Match report: York City 0, Bristol Rovers 0 - Sky Bet League Two

Bristol Rovers’ Steve Mildenhall again defies York City

York City goalkeeper Nick Pope clutches a drive

York City's Wes Fletcher

York City's Scott Carson

York City's Lanre Oyebanjo

York City’s Lewis Montrose tops an aerial battle

Updated in Sport York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Sports reporter

YORK City have now failed to beat a team managed by former Bootham Crescent chief John Ward in 13 games but their latest attempt might just have been the unluckiest.

Ward’s Bristol Rovers team relied heavily on the heroics of goalkeeper Steve Mildenhall to ensure his old side did not secure a fourth successive win to mark their 1,500th Football League fixture at Bootham Crescent.

The former Milwall shot-stopper denied Russell Penn, Josh Carson and Keith Lowe with a hat-trick of remarkable reflex saves and the hosts were also unfortunate not to score from any of the 13 corners they forced.

Ward, now 62, was therefore relieved to leave his old stamping ground with his long unbeaten run against the Minstermen intact.

That sequence, spread over almost 20 years and encompassing two spells in charge of the Pirates as well as other stints at Bristol City and Cheltenham, now incorporates ten defeats and three draws.

However, not since Steve Bushell’s solitary away goal against Rovers in April 1994 clinched the Minstermen’s only victory in 15 fixtures against Ward sides, can the North Yorkshire club have more deserved the full reward for their efforts against their ex-boss.

The displays of front-two Wes Fletcher and Ryan Bowman could have certainly warranted a place on the scoresheet for both in a third successive game.

Rovers struggled to contend with the pair’s tenacity, enthusiasm and pace throughout, while Carson and Michael Coulson also provided good support from the flanks.

In Mildenhall, though, City were pitched against a determined last line of defence.

On nine minutes, Bowman made a smart near-post run to meet Coulson’s corner but his header landed on the top of Mildenhall’s netting.

The City striker also ran directly at the Rovers defence through the left channel after collecting Lewis Montrose’s through ball but saw his shot deflected away from goal.

From further flag-kicks, Lowe volleyed narrowly over from the edge of the box and Mildenhall dived low to his left to brilliantly keep out a fierce 12-yard strike by Penn.

The shell-shocked visitors finally found their feet just past the half-hour mark although right-back Michael Smith should have done better when he could only lift a weak shot into the hands of Nick Pope after confusion between the on-loan Charlton ’keeper and Lowe had presented him with the chance.

John-Joe O’Toole also slid in at the far post to put the ball in Pope’s net only to see his effort narrowly ruled out for offside and Matt Harrold headed against an upright in front of an inviting goal after the 21-year-old net-minder had been lured into no-man’s land following Tom Lockyer’s right-wing cross.

City recovered, though, to finish the half strongly with great work from Fletcher leading to a ten-yard chance for Carson that Mildenhall excellently clawed away to safety.

Fletcher’s speed also took him clear of the Pirates’ defence on the stroke of half-time, as he raced on to Lanre Oyebanjo’s pass through the right channel.

But the former Burnley striker snatched at his shot a little and it bounced wide of Mildenhall’s right-hand post.

City continued to threaten the most after the interval with Mildenhall collecting a low 15-yard drive from Carson at the second attempt after the ball had initially bounced off the surface and hit his chest.

But Mildenhall was back to his best to palm over Lowe’s header from a 65th-minute Coulson corner.

Fletcher then saw a deflected shot finish wide of goal when passing to either Bowman or Coulson, who were overlapping either side of him, might have been the better option.

The persistent Carson went on to have the hosts’ final two chances, shooting just over from the edge of the box on 80 minutes and trying his luck with a dipping, 25-yard effort that might have beaten Mildenhall with a little extra lift.

At the other end, Rovers’ second-half opportunities were limited to an O’Toole effort smothered just inside his own 18-yard area by Pope following a spot of unorthodox goalkeeping.

Former Minsterman Chris Beardsley also saw a header sail over the bar from Harding’s cross but he was unable to net against his old club for a third time this term and the hosts shared the spoils in their fifth goal-less draw of the season.
 

Match facts

York City 0, Bristol Rovers 0

York City

Nick Pope 6
A little nervous and may need more game time to get accustomed to his new team-mates at Bootham Crescent.

Lanre Oyebanjo 7
Combative throughout and won most of his aerial contests while keeping his forward forages to a minimum.

Keith Lowe 8
Recovered from any mistakes with his determination and keeps threatening to claim a first goal for his new club.

David McGurk 9
Completed a typically, well-timed tackle when last man in the first half and never caught out of position.

Ben Davies 7
Locked down his flank but could have done better with his crosses when in promising attacking positions.

Josh Carson 8
Grew stronger as the game went on and might not be too long before he claims another spectacular goal.

Lewis Montrose 7
Passed the ball sensibly and made himself an option when others were in possession.

Russell Penn 7
Denied superbly by Mildenhall in the first half and fought on valiantly following a first-half injury.

Michael Coulson 7
Busy and willing but the visitors' defence worked hard to stop him in his tracks and block his shots.

Ryan Bowman 8
Looked full of confidence after some smart early runs and always a danger with his head in the penalty box.

Wes Fletcher 8
STAR MAN – constantly outstripped the Rovers centre-backs for pace and deserved a goal for his efforts.

Subs: Adam Reed (for Penn, 81), Ryan Jarvis (for Bowman, 88). Subs not used: Chris Smith, John McCombe, Tom Platt, Michael Ingham, Chris Dickinson.


Bristol Rovers

Steve Mildenhall, Michael Smith, Tom Parkes, Mark McChrystal, Lee Brown, Mitch Harding (Danny Woodards, 81), Tom Locker, Ollie Clarke, John-Joe O’Toole, Elliot Richards, Matt Harrold (Chris Beardsley, 61). Subs not used: David Clarkson, Oliver Norburn, Ellis Harrison, Conor Gough, Pat Keary.

Star man: Mildenhall – his two first-half saves were among the best seen at City this season.


Referee: David Webb (County Durham).

Rating: 7/10 – generally good aside from the odd aberration.

Booked: Lockyer 22, Harrold 42.

Sent off: None.

Attendance: 3,514 (221 from Bristol).

Shots on target: City 7, Rovers 5.

Shots off target: City 7, Rovers 2.

Corners: City 13, Rovers 1.

Fouls conceded: City 11, Rovers 11.

Offsides: City 1, Rovers 2.

Comments (63)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:51pm Sat 18 Jan 14

dadster says...

Decent point and keeps unbeaten run going. Thought it was a good game which on the balance of play we probably should have won.

Surprised that Ingham was dropped but I have to say I like the look of Pope. Although he had a few nervy moments I like the way he looks to command his area which I much prefer to see from a keeper. I think its clear that NW does not have a great deal of confidence in Ingham.

Whilst we didn't win today I just feel we now look a really solid side who are at last equipped to compete effectively at L2 level. Penn has improved our midfield and thought he did ok today if unspectacular and was up against a good player in O'Toole who is a handful for any team at this level. We also had a good strong bench today which is always a good sign and my only concern is cover at full back but I assume this will be addressed soon.

Whilst we're still looking over our shoulders there is much to be positive about and I think we can cement a solid mid table position with this squad.
Decent point and keeps unbeaten run going. Thought it was a good game which on the balance of play we probably should have won. Surprised that Ingham was dropped but I have to say I like the look of Pope. Although he had a few nervy moments I like the way he looks to command his area which I much prefer to see from a keeper. I think its clear that NW does not have a great deal of confidence in Ingham. Whilst we didn't win today I just feel we now look a really solid side who are at last equipped to compete effectively at L2 level. Penn has improved our midfield and thought he did ok today if unspectacular and was up against a good player in O'Toole who is a handful for any team at this level. We also had a good strong bench today which is always a good sign and my only concern is cover at full back but I assume this will be addressed soon. Whilst we're still looking over our shoulders there is much to be positive about and I think we can cement a solid mid table position with this squad. dadster
  • Score: 20

6:14pm Sat 18 Jan 14

ian923 says...

Dominated for a lengthy period in first half but failed to score. Fell away a bit and then just a scrappy game. Both sides had chances which they did not take. A draw was probably fair and prevented Rovers from advancing towards us up the table. Bowman won almost every ball he challenged for in the air but no one benefitted from them. No City player was bad and the effort was there. Unbeaten in 2014 so I,ll settle for that and up to 13th for now though teams below have games in hand.
Dominated for a lengthy period in first half but failed to score. Fell away a bit and then just a scrappy game. Both sides had chances which they did not take. A draw was probably fair and prevented Rovers from advancing towards us up the table. Bowman won almost every ball he challenged for in the air but no one benefitted from them. No City player was bad and the effort was there. Unbeaten in 2014 so I,ll settle for that and up to 13th for now though teams below have games in hand. ian923
  • Score: 5

6:26pm Sat 18 Jan 14

SelseyBill says...

A few more draws will only put us back near the bottom. To win you MUST SCORE . From the report it looks as though their goalkeeper saved them. But why so few in the attack?

I am a long distance supporter so only get the press an d those who comments views. I really want city todo well. Do we need together Arthur Bottom back?
A few more draws will only put us back near the bottom. To win you MUST SCORE . From the report it looks as though their goalkeeper saved them. But why so few in the attack? I am a long distance supporter so only get the press an d those who comments views. I really want city todo well. Do we need together Arthur Bottom back? SelseyBill
  • Score: -33

6:58pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Smashing fellow says...

