Midfielder Alex Lawless ready for return to York City side for Kidderminster Harriers clash

York Press: York City  midfielder Alex Lawless York City midfielder Alex Lawless

KEY midfielder Alex Lawless is poised for a swift return to York City’s starting line-up.

An ill Lawless missed Tuesday night’s 2-2 draw with Cambridge United, but is expected to have made a full recovery in time for tomorrow’s home match with Kidderminster Harriers (3pm).

Centre-back Alan O’Hare has also suffered from the same bug, which meant he was not among the substitutes against Cambridge but the pair should both be available for another top-ten clash at Bootham Crescent.

City manager Martin Foyle said: “Alex Lawless is much better. He’s not had an infection or anything like that and we are looking for him to play tomorrow.”

Foyle is hoping a return for Lawless would mean the Minstermen’s midfield can retain possession better than they managed in the second period against Cambridge.

Former Wrexham player Levi Mackin, who filled in for Lawless, is the most likely candidate to make way, but Foyle added that all four midfielders might have done better on Tuesday night.

He said: “Levi was a little rusty, as is only natural because he’s not played a lot of football recently. He never lets you down, but the match was different to most of the others we have had this season.

“We needed a bit more pressing in some areas of the pitch from all four midfield players. We kept giving the ball away cheaply which means, against the better sides, you end up doing a lot of running and I thought we looked tired towards the end.”

Goalkeeper Michael Ingham is expected to be available despite limping with his recurring thigh problem towards the end of the Cambridge game.

But Foyle added that he would only play the ex-Northern Ireland international if he was 100 per cent fit and, if he was, then would probably continue his policy of leaving reserve ’keeper Josh Mimms off the bench.

The City chief said: “We gave Michael the day off yesterday, but I expect him to be okay. We will only play him if he’s 100 per cent fit though.

“If he’s 80 or 90 per cent then that won’t be good enough and I will play Josh instead. I wouldn’t worry about pitching him in. Josh has played two or three games for me and never let me down once.”

Like Cambridge, Foyle considers Kidderminster to be play-off contenders this season, adding: “They will be in the top eight at the end of the season so it’s another big game for us that we don’t want to lose. We want to take the game to them and hopefully get the first goal.”

City (probable): Ingham, Purkiss, Parslow, Sangare, Meredith, Smith, Lawless, Barrett, Ferrell, Gash, Brodie. Subs: McGurk, Mackin, Nelthorpe, Rankine, Pacquette.

Kidderminster (probable): Coleman, Courtney, Caines, Riley, Baker, McDermott, Finnigan, McPhee, Smikle, Knights, Barnes-Homer. Subs: Hadley, Matthews, Dolman, Hayward, Farrell.

Referee: Paul Curry (Essex).

Kick-off: 3pm.

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:43am Fri 25 Sep 09

Turnstile_Yorkie says...

Get in there!
Lawless=Flawless
Will give us the type of player we severly missed on tuesday night
Get in there! Lawless=Flawless Will give us the type of player we severly missed on tuesday night Turnstile_Yorkie

11:17am Fri 25 Sep 09

rogue84 says...

this is great news, Mackin is a grafter, but he doesn't have the adaptability that Lawless has.
once again i can't be there due to work, but if Tuesday's performance can just be stepped up a gear we'll hopefully keep this home record going with a win. good luck lads, see you all at Tamworth on the 6th!
this is great news, Mackin is a grafter, but he doesn't have the adaptability that Lawless has. once again i can't be there due to work, but if Tuesday's performance can just be stepped up a gear we'll hopefully keep this home record going with a win. good luck lads, see you all at Tamworth on the 6th! rogue84

11:19am Fri 25 Sep 09

PDH says...

How on eath could ingham be 100% fit? and if he plays what a stupid idea i would be to not have a sub goalie
How on eath could ingham be 100% fit? and if he plays what a stupid idea i would be to not have a sub goalie PDH

11:34am Fri 25 Sep 09

Frank Black says...

i think foyle counts on McGurk's goalkeeping skills as a backup.
i think foyle counts on McGurk's goalkeeping skills as a backup. Frank Black

11:41am Fri 25 Sep 09

Imp says...

With or without Ingham and Lawless, I expect us to beat Kidderminster. They're good; we're better. Won't be easy, but we seem to be maintaining a fairly high standard and the same again will do.
|
There were some negative comments about Mimms in a previous thread, which I think are unfair. He's a promising young lad who has put in some good performances for us. If he was the finished article, he wouldn't be backup at a BSP club.
With or without Ingham and Lawless, I expect us to beat Kidderminster. They're good; we're better. Won't be easy, but we seem to be maintaining a fairly high standard and the same again will do. | There were some negative comments about Mimms in a previous thread, which I think are unfair. He's a promising young lad who has put in some good performances for us. If he was the finished article, he wouldn't be backup at a BSP club. Imp

11:44am Fri 25 Sep 09

Imp says...

