today, i think Dumbaya is going to be a good player he's very quick and looked confident when he came on, i thought Stock was MOM but not going argue with O'Connor either
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: danrover82 on February 13, 2010, 06:48:49 pm
Donnyboy wrote:
Quote
All the back six or seven we're great today, i think Dumbaya is going to be a good player he's very quick and looked confident when he came on, i thought Stock was MOM but not going argue with O'Connor either



I agree, I thought Dumbaya was a great little player, something for the future for sure. I thought that Stocky was poor compared to his standards in the first but excellent in the second half.

All round the team were awesome.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: big fat yorkshire pudding on February 13, 2010, 07:08:05 pm
Hird was certainly in need of a good game.  He's been really out of form, today he was brilliant and won everything.  Hopefully we'll see Sam Hird back to his usual self.  He was always going to have a blip in form hopefully he's now had it.

I thought Stock was fantastic in front of the back 4.  He's improving with games.  His passing could have been better once or twice and occasionally he was let down by the movement of those he passed to.

As for Dumbaya, isn't he quick?  He looked real good going forward and his low cross was fantastic.  He needs games and I can see why a loan is thought to be the way for him.  Defensively he looked shaky, but he needs games.  Just a shame his Bournemouth loan didn't come off but based on that 10 minutes today there shouldn't be a shortage of admirers in the loan market.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: VikingJames on February 13, 2010, 07:20:20 pm
big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:
Quote

As for Dumbaya, isn't he quick?  He looked real good going forward and his low cross was fantastic.  He needs games and I can see why a loan is thought to be the way for him.  Defensively he looked shaky, but he needs games.  Just a shame his Bournemouth loan didn't come off but based on that 10 minutes today there shouldn't be a shortage of admirers in the loan market.


Agree 100% on Dumbuya. But does anyone else think he would make a very effective winger for us? We don't really have any great pace going forward, and seeing as he isn't the best defensively, I think he could be suited to a more advanced role.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: CusworthRovers on February 14, 2010, 12:38:27 am
Mustapha may not be the best defensively is a bit harsh. I think he was caught out just the once too far forward (put that down to giddiness). That will come with games and the system required. I thought he caused them problems on the right. I thought he was a tough little cookie too. Strong in the tackle and jumped against their big uns with aplomb.

Very pleasing performance.

I also thought Hird had a good solid game and looked unusually strong against Dele and co as well as sweeping up any defensive shortcomings. Looked like he did last season and full of confidence. Long may it continue. I'm sure he's aware that he's probs No3 at best in the CH pecking order and maybe that gave him a tiny kick up the derriere.

The defence looked so good and that was aided by the midfield.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: rtid88 on February 14, 2010, 10:00:10 am
I was quite impressed with Dumbaya when we came on to be fair, looked very competent on the ball! A lot more then Martis to be fair. Did not look uncomfortable at all and looked very competitive! Well played young un'!!
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: Al4475 on February 14, 2010, 10:06:48 am
I thought Dumbaya looked like the proverbial 'chicken without a head' when he first game on, however, once Stocky started chatting to him and giving him a few directional pointers, he obviously gained in confidence and looked an exciting prospect, more like a terrier biting at ankles than a headless chicken as the game finished. A promising cameo!
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: roversdude on February 14, 2010, 10:08:16 am
got to disagree, Dumbaya certainly looks a good prospect but thought he looked out of his depth yesterday and needs games, inexperience in giving away free kick on edge of box could have cost us. looked promising going forward though.
Sam Hird was a tower yesterday.
Is it the Keepmoat pitch that gives Martis cramp ????
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: Filo on February 14, 2010, 10:19:31 am
I`ve got to admit, I feared the worse when Sam had to replace Shackell, I thought Adebola would bully Sam, but fair play to Sam he had an imense game and can take Adebola out of his pocket now
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: roversdude on February 14, 2010, 10:25:01 am
cant believe how easy it looked for Hird against that big lump - maybe it helped with Stocky softening him up in first half. For a big lad he went down easy
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: Harrogate Rover on February 14, 2010, 07:12:42 pm
Agree with most of what people say about Sam and Mustapha. I also thought Shelton looked better than last week, and Chambers for me had his best ever game as a left back.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: ferribyrover on February 14, 2010, 07:37:44 pm
Forest may be chasing auto promotion, may be twice Euro Cup Winners, but could not breach an effective Rovers defence.
Enjoy!
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: wing commander on February 15, 2010, 09:45:02 am
I was pretty flabergasted by Shackell starting,i know Sams not been in the best of form but he really must worry for his future when SOD would rather play a player who might give us a hour when clearly struggling,especially when Martis isnt match fit either.
    It was a ridiculous descision,of course Shacks would say hes fit but its up to the physio to say that he needs another 2 weeks.He could easily have put himself out for a lot longer..
    As for Mussy,i though he did well,maybe got caught out of position a bit but thats understandable given his experience.Shame the Bournmouth loan fell through as he would benefit from a few games..
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: big fat yorkshire pudding on February 15, 2010, 09:56:36 am
Sam has been badly out of form though so in that respect has only himself to blame.
Title: Re:Shackell
Post by: Drover on February 15, 2010, 12:24:02 pm
I don't think he has been that much out of form,I think it has more to do with desperately lacking the players to deal with height issues and set piece defending at the back this season.With Millsy gone and Locky injured when shackell has gone off we have struggled to cope with set pieces and when teams have been good and played alot of crosses corners free-kicks etc it has been easy to punish us like the Middlesborough game.I admit I was fearing the worse when Shackell and then Martis went off against Florist but they coped this time.I think thats why SOD gambled with shackell because he was worried about the aerial attacks from them but they did not really get into their stride thanks to our lads giving a big effort.Also with the situation being like it has recently with injured defenders I think SOD would rather switch JOC to CB and have Sam on the bench because Chambo and Robbo have been in such good form this season that would mean JOC being on the bench to keep sam in the side and JOC has just got back into his stride after his injury himself.This gives an impression that SOD is not happy with Sam's form when He actually has no problem at all and knowing SOD he will have made his decisions and opinions clear to Sam so he knows the situation has it actually is.