This was my first game since late last season. Wow, the ball goes up in the air a lot. The days of Murty and Stephenson and exciting football seem a long time ago.
This was my first game since late last season. Wow, the ball goes up in the air a lot. The days of Murty and Stephenson and exciting football seem a long time ago. Smashing fellow
  • Score: -19

7:36pm Sat 18 Jan 14

stevesenior says...

Moving in the right direction so well done to the board and management team as well as the players .
Moving in the right direction so well done to the board and management team as well as the players . stevesenior
  • Score: 16

7:56pm Sat 18 Jan 14

OLD - HEAD says...

A draw was probably the right result, as neither team did enough to go on and win it. Both teams had their chances to score, but the contest developed into a long ball game, and although it was end to end, it lacked quality. Felt a bit sorry for Michael Ingham, losing his place. But I was not surprised in the least when I heard that Pope had been selected. Pope did look to be a confident goalkeeper, although he flapped at a couple of crosses in the second half. One point nearer safety, so no complaints.
A draw was probably the right result, as neither team did enough to go on and win it. Both teams had their chances to score, but the contest developed into a long ball game, and although it was end to end, it lacked quality. Felt a bit sorry for Michael Ingham, losing his place. But I was not surprised in the least when I heard that Pope had been selected. Pope did look to be a confident goalkeeper, although he flapped at a couple of crosses in the second half. One point nearer safety, so no complaints. OLD - HEAD
  • Score: 13

8:03pm Sat 18 Jan 14

23rdApril1966 says...

Jus t a nearly game. Could have won, could have lost. Just felt like one of those where first goal would have won it. Their keeper made some excellent saves but then they had one ruled out for offside and hit the post with Pope well beaten as we were rocking just before half time. A game that we would have lost last season and maybe in lead up to Xmas. So all in all a fair result and onwards to Hartlepool unbeaten in 2014. Would comment on three areas of concern, poor quality felivery from 14 corners, silly free kicks conceded which could have cost us and still for mr a lack of midfield flair and runners going beyond the frontmen. Credit to Coulson and Fletcher who I felt were excellent.
Jus t a nearly game. Could have won, could have lost. Just felt like one of those where first goal would have won it. Their keeper made some excellent saves but then they had one ruled out for offside and hit the post with Pope well beaten as we were rocking just before half time. A game that we would have lost last season and maybe in lead up to Xmas. So all in all a fair result and onwards to Hartlepool unbeaten in 2014. Would comment on three areas of concern, poor quality felivery from 14 corners, silly free kicks conceded which could have cost us and still for mr a lack of midfield flair and runners going beyond the frontmen. Credit to Coulson and Fletcher who I felt were excellent. 23rdApril1966
  • Score: 5

9:01pm Sat 18 Jan 14

openallhours says...

dadster wrote:
Decent point and keeps unbeaten run going. Thought it was a good game which on the balance of play we probably should have won.

Surprised that Ingham was dropped but I have to say I like the look of Pope. Although he had a few nervy moments I like the way he looks to command his area which I much prefer to see from a keeper. I think its clear that NW does not have a great deal of confidence in Ingham.

Whilst we didn't win today I just feel we now look a really solid side who are at last equipped to compete effectively at L2 level. Penn has improved our midfield and thought he did ok today if unspectacular and was up against a good player in O'Toole who is a handful for any team at this level. We also had a good strong bench today which is always a good sign and my only concern is cover at full back but I assume this will be addressed soon.

Whilst we're still looking over our shoulders there is much to be positive about and I think we can cement a solid mid table position with this squad.
Totally agree. The ref was half decent compared to recent ones and I wonder what the 'Nigel haters' will do with themselves now that we have 3 wins and a draw in the last 4 games. We're still unbeaten in 2014 and let's hope that the same can be said after the derby game with the monkey hangers next week.
[quote][p][bold]dadster[/bold] wrote: Decent point and keeps unbeaten run going. Thought it was a good game which on the balance of play we probably should have won. Surprised that Ingham was dropped but I have to say I like the look of Pope. Although he had a few nervy moments I like the way he looks to command his area which I much prefer to see from a keeper. I think its clear that NW does not have a great deal of confidence in Ingham. Whilst we didn't win today I just feel we now look a really solid side who are at last equipped to compete effectively at L2 level. Penn has improved our midfield and thought he did ok today if unspectacular and was up against a good player in O'Toole who is a handful for any team at this level. We also had a good strong bench today which is always a good sign and my only concern is cover at full back but I assume this will be addressed soon. Whilst we're still looking over our shoulders there is much to be positive about and I think we can cement a solid mid table position with this squad.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. The ref was half decent compared to recent ones and I wonder what the 'Nigel haters' will do with themselves now that we have 3 wins and a draw in the last 4 games. We're still unbeaten in 2014 and let's hope that the same can be said after the derby game with the monkey hangers next week. openallhours
  • Score: 2

9:22pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Tug job says...

23rdApril1966 wrote:
Jus t a nearly game. Could have won, could have lost. Just felt like one of those where first goal would have won it. Their keeper made some excellent saves but then they had one ruled out for offside and hit the post with Pope well beaten as we were rocking just before half time. A game that we would have lost last season and maybe in lead up to Xmas. So all in all a fair result and onwards to Hartlepool unbeaten in 2014. Would comment on three areas of concern, poor quality felivery from 14 corners, silly free kicks conceded which could have cost us and still for mr a lack of midfield flair and runners going beyond the frontmen. Credit to Coulson and Fletcher who I felt were excellent.
Howdy, another point gained, 20 more to go, well done City!

For the record, we beat the Gas 4-1 at home last season.
[quote][p][bold]23rdApril1966[/bold] wrote: Jus t a nearly game. Could have won, could have lost. Just felt like one of those where first goal would have won it. Their keeper made some excellent saves but then they had one ruled out for offside and hit the post with Pope well beaten as we were rocking just before half time. A game that we would have lost last season and maybe in lead up to Xmas. So all in all a fair result and onwards to Hartlepool unbeaten in 2014. Would comment on three areas of concern, poor quality felivery from 14 corners, silly free kicks conceded which could have cost us and still for mr a lack of midfield flair and runners going beyond the frontmen. Credit to Coulson and Fletcher who I felt were excellent.[/p][/quote]Howdy, another point gained, 20 more to go, well done City! For the record, we beat the Gas 4-1 at home last season. Tug job
  • Score: 0

9:23pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Oldcityfan says...

Ive never posted on here before, but I am concerned that NW now has a very dejected in Michael Ingham, because from his body language throughout the warmup (or lack of it in his case) today, and through the game, it was very obvious he didn't want to be there. Not nice being dropped I know, but it is a squad game at the end of the day. Now up to NW an MI himself to not let this affect a squad that is growing in confidence.
On today's game though, City should have had it wrapped up by half-time. Second half became scrappy and for me a number of players on both sides seemed to tire and City subs should have been brought on to put Rovers defence under more pressure.
Worried about MI situation though.
Ive never posted on here before, but I am concerned that NW now has a very dejected in Michael Ingham, because from his body language throughout the warmup (or lack of it in his case) today, and through the game, it was very obvious he didn't want to be there. Not nice being dropped I know, but it is a squad game at the end of the day. Now up to NW an MI himself to not let this affect a squad that is growing in confidence. On today's game though, City should have had it wrapped up by half-time. Second half became scrappy and for me a number of players on both sides seemed to tire and City subs should have been brought on to put Rovers defence under more pressure. Worried about MI situation though. Oldcityfan
  • Score: -3

9:36pm Sat 18 Jan 14

A Bottom says...

Apart from the lack of goals, one of the best games of the season!!!
What a difference Penn made.
Apart from the lack of goals, one of the best games of the season!!! What a difference Penn made. A Bottom
  • Score: 3

9:55pm Sat 18 Jan 14

bill bailey says...

Oldcityfan wrote:
Ive never posted on here before, but I am concerned that NW now has a very dejected in Michael Ingham, because from his body language throughout the warmup (or lack of it in his case) today, and through the game, it was very obvious he didn't want to be there. Not nice being dropped I know, but it is a squad game at the end of the day. Now up to NW an MI himself to not let this affect a squad that is growing in confidence.
On today's game though, City should have had it wrapped up by half-time. Second half became scrappy and for me a number of players on both sides seemed to tire and City subs should have been brought on to put Rovers defence under more pressure.
Worried about MI situation though.
MI looking dejected wont worry NW , he wont let any player disrupt a team spirit he isn't going to stand for that. he's the boss not MI or any other player .
there are too many NW players now at the club
[quote][p][bold]Oldcityfan[/bold] wrote: Ive never posted on here before, but I am concerned that NW now has a very dejected in Michael Ingham, because from his body language throughout the warmup (or lack of it in his case) today, and through the game, it was very obvious he didn't want to be there. Not nice being dropped I know, but it is a squad game at the end of the day. Now up to NW an MI himself to not let this affect a squad that is growing in confidence. On today's game though, City should have had it wrapped up by half-time. Second half became scrappy and for me a number of players on both sides seemed to tire and City subs should have been brought on to put Rovers defence under more pressure. Worried about MI situation though.[/p][/quote]MI looking dejected wont worry NW , he wont let any player disrupt a team spirit he isn't going to stand for that. he's the boss not MI or any other player . there are too many NW players now at the club bill bailey
  • Score: -4

10:01pm Sat 18 Jan 14

openallhours says...