PDH wrote:
How on eath could ingham be 100% fit? and if he plays what a stupid idea i would be to not have a sub goalie
Why can't he be 100% fit? Do you have a copy of his medical report?
|
Personally, while he has this issue I'd also want a backup on the bench. But managers have to stand by their decisions. It's easy for us, sat at home/standing in the ground to say what should or shouldn't be done. Who should play. How we should play. What substitutions should be made, and when. What the bench should look like. Whether highlights should be on the web. But we aren't the ones whose employment rests on those decisions. I think people should remember that.
[quote][p][bold]PDH[/bold] wrote: How on eath could ingham be 100% fit? and if he plays what a stupid idea i would be to not have a sub goalie [/p][/quote]Why can't he be 100% fit? Do you have a copy of his medical report? | Personally, while he has this issue I'd also want a backup on the bench. But managers have to stand by their decisions. It's easy for us, sat at home/standing in the ground to say what should or shouldn't be done. Who should play. How we should play. What substitutions should be made, and when. What the bench should look like. Whether highlights should be on the web. But we aren't the ones whose employment rests on those decisions. I think people should remember that. Imp

12:02pm Fri 25 Sep 09

tonyg says...

Great to have Flawless back. He was missed on tuesday.

I rate Makin very much, but agree with MF that he was a bit rusty.

Their is always playing ferrell in the center of midfield which is actually his natural position, so we could accommodate Nelthorpe.

Ingham

Meredith
Mcgurk
Sangare
Purkiss

Ferrell
Flawless
Barratt
Smith

Brodie
Gash

That would be my team.
Great to have Flawless back. He was missed on tuesday. I rate Makin very much, but agree with MF that he was a bit rusty. Their is always playing ferrell in the center of midfield which is actually his natural position, so we could accommodate Nelthorpe. Ingham Meredith Mcgurk Sangare Purkiss Ferrell Flawless Barratt Smith Brodie Gash That would be my team. tonyg

1:21pm Fri 25 Sep 09

tips says...

I personally think it is essential to have a substitute goalkeeper on the bench.It is the one position in the team where a specialist is required.
Come on Martin think about this a bit more it's not being negative but is sensible surely
I personally think it is essential to have a substitute goalkeeper on the bench.It is the one position in the team where a specialist is required. Come on Martin think about this a bit more it's not being negative but is sensible surely tips

2:04pm Fri 25 Sep 09

Imp says...

tips wrote:
I personally think it is essential to have a substitute goalkeeper on the bench.It is the one position in the team where a specialist is required. Come on Martin think about this a bit more it's not being negative but is sensible surely
It's a calculated gamble.
Basically, keepers areb statistically far, far less likely to get injured during a match than outfield players. It's a real rarity. So some managers choose to use that extra sub place to leave them more outfield options on the bench.
|
Normally, I'm fine with it. But when your 1st choice has an underlying problem, it's pretty risky. Apparently McGurk is a decent keeper (in much the same way as Warnock used to have no sub keeper because Jagielka could do a decent job).
[quote][p][bold]tips[/bold] wrote: I personally think it is essential to have a substitute goalkeeper on the bench.It is the one position in the team where a specialist is required. Come on Martin think about this a bit more it's not being negative but is sensible surely[/p][/quote]It's a calculated gamble. Basically, keepers areb statistically far, far less likely to get injured during a match than outfield players. It's a real rarity. So some managers choose to use that extra sub place to leave them more outfield options on the bench. | Normally, I'm fine with it. But when your 1st choice has an underlying problem, it's pretty risky. Apparently McGurk is a decent keeper (in much the same way as Warnock used to have no sub keeper because Jagielka could do a decent job). Imp

2:05pm Fri 25 Sep 09

iandwightbenton says...

Surely u have to have a keeper on the bench when Ingham has been been playing through an injury for almost a month !

Whats the point on having 2 centre backs on the bench, are you really going to bring them both on (McGurk and O Hare) ???????

Surely u have to have a keeper on the bench when Ingham has been been playing through an injury for almost a month ! Whats the point on having 2 centre backs on the bench, are you really going to bring them both on (McGurk and O Hare) ??????? iandwightbenton

2:40pm Fri 25 Sep 09

OLD - HEAD says...