SelseyBill wrote:
A few more draws will only put us back near the bottom. To win you MUST SCORE . From the report it looks as though their goalkeeper saved them. But why so few in the attack?

I am a long distance supporter so only get the press an d those who comments views. I really want city todo well. Do we need together Arthur Bottom back?
Are you Tug Job in disguise? She does like a whinge from time to time...
[quote][p][bold]SelseyBill[/bold] wrote: A few more draws will only put us back near the bottom. To win you MUST SCORE . From the report it looks as though their goalkeeper saved them. But why so few in the attack? I am a long distance supporter so only get the press an d those who comments views. I really want city todo well. Do we need together Arthur Bottom back?[/p][/quote]Are you Tug Job in disguise? She does like a whinge from time to time... openallhours
  • Score: 1

10:45pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Tug job says...

openallhours wrote:
SelseyBill wrote:
A few more draws will only put us back near the bottom. To win you MUST SCORE . From the report it looks as though their goalkeeper saved them. But why so few in the attack?

I am a long distance supporter so only get the press an d those who comments views. I really want city todo well. Do we need together Arthur Bottom back?
Are you Tug Job in disguise? She does like a whinge from time to time...
Certainly not - I'm several thousand miles away so won't be at BC until the Cheltenham match, at the earliest.
[quote][p][bold]openallhours[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SelseyBill[/bold] wrote: A few more draws will only put us back near the bottom. To win you MUST SCORE . From the report it looks as though their goalkeeper saved them. But why so few in the attack? I am a long distance supporter so only get the press an d those who comments views. I really want city todo well. Do we need together Arthur Bottom back?[/p][/quote]Are you Tug Job in disguise? She does like a whinge from time to time...[/p][/quote]Certainly not - I'm several thousand miles away so won't be at BC until the Cheltenham match, at the earliest. Tug job
  • Score: -2

12:04am Sun 19 Jan 14

sixtyfourfive says...

You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.
You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising. sixtyfourfive
  • Score: 4

9:43am Sun 19 Jan 14

bill bailey says...

sixtyfourfive wrote:
You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.
All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played.
Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,.
sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry.
[quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.[/p][/quote]All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played. Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,. sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry. bill bailey
  • Score: -13

10:23am Sun 19 Jan 14

A Bottom says...

bill bailey wrote:
sixtyfourfive wrote:
You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.
All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played.
Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,.
sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry.
Your spelling is terrible!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.[/p][/quote]All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played. Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,. sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry.[/p][/quote]Your spelling is terrible!!!!! A Bottom
  • Score: 10

10:41am Sun 19 Jan 14

Peppa07 says...

How can a lending club 'insist that (their player) plays', Bill? This is more than supposition - sounds like fantasy to me! NW picks the team. Yes, I feel sorry for Ingham after he secured all the points v Morecambe.
Anyway the team looked pretty good yesterday and didn't win because Mildenhall played a blinder. Both teams (AND THE REFEREE!!!) looked very good. Honestly, most refs in League 2 have been crap but yesterday's (David Webb) was excellent. The disallowed goals might have stood from where I was sitting, but at least the score was even there too. Both looked very marginal. Well done to Coulson - for me he looked the real deal yesterday. He's an improving asset.
How can a lending club 'insist that (their player) plays', Bill? This is more than supposition - sounds like fantasy to me! NW picks the team. Yes, I feel sorry for Ingham after he secured all the points v Morecambe. Anyway the team looked pretty good yesterday and didn't win because Mildenhall played a blinder. Both teams (AND THE REFEREE!!!) looked very good. Honestly, most refs in League 2 have been crap but yesterday's (David Webb) was excellent. The disallowed goals might have stood from where I was sitting, but at least the score was even there too. Both looked very marginal. Well done to Coulson - for me he looked the real deal yesterday. He's an improving asset. Peppa07
  • Score: 9

10:44am Sun 19 Jan 14

bill bailey says...

A Bottom wrote:
bill bailey wrote:
sixtyfourfive wrote:
You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.
All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played.
Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,.
sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry.
Your spelling is terrible!!!!!
Yes I agree A Bottom. But you cant be all things to all men. I wish you had picked holes in my comment it would then have been a serious forum piece. There is always a reason for team selection but we don't know what they are.
[quote][p][bold]A Bottom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.[/p][/quote]All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played. Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,. sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry.[/p][/quote]Your spelling is terrible!!!!![/p][/quote]Yes I agree A Bottom. But you cant be all things to all men. I wish you had picked holes in my comment it would then have been a serious forum piece. There is always a reason for team selection but we don't know what they are. bill bailey
  • Score: -2

10:48am Sun 19 Jan 14

sixtyfourfive says...

bill bailey wrote:
sixtyfourfive wrote:
You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.
All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played.
Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,.
sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry.
Hi Bill - I agree it's only my opinion as to what might or might not have happened to Worthington if we had lost to Morecambe but it was in fact a view also espoused on Radio York yesterday, At the end of the day this forum is all about opinions and we all respect that.. I think however you are confusing me with someone else as I have always rated Michael Ingham very highly. and still do. Also I think you will find that we have rarely agreed on matters (nothing wrong with that!) - mainly on the subject of Gary Mills!
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.[/p][/quote]All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played. Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,. sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry.[/p][/quote]Hi Bill - I agree it's only my opinion as to what might or might not have happened to Worthington if we had lost to Morecambe but it was in fact a view also espoused on Radio York yesterday, At the end of the day this forum is all about opinions and we all respect that.. I think however you are confusing me with someone else as I have always rated Michael Ingham very highly. and still do. Also I think you will find that we have rarely agreed on matters (nothing wrong with that!) - mainly on the subject of Gary Mills! sixtyfourfive
  • Score: 2

10:48am Sun 19 Jan 14

sixtyfourfive says...

bill bailey wrote:
sixtyfourfive wrote:
You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.
All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played.
Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,.
sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry.
Hi Bill - I agree it's only my opinion as to what might or might not have happened to Worthington if we had lost to Morecambe but it was in fact a view also espoused on Radio York yesterday, At the end of the day this forum is all about opinions and we all respect that.. I think however you are confusing me with someone else as I have always rated Michael Ingham very highly. and still do. Also I think you will find that we have rarely agreed on matters (nothing wrong with that!) - mainly on the subject of Gary Mills!
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.[/p][/quote]All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played. Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,. sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry.[/p][/quote]Hi Bill - I agree it's only my opinion as to what might or might not have happened to Worthington if we had lost to Morecambe but it was in fact a view also espoused on Radio York yesterday, At the end of the day this forum is all about opinions and we all respect that.. I think however you are confusing me with someone else as I have always rated Michael Ingham very highly. and still do. Also I think you will find that we have rarely agreed on matters (nothing wrong with that!) - mainly on the subject of Gary Mills! sixtyfourfive
  • Score: -1

11:21am Sun 19 Jan 14

A Bottom says...

bill bailey wrote:
A Bottom wrote:
bill bailey wrote:
sixtyfourfive wrote:
You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.
All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played.
Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,.
sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry.
Your spelling is terrible!!!!!
Yes I agree A Bottom. But you cant be all things to all men. I wish you had picked holes in my comment it would then have been a serious forum piece. There is always a reason for team selection but we don't know what they are.
Lighten up! A serious forum piece!!!! There's a reason for everything, or is there? mmmmm!
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Bottom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: You do the business and keep the shirt - obviously not in Worthington's view as regards Ingham. It is probably fair to say that Ingham's saves v Morecambe a week or so back saved Worthington's job and were the catalyst for our good run - in my view an appalling selection decision but I suspect Charlton have insisted Pope starts if he is to be at York. He kept a clean sheet but was pretty shakey at times - jury still out for me. Penn was caught in possession too much for my liking and can I suspect do much better than we saw today. All in all though we are looking much more solid and the future looks promising.[/p][/quote]All supposition NWs job was saved by Ingham.Charlton insisted Pope played. Fact we are looking sold, You was one of many in the passed who were critical of Ingham not controlling his area , no understanding with defenders,. sure of his position , now you have got what you wanted, I have always in the passed agreed with what you have posted , but not this one sorry.[/p][/quote]Your spelling is terrible!!!!![/p][/quote]Yes I agree A Bottom. But you cant be all things to all men. I wish you had picked holes in my comment it would then have been a serious forum piece. There is always a reason for team selection but we don't know what they are.[/p][/quote]Lighten up! A serious forum piece!!!! There's a reason for everything, or is there? mmmmm! A Bottom
  • Score: -3

11:55am Sun 19 Jan 14

Punk_Ian says...

Peppa07 wrote:
How can a lending club 'insist that (their player) plays', Bill? This is more than supposition - sounds like fantasy to me! NW picks the team. Yes, I feel sorry for Ingham after he secured all the points v Morecambe.
Anyway the team looked pretty good yesterday and didn't win because Mildenhall played a blinder. Both teams (AND THE REFEREE!!!) looked very good. Honestly, most refs in League 2 have been crap but yesterday's (David Webb) was excellent. The disallowed goals might have stood from where I was sitting, but at least the score was even there too. Both looked very marginal. Well done to Coulson - for me he looked the real deal yesterday. He's an improving asset.
The lending club can insist he plays, it's simple and the conversation will be 'Is our player going to be first choice if he comes to you?',
'No',
'Well he'll go elsewhere then'
[quote][p][bold]Peppa07[/bold] wrote: How can a lending club 'insist that (their player) plays', Bill? This is more than supposition - sounds like fantasy to me! NW picks the team. Yes, I feel sorry for Ingham after he secured all the points v Morecambe. Anyway the team looked pretty good yesterday and didn't win because Mildenhall played a blinder. Both teams (AND THE REFEREE!!!) looked very good. Honestly, most refs in League 2 have been crap but yesterday's (David Webb) was excellent. The disallowed goals might have stood from where I was sitting, but at least the score was even there too. Both looked very marginal. Well done to Coulson - for me he looked the real deal yesterday. He's an improving asset.[/p][/quote]The lending club can insist he plays, it's simple and the conversation will be 'Is our player going to be first choice if he comes to you?', 'No', 'Well he'll go elsewhere then' Punk_Ian
  • Score: 10

1:15pm Sun 19 Jan 14

OLD - HEAD says...

Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.
Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference. OLD - HEAD
  • Score: 15

1:20pm Sun 19 Jan 14

RooBeck says...

We lacked that final pass/delivery in and around the box, so as to trouble their defence albeit Mildenhall did pull off at least two great saves in the first-half to deny us. Let's hope we are more creative and incisive in attack at Victoria Park next week and create and make better goal-scoring opportunities. I was sorry to see Michael Ingham dropped for yesterday's match, on what has been on the back of a very good three match run by him and unless we don't know the full picture, he can count himself badly done to here. NW's post-match interview on Radio York wasn't convincing as to why he had picked Pope over Ingham and he was stumbling around with comments like the "boy did well when he was last here and deserved to play". Wrong!! Ingham had done nothing to be relegated to the bench and this smacks of personalities at play &/OR agreements with the parent club over appearances. COYR.
We lacked that final pass/delivery in and around the box, so as to trouble their defence albeit Mildenhall did pull off at least two great saves in the first-half to deny us. Let's hope we are more creative and incisive in attack at Victoria Park next week and create and make better goal-scoring opportunities. I was sorry to see Michael Ingham dropped for yesterday's match, on what has been on the back of a very good three match run by him and unless we don't know the full picture, he can count himself badly done to here. NW's post-match interview on Radio York wasn't convincing as to why he had picked Pope over Ingham and he was stumbling around with comments like the "boy did well when he was last here and deserved to play". Wrong!! Ingham had done nothing to be relegated to the bench and this smacks of personalities at play &/OR agreements with the parent club over appearances. COYR. RooBeck
  • Score: -3

1:35pm Sun 19 Jan 14

bill bailey says...

OLD - HEAD wrote:
Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.
OLD HEAD. You have echoed my sentiments , I sincerely believe the club is going through a rehabilitation period , therefore changes will be made for the good of the long term success of the club. as you rightly said sentiment has no place in business .If it wasn't you would get in for free,
[quote][p][bold]OLD - HEAD[/bold] wrote: Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.[/p][/quote]OLD HEAD. You have echoed my sentiments , I sincerely believe the club is going through a rehabilitation period , therefore changes will be made for the good of the long term success of the club. as you rightly said sentiment has no place in business .If it wasn't you would get in for free, bill bailey
  • Score: 8

1:56pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Wateryturtle says...

Good point to keep the unbeaten run going. Biggest thing for me seems to be the difference in our two strikers. 1 - Fletcher: works hard, always available, main outlet for the defence, aggressive and looks dangerous. 2 - Bowman: looks lazy, never offers for the ball, missed an absolute sitter and just not involved. Bowman seems to be quite a popular player with the fans but I finding him frustrating. Lookin forward to Jarvis getting fit and back into the team.
Good point to keep the unbeaten run going. Biggest thing for me seems to be the difference in our two strikers. 1 - Fletcher: works hard, always available, main outlet for the defence, aggressive and looks dangerous. 2 - Bowman: looks lazy, never offers for the ball, missed an absolute sitter and just not involved. Bowman seems to be quite a popular player with the fans but I finding him frustrating. Lookin forward to Jarvis getting fit and back into the team. Wateryturtle
  • Score: -14

2:24pm Sun 19 Jan 14

legend7 says...

another point is good, although it looked like one of those we should be winning, a bit disappointing though, after 14 corners, we couldnt force one in, need to improve these imo
another point is good, although it looked like one of those we should be winning, a bit disappointing though, after 14 corners, we couldnt force one in, need to improve these imo legend7
  • Score: 7

2:26pm Sun 19 Jan 14

sixtyfourfive says...

OLD - HEAD wrote:
Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.
Maybe not the best in the Conference that season (think Fleetwood/Wrexham) but "not rated anywhere near the best" is a bit over the top and somewhat derogatory to our achievements that season.
[quote][p][bold]OLD - HEAD[/bold] wrote: Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.[/p][/quote]Maybe not the best in the Conference that season (think Fleetwood/Wrexham) but "not rated anywhere near the best" is a bit over the top and somewhat derogatory to our achievements that season. sixtyfourfive
  • Score: 7

3:29pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Yorkieroy60 says...

Wateryturtle wrote:
Good point to keep the unbeaten run going. Biggest thing for me seems to be the difference in our two strikers. 1 - Fletcher: works hard, always available, main outlet for the defence, aggressive and looks dangerous. 2 - Bowman: looks lazy, never offers for the ball, missed an absolute sitter and just not involved. Bowman seems to be quite a popular player with the fans but I finding him frustrating. Lookin forward to Jarvis getting fit and back into the team.
Sorry Wateryturtle got to stick up for Bowman thought he was exceptional especially in the air worked as hard as anybody and him and Fletcher kept the Bristol defenders on their toes and I think they are a duo that will become the envy of many a League 2 Club got to remember these are two young hungry players who will only get better. I like Jarvis as well another good forward but I believe with Fletcher and Bowman up front we will unsettle many a team and score the goals required to push nearer the top than the bottom of League 2!
[quote][p][bold]Wateryturtle[/bold] wrote: Good point to keep the unbeaten run going. Biggest thing for me seems to be the difference in our two strikers. 1 - Fletcher: works hard, always available, main outlet for the defence, aggressive and looks dangerous. 2 - Bowman: looks lazy, never offers for the ball, missed an absolute sitter and just not involved. Bowman seems to be quite a popular player with the fans but I finding him frustrating. Lookin forward to Jarvis getting fit and back into the team.[/p][/quote]Sorry Wateryturtle got to stick up for Bowman thought he was exceptional especially in the air worked as hard as anybody and him and Fletcher kept the Bristol defenders on their toes and I think they are a duo that will become the envy of many a League 2 Club got to remember these are two young hungry players who will only get better. I like Jarvis as well another good forward but I believe with Fletcher and Bowman up front we will unsettle many a team and score the goals required to push nearer the top than the bottom of League 2! Yorkieroy60
  • Score: 18

4:02pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Budgie says...

Ingham dropped are Grimsby looking for a goalkeeper.
Ingham dropped are Grimsby looking for a goalkeeper. Budgie
  • Score: 2

5:22pm Sun 19 Jan 14

bill bailey says...

wilson usain wrote:
City needed 3 points, momentum may have stalled. Next match crucial, get some players bought McGill, show you care.
What a stupid remark."Show you care " of course he cares ,
[quote][p][bold]wilson usain[/bold] wrote: City needed 3 points, momentum may have stalled. Next match crucial, get some players bought McGill, show you care.[/p][/quote]What a stupid remark."Show you care " of course he cares , bill bailey
  • Score: 12

5:59pm Sun 19 Jan 14

OLD - HEAD says...

sixtyfourfive wrote:
OLD - HEAD wrote: Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.
Maybe not the best in the Conference that season (think Fleetwood/Wrexham) but "not rated anywhere near the best" is a bit over the top and somewhat derogatory to our achievements that season.
I have just got to reply to your strange comment relating to my posting - Fleetwood, Wrexham and Mansfield finished above City in the league table. Luton were odds on favourites to beat us in the play-off final. So it was a fantastic achievement to get two Wembley wins in the space of a few days. It was certainly not a bit over the top and somewhat derogatory to our achievements, as you so wrongly put it. I am certain that every club in the Conference would love to do what City did that season. The Manager and his Players will always be remembered for that momentous achievement.
[quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OLD - HEAD[/bold] wrote: Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.[/p][/quote]Maybe not the best in the Conference that season (think Fleetwood/Wrexham) but "not rated anywhere near the best" is a bit over the top and somewhat derogatory to our achievements that season.[/p][/quote]I have just got to reply to your strange comment relating to my posting - Fleetwood, Wrexham and Mansfield finished above City in the league table. Luton were odds on favourites to beat us in the play-off final. So it was a fantastic achievement to get two Wembley wins in the space of a few days. It was certainly not a bit over the top and somewhat derogatory to our achievements, as you so wrongly put it. I am certain that every club in the Conference would love to do what City did that season. The Manager and his Players will always be remembered for that momentous achievement. OLD - HEAD
  • Score: 7

6:04pm Sun 19 Jan 14

tips says...

bill bailey wrote:
wilson usain wrote:
City needed 3 points, momentum may have stalled. Next match crucial, get some players bought McGill, show you care.
What a stupid remark."Show you care " of course he cares ,
Well said Bill this transfer window alone the Chairman and Board have backed NW and must be congratulated..
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilson usain[/bold] wrote: City needed 3 points, momentum may have stalled. Next match crucial, get some players bought McGill, show you care.[/p][/quote]What a stupid remark."Show you care " of course he cares ,[/p][/quote]Well said Bill this transfer window alone the Chairman and Board have backed NW and must be congratulated.. tips
  • Score: 9

6:22pm Sun 19 Jan 14

SelseyBill says...