We desperately need Lawless back in the team, for Mackin is not in the same league. But to be honest neither Ferrell,Barrett or Smith were any great shakes on Tuesday, thats why our midfield was over-run by Paul Carden and his colleagues. I have now given up complaining about Foyles persistence in not having a substitute goalkeeper on the bench, if I was Mimms I would feel insulted. When Ingham eventually gets carried off, and we finish up getting stuffed, then Foyle will no doubt be greeted with howls of abuse, until then "Keep Lucky Martin".
We desperately need Lawless back in the team, for Mackin is not in the same league. But to be honest neither Ferrell,Barrett or Smith were any great shakes on Tuesday, thats why our midfield was over-run by Paul Carden and his colleagues. I have now given up complaining about Foyles persistence in not having a substitute goalkeeper on the bench, if I was Mimms I would feel insulted. When Ingham eventually gets carried off, and we finish up getting stuffed, then Foyle will no doubt be greeted with howls of abuse, until then "Keep Lucky Martin". OLD - HEAD

4:00pm Fri 25 Sep 09

tonyg says...

OLD - HEAD wrote:
We desperately need Lawless back in the team, for Mackin is not in the same league. But to be honest neither Ferrell,Barrett or Smith were any great shakes on Tuesday, thats why our midfield was over-run by Paul Carden and his colleagues. I have now given up complaining about Foyles persistence in not having a substitute goalkeeper on the bench, if I was Mimms I would feel insulted. When Ingham eventually gets carried off, and we finish up getting stuffed, then Foyle will no doubt be greeted with howls of abuse, until then "Keep Lucky Martin".
Well you can only say that if your actually there day-in-day-out at the training ground.

Mcgurk could be a better keeper than josh mimms.

And foyle said ingham would only be played if 100% fit, so there is no more reason to have a sub goalkeeper on the bench.
[quote][p][bold]OLD - HEAD[/bold] wrote: We desperately need Lawless back in the team, for Mackin is not in the same league. But to be honest neither Ferrell,Barrett or Smith were any great shakes on Tuesday, thats why our midfield was over-run by Paul Carden and his colleagues. I have now given up complaining about Foyles persistence in not having a substitute goalkeeper on the bench, if I was Mimms I would feel insulted. When Ingham eventually gets carried off, and we finish up getting stuffed, then Foyle will no doubt be greeted with howls of abuse, until then "Keep Lucky Martin".[/p][/quote]Well you can only say that if your actually there day-in-day-out at the training ground. Mcgurk could be a better keeper than josh mimms. And foyle said ingham would only be played if 100% fit, so there is no more reason to have a sub goalkeeper on the bench. tonyg

5:25pm Fri 25 Sep 09

OLD - HEAD says...

In reply to "tonyg,York" - Goalkeepers can leave the field even though they are 100% fit, for they can be sent off. Dave McGurk may indeed be a decent goalkeeper, but I am sure its not Inghams place that he is after.
In reply to "tonyg,York" - Goalkeepers can leave the field even though they are 100% fit, for they can be sent off. Dave McGurk may indeed be a decent goalkeeper, but I am sure its not Inghams place that he is after. OLD - HEAD

11:18pm Fri 25 Sep 09

PDH says...

Imp wrote:
PDH wrote: How on eath could ingham be 100% fit? and if he plays what a stupid idea i would be to not have a sub goalie
Why can't he be 100% fit? Do you have a copy of his medical report? | Personally, while he has this issue I'd also want a backup on the bench. But managers have to stand by their decisions. It's easy for us, sat at home/standing in the ground to say what should or shouldn't be done. Who should play. How we should play. What substitutions should be made, and when. What the bench should look like. Whether highlights should be on the web. But we aren't the ones whose employment rests on those decisions. I think people should remember that.
No Imp i dont have a copy of his medical report, but i do have a brain, if a player is carrying a injury, as ingham is, he cannot possibly be 100% fit, so it would be perfectly sensible to have a sub goalie, we nearly came unstuck because of this on tues.
[quote][p][bold]Imp[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PDH[/bold] wrote: How on eath could ingham be 100% fit? and if he plays what a stupid idea i would be to not have a sub goalie [/p][/quote]Why can't he be 100% fit? Do you have a copy of his medical report? | Personally, while he has this issue I'd also want a backup on the bench. But managers have to stand by their decisions. It's easy for us, sat at home/standing in the ground to say what should or shouldn't be done. Who should play. How we should play. What substitutions should be made, and when. What the bench should look like. Whether highlights should be on the web. But we aren't the ones whose employment rests on those decisions. I think people should remember that.[/p][/quote]No Imp i dont have a copy of his medical report, but i do have a brain, if a player is carrying a injury, as ingham is, he cannot possibly be 100% fit, so it would be perfectly sensible to have a sub goalie, we nearly came unstuck because of this on tues. PDH

3:04pm Sat 26 Sep 09

PDH says...

I see Mimms is on the bench, why? is it because ingham is a worry because he is not fully fit? I rest my case.
I see Mimms is on the bench, why? is it because ingham is a worry because he is not fully fit? I rest my case. PDH

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
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