If we cannot score against a team so close to the bottom of this league it does not bode well....the defence seems to have got it together now we need GOALS. Please don't have a go at me. I am not being negative, I just want MY TEAM TO DO WELL. What about giving the new young forward a run out?

I would watch every game if I could but living where I do it is impossible.
If we cannot score against a team so close to the bottom of this league it does not bode well....the defence seems to have got it together now we need GOALS. Please don't have a go at me. I am not being negative, I just want MY TEAM TO DO WELL. What about giving the new young forward a run out? I would watch every game if I could but living where I do it is impossible. SelseyBill
  • Score: -20

6:32pm Sun 19 Jan 14

joejamestom says...

Yorkieroy60 wrote:
Wateryturtle wrote:
Good point to keep the unbeaten run going. Biggest thing for me seems to be the difference in our two strikers. 1 - Fletcher: works hard, always available, main outlet for the defence, aggressive and looks dangerous. 2 - Bowman: looks lazy, never offers for the ball, missed an absolute sitter and just not involved. Bowman seems to be quite a popular player with the fans but I finding him frustrating. Lookin forward to Jarvis getting fit and back into the team.
Sorry Wateryturtle got to stick up for Bowman thought he was exceptional especially in the air worked as hard as anybody and him and Fletcher kept the Bristol defenders on their toes and I think they are a duo that will become the envy of many a League 2 Club got to remember these are two young hungry players who will only get better. I like Jarvis as well another good forward but I believe with Fletcher and Bowman up front we will unsettle many a team and score the goals required to push nearer the top than the bottom of League 2!
I also disagree to a great extent Bowman has some way to go but wins a lot of flick ons & does a job for the team no other player we have does, not as skilful a touch as Fletch but decent. For me the only sluggish player seems to be Montrose, partly his style of running but his movement off the ball is not quite there however puts in a good strong tackle would just like to see more running into forward areas to give defenders more to think about.
Overall we are getting there the eception being yesterday generally poor quality crosses & corners that were usually easy to counter against though Bristol had four or so very useful players not that I would like to see O'Tool in a city shirt but he was difficult to play against as was Horrid Harald so a big thank you to our defence for coping with them.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkieroy60[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wateryturtle[/bold] wrote: Good point to keep the unbeaten run going. Biggest thing for me seems to be the difference in our two strikers. 1 - Fletcher: works hard, always available, main outlet for the defence, aggressive and looks dangerous. 2 - Bowman: looks lazy, never offers for the ball, missed an absolute sitter and just not involved. Bowman seems to be quite a popular player with the fans but I finding him frustrating. Lookin forward to Jarvis getting fit and back into the team.[/p][/quote]Sorry Wateryturtle got to stick up for Bowman thought he was exceptional especially in the air worked as hard as anybody and him and Fletcher kept the Bristol defenders on their toes and I think they are a duo that will become the envy of many a League 2 Club got to remember these are two young hungry players who will only get better. I like Jarvis as well another good forward but I believe with Fletcher and Bowman up front we will unsettle many a team and score the goals required to push nearer the top than the bottom of League 2![/p][/quote]I also disagree to a great extent Bowman has some way to go but wins a lot of flick ons & does a job for the team no other player we have does, not as skilful a touch as Fletch but decent. For me the only sluggish player seems to be Montrose, partly his style of running but his movement off the ball is not quite there however puts in a good strong tackle would just like to see more running into forward areas to give defenders more to think about. Overall we are getting there the eception being yesterday generally poor quality crosses & corners that were usually easy to counter against though Bristol had four or so very useful players not that I would like to see O'Tool in a city shirt but he was difficult to play against as was Horrid Harald so a big thank you to our defence for coping with them. joejamestom
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Sun 19 Jan 14

erniet says...

I just want to put something out there for what it's worth. We lost 5 of our first 7 matches. Since then we've lost only 4 out of 20 (League only of course). I know it includes plenty of draws, but that's not a bad record and shows that we are competitive at this level. Hopefully it will be a springboard to the next stage of moving into the top half of the table. At least we should be more confident of avoiding the drop.
I just want to put something out there for what it's worth. We lost 5 of our first 7 matches. Since then we've lost only 4 out of 20 (League only of course). I know it includes plenty of draws, but that's not a bad record and shows that we are competitive at this level. Hopefully it will be a springboard to the next stage of moving into the top half of the table. At least we should be more confident of avoiding the drop. erniet
  • Score: 22

7:12pm Sun 19 Jan 14

bierhoff says...

Wateryturtle wrote:
Good point to keep the unbeaten run going. Biggest thing for me seems to be the difference in our two strikers. 1 - Fletcher: works hard, always available, main outlet for the defence, aggressive and looks dangerous. 2 - Bowman: looks lazy, never offers for the ball, missed an absolute sitter and just not involved. Bowman seems to be quite a popular player with the fans but I finding him frustrating. Lookin forward to Jarvis getting fit and back into the team.
Fletcher is certainly superior to Bowman, he works far harder and is seemingly everywhere across the front line. Bowman I think is far more hot and cold, he doesn't pull defenders around or hold the ball up as well as Fletcher or Jarvis. They have to be the starting pair for me, Bowman spends too much of the time stood still and looks like an average forward who defenders don't mind playing against.
[quote][p][bold]Wateryturtle[/bold] wrote: Good point to keep the unbeaten run going. Biggest thing for me seems to be the difference in our two strikers. 1 - Fletcher: works hard, always available, main outlet for the defence, aggressive and looks dangerous. 2 - Bowman: looks lazy, never offers for the ball, missed an absolute sitter and just not involved. Bowman seems to be quite a popular player with the fans but I finding him frustrating. Lookin forward to Jarvis getting fit and back into the team.[/p][/quote]Fletcher is certainly superior to Bowman, he works far harder and is seemingly everywhere across the front line. Bowman I think is far more hot and cold, he doesn't pull defenders around or hold the ball up as well as Fletcher or Jarvis. They have to be the starting pair for me, Bowman spends too much of the time stood still and looks like an average forward who defenders don't mind playing against. bierhoff
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Sun 19 Jan 14

duffy says...

OLD - HEAD wrote:
Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.
I think this is the beginning of the end of his career with us. Worthington has shown he is not afraid to get rid of players when he thinks he can bring in better and I think that now applies to Ingham. Out of contract in the summer and still showing he can't command his area or kick a ball it's better for both sides that he moves on. We replaced Marples with Kiely which was not popular at the time but was the right decision and the same applies now. If we really want to move forward as a club we need to be ruthless and that's Worthington.
[quote][p][bold]OLD - HEAD[/bold] wrote: Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.[/p][/quote]I think this is the beginning of the end of his career with us. Worthington has shown he is not afraid to get rid of players when he thinks he can bring in better and I think that now applies to Ingham. Out of contract in the summer and still showing he can't command his area or kick a ball it's better for both sides that he moves on. We replaced Marples with Kiely which was not popular at the time but was the right decision and the same applies now. If we really want to move forward as a club we need to be ruthless and that's Worthington. duffy
  • Score: 20

7:36pm Sun 19 Jan 14

dadster says...

RooBeck wrote:
We lacked that final pass/delivery in and around the box, so as to trouble their defence albeit Mildenhall did pull off at least two great saves in the first-half to deny us. Let's hope we are more creative and incisive in attack at Victoria Park next week and create and make better goal-scoring opportunities. I was sorry to see Michael Ingham dropped for yesterday's match, on what has been on the back of a very good three match run by him and unless we don't know the full picture, he can count himself badly done to here. NW's post-match interview on Radio York wasn't convincing as to why he had picked Pope over Ingham and he was stumbling around with comments like the "boy did well when he was last here and deserved to play". Wrong!! Ingham had done nothing to be relegated to the bench and this smacks of personalities at play &/OR agreements with the parent club over appearances. COYR.
Whilst I was a little surprised that Ingham was dropped I'm not sure he has been that great since he came back from injury. Granted he was excellent against Morecambe and helped secure the 3 points but he was very fortunate to get away with 2 basic errors against D&R when he almost punched a corner into his own net at 0-0 and Northampton when he flapped at a cross from which Blair should have scored again at 0-0. Those mistakes could quite easily have cost us points.

He has needed some genuine competition for his place for a while now and it will be interesting to see how he reacts. Obviously as a goalkeeper he's not going to get another chance unless Pope either makes regular mistakes or is recalled by Charlton so he'll have to shine in training/practice matches. I have a feeling that unless he shows significant improvement in commanding his area NW will let him go in the summer when his contract expires.

He's been a good servant to City but if we have someone better then there's no room for sentiment. That applies to everyone in the squad.
[quote][p][bold]RooBeck[/bold] wrote: We lacked that final pass/delivery in and around the box, so as to trouble their defence albeit Mildenhall did pull off at least two great saves in the first-half to deny us. Let's hope we are more creative and incisive in attack at Victoria Park next week and create and make better goal-scoring opportunities. I was sorry to see Michael Ingham dropped for yesterday's match, on what has been on the back of a very good three match run by him and unless we don't know the full picture, he can count himself badly done to here. NW's post-match interview on Radio York wasn't convincing as to why he had picked Pope over Ingham and he was stumbling around with comments like the "boy did well when he was last here and deserved to play". Wrong!! Ingham had done nothing to be relegated to the bench and this smacks of personalities at play &/OR agreements with the parent club over appearances. COYR.[/p][/quote]Whilst I was a little surprised that Ingham was dropped I'm not sure he has been that great since he came back from injury. Granted he was excellent against Morecambe and helped secure the 3 points but he was very fortunate to get away with 2 basic errors against D&R when he almost punched a corner into his own net at 0-0 and Northampton when he flapped at a cross from which Blair should have scored again at 0-0. Those mistakes could quite easily have cost us points. He has needed some genuine competition for his place for a while now and it will be interesting to see how he reacts. Obviously as a goalkeeper he's not going to get another chance unless Pope either makes regular mistakes or is recalled by Charlton so he'll have to shine in training/practice matches. I have a feeling that unless he shows significant improvement in commanding his area NW will let him go in the summer when his contract expires. He's been a good servant to City but if we have someone better then there's no room for sentiment. That applies to everyone in the squad. dadster
  • Score: 12

8:08pm Sun 19 Jan 14

chuckabuttie says...

duffy wrote:
OLD - HEAD wrote:
Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.
I think this is the beginning of the end of his career with us. Worthington has shown he is not afraid to get rid of players when he thinks he can bring in better and I think that now applies to Ingham. Out of contract in the summer and still showing he can't command his area or kick a ball it's better for both sides that he moves on. We replaced Marples with Kiely which was not popular at the time but was the right decision and the same applies now. If we really want to move forward as a club we need to be ruthless and that's Worthington.
Good call about Marples , Duffy. Takes me right back. If I remember correctly, wasn't he one of the last of the Professional Footballer / Cricketer combos? Didnt he play for Derbyshire?
[quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OLD - HEAD[/bold] wrote: Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.[/p][/quote]I think this is the beginning of the end of his career with us. Worthington has shown he is not afraid to get rid of players when he thinks he can bring in better and I think that now applies to Ingham. Out of contract in the summer and still showing he can't command his area or kick a ball it's better for both sides that he moves on. We replaced Marples with Kiely which was not popular at the time but was the right decision and the same applies now. If we really want to move forward as a club we need to be ruthless and that's Worthington.[/p][/quote]Good call about Marples , Duffy. Takes me right back. If I remember correctly, wasn't he one of the last of the Professional Footballer / Cricketer combos? Didnt he play for Derbyshire? chuckabuttie
  • Score: 2

8:19pm Sun 19 Jan 14

duffy says...

chuckabuttie wrote:
duffy wrote:
OLD - HEAD wrote:
Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.
I think this is the beginning of the end of his career with us. Worthington has shown he is not afraid to get rid of players when he thinks he can bring in better and I think that now applies to Ingham. Out of contract in the summer and still showing he can't command his area or kick a ball it's better for both sides that he moves on. We replaced Marples with Kiely which was not popular at the time but was the right decision and the same applies now. If we really want to move forward as a club we need to be ruthless and that's Worthington.
Good call about Marples , Duffy. Takes me right back. If I remember correctly, wasn't he one of the last of the Professional Footballer / Cricketer combos? Didnt he play for Derbyshire?
You know I think you're right, I had forgotten about that.
[quote][p][bold]chuckabuttie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OLD - HEAD[/bold] wrote: Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.[/p][/quote]I think this is the beginning of the end of his career with us. Worthington has shown he is not afraid to get rid of players when he thinks he can bring in better and I think that now applies to Ingham. Out of contract in the summer and still showing he can't command his area or kick a ball it's better for both sides that he moves on. We replaced Marples with Kiely which was not popular at the time but was the right decision and the same applies now. If we really want to move forward as a club we need to be ruthless and that's Worthington.[/p][/quote]Good call about Marples , Duffy. Takes me right back. If I remember correctly, wasn't he one of the last of the Professional Footballer / Cricketer combos? Didnt he play for Derbyshire?[/p][/quote]You know I think you're right, I had forgotten about that. duffy
  • Score: 1

9:59pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Yorkieroy60 says...

bierhoff wrote:
Wateryturtle wrote:
Good point to keep the unbeaten run going. Biggest thing for me seems to be the difference in our two strikers. 1 - Fletcher: works hard, always available, main outlet for the defence, aggressive and looks dangerous. 2 - Bowman: looks lazy, never offers for the ball, missed an absolute sitter and just not involved. Bowman seems to be quite a popular player with the fans but I finding him frustrating. Lookin forward to Jarvis getting fit and back into the team.
Fletcher is certainly superior to Bowman, he works far harder and is seemingly everywhere across the front line. Bowman I think is far more hot and cold, he doesn't pull defenders around or hold the ball up as well as Fletcher or Jarvis. They have to be the starting pair for me, Bowman spends too much of the time stood still and looks like an average forward who defenders don't mind playing against.
Still disagree we play a lot of ball in the air now and at 6'-2" Bowman uses his height to advantage and wins his fair share of ball against the central defenders sometimes it's up to others to anticipate the flick ons and anyway I don't think Mr. Worthington would put up with any player being 'lazy'. It's all about opinion but that's what I think the good thing is NW is building a team that is stronger, tougher and more able to compete at this level, there is plenty of competition for places and it's looking a whole lot better then it was a month ago. Roll on Saturday!
[quote][p][bold]bierhoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wateryturtle[/bold] wrote: Good point to keep the unbeaten run going. Biggest thing for me seems to be the difference in our two strikers. 1 - Fletcher: works hard, always available, main outlet for the defence, aggressive and looks dangerous. 2 - Bowman: looks lazy, never offers for the ball, missed an absolute sitter and just not involved. Bowman seems to be quite a popular player with the fans but I finding him frustrating. Lookin forward to Jarvis getting fit and back into the team.[/p][/quote]Fletcher is certainly superior to Bowman, he works far harder and is seemingly everywhere across the front line. Bowman I think is far more hot and cold, he doesn't pull defenders around or hold the ball up as well as Fletcher or Jarvis. They have to be the starting pair for me, Bowman spends too much of the time stood still and looks like an average forward who defenders don't mind playing against.[/p][/quote]Still disagree we play a lot of ball in the air now and at 6'-2" Bowman uses his height to advantage and wins his fair share of ball against the central defenders sometimes it's up to others to anticipate the flick ons and anyway I don't think Mr. Worthington would put up with any player being 'lazy'. It's all about opinion but that's what I think the good thing is NW is building a team that is stronger, tougher and more able to compete at this level, there is plenty of competition for places and it's looking a whole lot better then it was a month ago. Roll on Saturday! Yorkieroy60
  • Score: 3

10:27pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Tug job says...

sixtyfourfive wrote:
OLD - HEAD wrote:
Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.
Maybe not the best in the Conference that season (think Fleetwood/Wrexham) but "not rated anywhere near the best" is a bit over the top and somewhat derogatory to our achievements that season.
Perhaps not the best team in terms of results over the season but opposition managers, their fans and the NLP gave Gary Mills's team the credit of being the best footballing side in the Conference that season.
[quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OLD - HEAD[/bold] wrote: Nigel Worthington will have formed his own opinion of Michael Ingham a long time ago, after all they go back a long way. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Pope was brought back here to play in goal. Will this be the end of Michael Inghams York City career?. I can not answer that, but I certainly wouldnt bet against it. After all there is very few of that Blue Sqare Premier promotion squad left at Bootham Crescent. Football has no place for sentiment unfortunately. But all true fans of York City will never forget those two Wembley victories, by a team that was not rated as anywhere near the best in the Conference.[/p][/quote]Maybe not the best in the Conference that season (think Fleetwood/Wrexham) but "not rated anywhere near the best" is a bit over the top and somewhat derogatory to our achievements that season.[/p][/quote]Perhaps not the best team in terms of results over the season but opposition managers, their fans and the NLP gave Gary Mills's team the credit of being the best footballing side in the Conference that season. Tug job
  • Score: 7

11:44pm Sun 19 Jan 14

NotInOz says...

Re striker debate: we are blessed with 3 strikers who have proved they can do the job at L2 level - when did we last have 3 strikers with this many goals each half way through the season? The one thing that I would emphasise in Bowman's credit is his goals to games ratio. This is a guy who scores - if he continues his current record for the rest of the season (assuming he plays) then I think there will be few who will berate any other features of his game (whether perceived or otherwise). All strikers have off days and miss sitters - the fact that Bowman missed a sitter yesterday should not be allowed to detract significantly from his record in other games. Main concern for me is his discipline - and hopefully that comes with more maturity: after all he is still quite young.
Re striker debate: we are blessed with 3 strikers who have proved they can do the job at L2 level - when did we last have 3 strikers with this many goals each half way through the season? The one thing that I would emphasise in Bowman's credit is his goals to games ratio. This is a guy who scores - if he continues his current record for the rest of the season (assuming he plays) then I think there will be few who will berate any other features of his game (whether perceived or otherwise). All strikers have off days and miss sitters - the fact that Bowman missed a sitter yesterday should not be allowed to detract significantly from his record in other games. Main concern for me is his discipline - and hopefully that comes with more maturity: after all he is still quite young. NotInOz
  • Score: 3

8:58am Mon 20 Jan 14

PositiveFootball says...

Would think set pieces from corners (14) will be top of the agenda this week. Also, capitalising from Bowmans flick ons (which were numerous) must be addressed. Otherwise, an entertaining match with signs of a really good team developing. Penn would have scored but for a brilliant save.

Regarding MI he must have cheered up by half time as he was having a joke with one of the ball boys and received a huge cheer from the Longhurst.
Would think set pieces from corners (14) will be top of the agenda this week. Also, capitalising from Bowmans flick ons (which were numerous) must be addressed. Otherwise, an entertaining match with signs of a really good team developing. Penn would have scored but for a brilliant save. Regarding MI he must have cheered up by half time as he was having a joke with one of the ball boys and received a huge cheer from the Longhurst. PositiveFootball
  • Score: 4

9:30am Mon 20 Jan 14

uhtred says...

RooBeck wrote:
We lacked that final pass/delivery in and around the box, so as to trouble their defence albeit Mildenhall did pull off at least two great saves in the first-half to deny us. Let's hope we are more creative and incisive in attack at Victoria Park next week and create and make better goal-scoring opportunities. I was sorry to see Michael Ingham dropped for yesterday's match, on what has been on the back of a very good three match run by him and unless we don't know the full picture, he can count himself badly done to here. NW's post-match interview on Radio York wasn't convincing as to why he had picked Pope over Ingham and he was stumbling around with comments like the "boy did well when he was last here and deserved to play". Wrong!! Ingham had done nothing to be relegated to the bench and this smacks of personalities at play &/OR agreements with the parent club over appearances. COYR.
I think Worthington only got Pope on loan with the promise of regular action and he will only be dropped if he drops a clanger or two. It seems fashionable to crticise Ingham, but he has been consistent over the years and for a keeper over that period of time has made not too many blunders, and to a great extent his abilities are taken for granted. Some are saying Pope is better, but how can you judge him after only 3 games, he is young and over the years young keepers have been shown prone to mistakes when compared to older keepers. My money is on Ingham reclaiming his place after a couple of more games
[quote][p][bold]RooBeck[/bold] wrote: We lacked that final pass/delivery in and around the box, so as to trouble their defence albeit Mildenhall did pull off at least two great saves in the first-half to deny us. Let's hope we are more creative and incisive in attack at Victoria Park next week and create and make better goal-scoring opportunities. I was sorry to see Michael Ingham dropped for yesterday's match, on what has been on the back of a very good three match run by him and unless we don't know the full picture, he can count himself badly done to here. NW's post-match interview on Radio York wasn't convincing as to why he had picked Pope over Ingham and he was stumbling around with comments like the "boy did well when he was last here and deserved to play". Wrong!! Ingham had done nothing to be relegated to the bench and this smacks of personalities at play &/OR agreements with the parent club over appearances. COYR.[/p][/quote]I think Worthington only got Pope on loan with the promise of regular action and he will only be dropped if he drops a clanger or two. It seems fashionable to crticise Ingham, but he has been consistent over the years and for a keeper over that period of time has made not too many blunders, and to a great extent his abilities are taken for granted. Some are saying Pope is better, but how can you judge him after only 3 games, he is young and over the years young keepers have been shown prone to mistakes when compared to older keepers. My money is on Ingham reclaiming his place after a couple of more games uhtred
  • Score: 2

10:24am Mon 20 Jan 14

rogue84 says...

I can see how people have differing opinions on Bowman. In the first half against Dagenham I thought he was poor, barely touched the ball and didn't really link well with Fletcher.
Second half though, he was completely different, particularly picking up the ball deeper and he scored a good goal. He is young and playing in a difficult league where it's a 90 minute battle against every team. I think he could be a top player for us, especially if we can keep Fletcher and Coulo alongside him.
We appear to have his temper under control now (hopefully!) so the goals will come.
Can't wait for the trip to Hartlepool, nothing better than a short away trip with a big, noisy, hostile York support....got a good feeling about this one as the players really do react to the noise of the crowd.
I can see how people have differing opinions on Bowman. In the first half against Dagenham I thought he was poor, barely touched the ball and didn't really link well with Fletcher. Second half though, he was completely different, particularly picking up the ball deeper and he scored a good goal. He is young and playing in a difficult league where it's a 90 minute battle against every team. I think he could be a top player for us, especially if we can keep Fletcher and Coulo alongside him. We appear to have his temper under control now (hopefully!) so the goals will come. Can't wait for the trip to Hartlepool, nothing better than a short away trip with a big, noisy, hostile York support....got a good feeling about this one as the players really do react to the noise of the crowd. rogue84
  • Score: 0

10:38am Mon 20 Jan 14

Robert Davro says...

Has anyone considered that Ingham isn't fully fit, therefore playing Pope is a safer option?
Has anyone considered that Ingham isn't fully fit, therefore playing Pope is a safer option? Robert Davro
  • Score: 2

11:31am Mon 20 Jan 14

PhilTopping says...

How can Fletcher be the "Star Man" when he got an 8 out of 10 compared the McGurk's 9?
How can Fletcher be the "Star Man" when he got an 8 out of 10 compared the McGurk's 9? PhilTopping
  • Score: 9

11:42am Mon 20 Jan 14

tips says...

PhilTopping wrote:
How can Fletcher be the "Star Man" when he got an 8 out of 10 compared the McGurk's 9?
Well spotted Phil !!!!
[quote][p][bold]PhilTopping[/bold] wrote: How can Fletcher be the "Star Man" when he got an 8 out of 10 compared the McGurk's 9?[/p][/quote]Well spotted Phil !!!! tips
  • Score: 7

11:52am Mon 20 Jan 14

born&breed says...

Robert Davro wrote:
Has anyone considered that Ingham isn't fully fit, therefore playing Pope is a safer option?
Like you I read that he wasn't 100% - therefore like you I would expect Nigel to select Pope. Is he man enough to accept the situation and to fight for his place as Coulson did?
[quote][p][bold]Robert Davro[/bold] wrote: Has anyone considered that Ingham isn't fully fit, therefore playing Pope is a safer option?[/p][/quote]Like you I read that he wasn't 100% - therefore like you I would expect Nigel to select Pope. Is he man enough to accept the situation and to fight for his place as Coulson did? born&breed
  • Score: 4

11:53am Mon 20 Jan 14

PeteCliffe says...

Ingham has not done anything to deserved to be dropped over recent games. I think it is a disgrace to treat a top player and bloke that way, ok his form this season has been up and down but since he has come back from injury he has been in top form. I won't forget he took time out on his own initiative to attend a long serving fans funeral. Class act treated badly.
Ingham has not done anything to deserved to be dropped over recent games. I think it is a disgrace to treat a top player and bloke that way, ok his form this season has been up and down but since he has come back from injury he has been in top form. I won't forget he took time out on his own initiative to attend a long serving fans funeral. Class act treated badly. PeteCliffe
  • Score: -4

12:04pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Robert Davro says...

PeteCliffe wrote:
Ingham has not done anything to deserved to be dropped over recent games. I think it is a disgrace to treat a top player and bloke that way, ok his form this season has been up and down but since he has come back from injury he has been in top form. I won't forget he took time out on his own initiative to attend a long serving fans funeral. Class act treated badly.
HE'S NOT FULLY FIT FFS!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]PeteCliffe[/bold] wrote: Ingham has not done anything to deserved to be dropped over recent games. I think it is a disgrace to treat a top player and bloke that way, ok his form this season has been up and down but since he has come back from injury he has been in top form. I won't forget he took time out on his own initiative to attend a long serving fans funeral. Class act treated badly.[/p][/quote]HE'S NOT FULLY FIT FFS!!!!! Robert Davro
  • Score: -2

12:10pm Mon 20 Jan 14

PeteCliffe says...

Hope your source is better than mine because that ain't what I'm hearing... Proper gutted apparently fearing his days at the club were numbered.
Hope your source is better than mine because that ain't what I'm hearing... Proper gutted apparently fearing his days at the club were numbered. PeteCliffe
  • Score: -7

12:28pm Mon 20 Jan 14

YorkCityLuke says...

IF Ingham was not fully fit, then fair enough it's a sensible decision. If he was fit, then what kind of message does it send out? Play well, keep clean sheets, but I'll still drop you on a whim. Not very professional, hopefully Ingham was not yet 100% fit and will be introduced back into the first team, because I actually thought he's looked better over the last few games than Pope did on saturday (although to his credit, Pope's throwing was superb).
Other than that, thought it was a fairly average game that we might have won, but no shame in a draw - especially when it moves us up to 13th. NW has made some very good, positive changes since new years, and they were in evidence against Bristol. That said, I thought Penn had a fairly disappointing game (especially if he was as good against Northampton as Barry Parker seemed to think) and McGurk/ Lowe seemed too keen to just lump the ball forward aimlessly in the second half. I though Ben Davies/ Coulson/ Fletcher were excellent though, I might have given BD my man of the match.
IF Ingham was not fully fit, then fair enough it's a sensible decision. If he was fit, then what kind of message does it send out? Play well, keep clean sheets, but I'll still drop you on a whim. Not very professional, hopefully Ingham was not yet 100% fit and will be introduced back into the first team, because I actually thought he's looked better over the last few games than Pope did on saturday (although to his credit, Pope's throwing was superb). Other than that, thought it was a fairly average game that we might have won, but no shame in a draw - especially when it moves us up to 13th. NW has made some very good, positive changes since new years, and they were in evidence against Bristol. That said, I thought Penn had a fairly disappointing game (especially if he was as good against Northampton as Barry Parker seemed to think) and McGurk/ Lowe seemed too keen to just lump the ball forward aimlessly in the second half. I though Ben Davies/ Coulson/ Fletcher were excellent though, I might have given BD my man of the match. YorkCityLuke
  • Score: 5

12:44pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Robert Davro says...

PeteCliffe wrote:
Hope your source is better than mine because that ain't what I'm hearing... Proper gutted apparently fearing his days at the club were numbered.
Good, that's the competition he needs
[quote][p][bold]PeteCliffe[/bold] wrote: Hope your source is better than mine because that ain't what I'm hearing... Proper gutted apparently fearing his days at the club were numbered.[/p][/quote]Good, that's the competition he needs Robert Davro
  • Score: 2

2:10pm Mon 20 Jan 14

bill bailey says...

Robert Davro wrote:
PeteCliffe wrote:
Hope your source is better than mine because that ain't what I'm hearing... Proper gutted apparently fearing his days at the club were numbered.
Good, that's the competition he needs
Whatever you say there is one thing you have to agree on that is hes had it easy over the last 3 seasons nobody has been waiting in the wings, no competition now he has , there are out field positions now where competition is there, now its the keeper it appears some think Ingham shouldn't be in the competitive equation , fit or not its good for him and any other player to look over their shoulder, there was a few on here that complained when Walker was a blue eyed boy of a manager of yester year shouting for him to be dropped , Theres no pleasing folk.
[quote][p][bold]Robert Davro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PeteCliffe[/bold] wrote: Hope your source is better than mine because that ain't what I'm hearing... Proper gutted apparently fearing his days at the club were numbered.[/p][/quote]Good, that's the competition he needs[/p][/quote]Whatever you say there is one thing you have to agree on that is hes had it easy over the last 3 seasons nobody has been waiting in the wings, no competition now he has , there are out field positions now where competition is there, now its the keeper it appears some think Ingham shouldn't be in the competitive equation , fit or not its good for him and any other player to look over their shoulder, there was a few on here that complained when Walker was a blue eyed boy of a manager of yester year shouting for him to be dropped , Theres no pleasing folk. bill bailey
  • Score: 3

2:21pm Mon 20 Jan 14

PeteCliffe says...

bill bailey wrote:
Robert Davro wrote:
PeteCliffe wrote:
Hope your source is better than mine because that ain't what I'm hearing... Proper gutted apparently fearing his days at the club were numbered.
Good, that's the competition he needs
Whatever you say there is one thing you have to agree on that is hes had it easy over the last 3 seasons nobody has been waiting in the wings, no competition now he has , there are out field positions now where competition is there, now its the keeper it appears some think Ingham shouldn't be in the competitive equation , fit or not its good for him and any other player to look over their shoulder, there was a few on here that complained when Walker was a blue eyed boy of a manager of yester year shouting for him to be dropped , Theres no pleasing folk.
Competition is a good thing I agree, but what had Ingham done in the 3 games prior to justify being dropped for this one?
Doesn't feel like a level playing field in this case.
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robert Davro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PeteCliffe[/bold] wrote: Hope your source is better than mine because that ain't what I'm hearing... Proper gutted apparently fearing his days at the club were numbered.[/p][/quote]Good, that's the competition he needs[/p][/quote]Whatever you say there is one thing you have to agree on that is hes had it easy over the last 3 seasons nobody has been waiting in the wings, no competition now he has , there are out field positions now where competition is there, now its the keeper it appears some think Ingham shouldn't be in the competitive equation , fit or not its good for him and any other player to look over their shoulder, there was a few on here that complained when Walker was a blue eyed boy of a manager of yester year shouting for him to be dropped , Theres no pleasing folk.[/p][/quote]Competition is a good thing I agree, but what had Ingham done in the 3 games prior to justify being dropped for this one? Doesn't feel like a level playing field in this case. PeteCliffe
  • Score: -8

8:23pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Anysport says...

uhtred wrote:
RooBeck wrote:
We lacked that final pass/delivery in and around the box, so as to trouble their defence albeit Mildenhall did pull off at least two great saves in the first-half to deny us. Let's hope we are more creative and incisive in attack at Victoria Park next week and create and make better goal-scoring opportunities. I was sorry to see Michael Ingham dropped for yesterday's match, on what has been on the back of a very good three match run by him and unless we don't know the full picture, he can count himself badly done to here. NW's post-match interview on Radio York wasn't convincing as to why he had picked Pope over Ingham and he was stumbling around with comments like the "boy did well when he was last here and deserved to play". Wrong!! Ingham had done nothing to be relegated to the bench and this smacks of personalities at play &/OR agreements with the parent club over appearances. COYR.
I think Worthington only got Pope on loan with the promise of regular action and he will only be dropped if he drops a clanger or two. It seems fashionable to crticise Ingham, but he has been consistent over the years and for a keeper over that period of time has made not too many blunders, and to a great extent his abilities are taken for granted. Some are saying Pope is better, but how can you judge him after only 3 games, he is young and over the years young keepers have been shown prone to mistakes when compared to older keepers. My money is on Ingham reclaiming his place after a couple of more games
Good reason for Pope being used ahead of Ingham is that he can HOOF the ball higher & further, thereby improving the possession stats.
[quote][p][bold]uhtred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RooBeck[/bold] wrote: We lacked that final pass/delivery in and around the box, so as to trouble their defence albeit Mildenhall did pull off at least two great saves in the first-half to deny us. Let's hope we are more creative and incisive in attack at Victoria Park next week and create and make better goal-scoring opportunities. I was sorry to see Michael Ingham dropped for yesterday's match, on what has been on the back of a very good three match run by him and unless we don't know the full picture, he can count himself badly done to here. NW's post-match interview on Radio York wasn't convincing as to why he had picked Pope over Ingham and he was stumbling around with comments like the "boy did well when he was last here and deserved to play". Wrong!! Ingham had done nothing to be relegated to the bench and this smacks of personalities at play &/OR agreements with the parent club over appearances. COYR.[/p][/quote]I think Worthington only got Pope on loan with the promise of regular action and he will only be dropped if he drops a clanger or two. It seems fashionable to crticise Ingham, but he has been consistent over the years and for a keeper over that period of time has made not too many blunders, and to a great extent his abilities are taken for granted. Some are saying Pope is better, but how can you judge him after only 3 games, he is young and over the years young keepers have been shown prone to mistakes when compared to older keepers. My money is on Ingham reclaiming his place after a couple of more games[/p][/quote]Good reason for Pope being used ahead of Ingham is that he can HOOF the ball higher & further, thereby improving the possession stats. Anysport
  • Score: -2

8:59pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Tug job says...

wilson usain wrote:
If by some flook City went up they would be down again within a year.
But at least you'd be happy, eh?

Instead of trying to troll us on here why don't you go on a literacy course and learn to spell?
[quote][p][bold]wilson usain[/bold] wrote: If by some flook City went up they would be down again within a year.[/p][/quote]But at least you'd be happy, eh? Instead of trying to troll us on here why don't you go on a literacy course and learn to spell? Tug job
  • Score: 6

10:10pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Anysport says...

Tug job wrote:
wilson usain wrote:
If by some flook City went up they would be down again within a year.
But at least you'd be happy, eh?

Instead of trying to troll us on here why don't you go on a literacy course and learn to spell?
Yep, should be "Wilson Insane" or Muppet to your mates
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilson usain[/bold] wrote: If by some flook City went up they would be down again within a year.[/p][/quote]But at least you'd be happy, eh? Instead of trying to troll us on here why don't you go on a literacy course and learn to spell?[/p][/quote]Yep, should be "Wilson Insane" or Muppet to your mates Anysport
  • Score: 6

8:39am Tue 21 Jan 14

duffy says...

Tug job wrote:
wilson usain wrote:
If by some flook City went up they would be down again within a year.
But at least you'd be happy, eh?

Instead of trying to troll us on here why don't you go on a literacy course and learn to spell?
As you know these trolls just go from forum to forum. For some weird reason they get a kick from getting a reaction, just sad individuals and better ignored. They go as soon as everyone ignores them.
[quote][p][bold]Tug job[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilson usain[/bold] wrote: If by some flook City went up they would be down again within a year.[/p][/quote]But at least you'd be happy, eh? Instead of trying to troll us on here why don't you go on a literacy course and learn to spell?[/p][/quote]As you know these trolls just go from forum to forum. For some weird reason they get a kick from getting a reaction, just sad individuals and better ignored. They go as soon as everyone ignores them. duffy
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree