• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Well -- i couldnt disagree more with the sentiment of this thread. We were shocking on Saturday ( and our front 3 have been poor for most of the season ) ... But When Barnard came on he actually made loads of inteliigent runs off the ball , he linked play very well with the midfield , he moved their centre backs all over the place and generally upset them ... we looked way more dangerous with him on the field than the listless Weston. I would rather see Corr + Coolthirst up front together , but when Bazza's injured i want to see Barnard start.

Its easy for you lot to pick on a scapegoat like Barny coz his injuries have limited appearances and the sharpness wasnt quite 100%. But when he gets matchtime he is the man to bang in the goals for us. In fact i think Barnard + Coolthirst could be a very useful combination , with Barny's experience + knowledge being just what Shaq needs. Weston has been pitiful and should only be used as a sub left winger. You cant beat experience --- people mocked when i suggested 2 years ago we needed a Jamie Cureton type player , yet he's still banging in goals a plenty.

Give Barny a run of 3 or 4 matches as part of a front 2 ( not on the wing where he's been asked to play earlier this year ) & watch him return to the brilliant striker he is capable of being.


Agree totally with your first paragraph. He should start ahead of Weston on Saturday (in the absence of Corr), the two centre halves had it easy up until he came on.
 
I can't help but feel that some of you guys are being a little harsh on Barnard. When I was reading the match program I saw that he has played 84 minutes of football this season before the Morecambe game, scoring 1 goal which made him the 4th most efficient goalscorer in the league (I'm not saying that he is).

How many of those 84 minutes were just him coming on for the last 10-15 minutes of the game? I think Morecambe was the earliest he came on that I remember. He hasn't been given a proper run in the team and people are writing him off already.

He played for roughly 30 minutes against Morecambe, but I can only think of 2/3 times that we actually got the ball out wide and put a cross in! Too many times we had an opportunity to double up on their fullbacks but we tried to bring it in to the middle and play too narrow. I can't think of any real opportunity for Barnard to have a shot on goal in the match, the only time he seemed to receive the ball was on his head from goal-kicks that he would rarely win.

Now I'm not saying that he is an unbelievable player, but let's at least wait on our judgement until he actually gets a full 90 minutes, which he probably wont any time soon.
 
I don't feel I can fairly judge Lee as he has only had bits and pieces of games, a run of 5 games as a starter and then I would be confident in judging him as either up to the task or not.
For sure he appears focused and wanting to perform.
 
I can't help but feel that some of you guys are being a little harsh on Barnard. When I was reading the match program I saw that he has played 84 minutes of football this season before the Morecambe game, scoring 1 goal which made him the 4th most efficient goalscorer in the league (I'm not saying that he is).

How many of those 84 minutes were just him coming on for the last 10-15 minutes of the game? I think Morecambe was the earliest he came on that I remember. He hasn't been given a proper run in the team and people are writing him off already.

He played for roughly 30 minutes against Morecambe, but I can only think of 2/3 times that we actually got the ball out wide and put a cross in! Too many times we had an opportunity to double up on their fullbacks but we tried to bring it in to the middle and play too narrow. I can't think of any real opportunity for Barnard to have a shot on goal in the match, the only time he seemed to receive the ball was on his head from goal-kicks that he would rarely win.

Now I'm not saying that he is an unbelievable player, but let's at least wait on our judgement until he actually gets a full 90 minutes, which he probably wont any time soon.

I agree.

We lose a game and the discussion is all about Barnard, and he only came on as a sub. Weston didnt get a thread opened and he has played far more doesnt score and at least Barnard had a decent header in his appearance.

Im not a massive fan and never was due to his style of play, but people do write him off with him hardly playing.

The thing for me, and its the same argument for calls for Williams to play, is that if he was showing in training and development games he was deserving a chance he should get one, but Brown clearly does not think he is the player to start games for whatever reason, maybe its his ability to play the role, maybe fitness, who knows.

I'm not sure there is any reason why Barnard should be given a run "just to see if he is any good", Im not really sure what he brings to the table, other than making "good runs". He cant hold the ball up like Corr can, doesnt have pace. Maybe with Payne behind him he would get more of a service to suit his style, but Im not convinced.
 
I agree.

We lose a game and the discussion is all about Barnard, and he only came on as a sub. Weston didnt get a thread opened and he has played far more doesnt score and at least Barnard had a decent header in his appearance.

Im not a massive fan and never was due to his style of play, but people do write him off with him hardly playing.

The thing for me, and its the same argument for calls for Williams to play, is that if he was showing in training and development games he was deserving a chance he should get one, but Brown clearly does not think he is the player to start games for whatever reason, maybe its his ability to play the role, maybe fitness, who knows.

I'm not sure there is any reason why Barnard should be given a run "just to see if he is any good", Im not really sure what he brings to the table, other than making "good runs". He cant hold the ball up like Corr can, doesnt have pace. Maybe with Payne behind him he would get more of a service to suit his style, but Im not convinced.


You constantly said the same about Payne "not ready or Phil thinks he is not ready" .The truth about JWilliams until he has the chance none of us including Phil will never know.Jack has been excellent and has the no fear factor and maybe Jason will do exactly the same.
 
You constantly said the same about Payne "not ready or Phil thinks he is not ready" .The truth about JWilliams until he has the chance none of us including Phil will never know.Jack has been excellent and has the no fear factor and maybe Jason will do exactly the same.

Payne was played when Phil decided he was ready and done well. That doesnt prove he was therefore ready a year ago.

Payne did start well, but he has been around the first team a lot longer than Williams and was more prepared.

Phil got it right with Payne and I trust his judgement with Williams, unlike you he does know, he sees him day in/day out. He clearly thinks he is close as has been including him as well, and if he does play a part this season thats great, but again doesnt mean he should have been played 6 months ago.
 
Phil Brown picks the team, and PB has judged that LB is not good enough to make the starting 11.

If he was the player he once was he'd be the first name on the team sheet - sad to say it looks like he was a vanity signing, though if that was down to PB is another matter.
 
I would not start him at present as we have, IMO options more suited to the play PB wants; BUT as I tried to explain earlier I am not in a position to judge if Lee is useless or not.
PB must see something of value or he wouldn't squad him?
 
I would not start him at present as we have, IMO options more suited to the play PB wants; BUT as I tried to explain earlier I am not in a position to judge if Lee is useless or not.
PB must see something of value or he wouldn't squad him?

Indeed.

I dont think he signed him, that seems pretty obvious. The fact that he puts him on though says he still does rate him other than the other available options at that time.

I dont think he would play ahead of Corr when fit though.
 
Indeed.

I dont think he signed him, that seems pretty obvious. The fact that he puts him on though says he still does rate him other than the other available options at that time.

I dont think he would play ahead of Corr when fit though.


Many on here believe Phil did not sign him which if true meant Phil did not want him,It must be possibly to assume maybe Phil is forced to give him cameos?.Whoever wanted Lee has IMO damaged the budget for what reason most of us including me will never know.
 
Many on here believe Phil did not sign him which if true meant Phil did not want him,It must be possibly to assume maybe Phil is forced to give him cameos?.Whoever wanted Lee has IMO damaged the budget for what reason most of us including me will never know.
Here we go again, so now that it's been established that there's no obligation to play Shaq you're going to start a new conspiracy theory about Barnard.
 
Many on here believe Phil did not sign him which if true meant Phil did not want him,It must be possibly to assume maybe Phil is forced to give him cameos?.Whoever wanted Lee has IMO damaged the budget for what reason most of us including me will never know.

If he is being forced to give him cameos then why hasn't he been playing until Corr got injured?

Always has to be a conspiracy....
 
Many on here believe Phil did not sign him which if true meant Phil did not want him,It must be possibly to assume maybe Phil is forced to give him cameos?.Whoever wanted Lee has IMO damaged the budget for what reason most of us including me will never know.

Can you think if a logical scenario where Phil is being forced to play him. Forced by who, what motive and also think about the bigger picture at the same time. Ie the club, the chairman, the manager all want promotion
 
Take one professional football manager who has been hired to select his team and sign players he wants !,Now if others sign players over the mangers head then the manager has been undermined and certainly does not have the final say on team matters..Anybody disagree so far ?

So if the above is true then the manager maybe undermined on team selection..Anybody disagree with this ?

Whether Lee was a vanity signing or whatever the sorry fact is this club has a habit of signing over the hill players who will be expensive by our budget restraints.
 
Take one professional football manager who has been hired to select his team and sign players he wants !,Now if others sign players over the mangers head then the manager has been undermined and certainly does not have the final say on team matters..Anybody disagree so far ?

So if the above is true then the manager maybe undermined on team selection..Anybody disagree with this ?

Whether Lee was a vanity signing or whatever the sorry fact is this club has a habit of signing over the hill players who will be expensive by our budget restraints.

Thats not what you said, you said he is being forced to play him.Out of the last 5 games before Saturday he has appeared once, for 14 minutes. He isnt being forced to do anything.

He does have final say on who plays full stop, whoever signed Barnard.

Whether these "vanity" signings are right or wrong is another thing entirely. Barnard and Eastwood didnt do much, but Goater did. Brown has had plenty of freedom to bring in plenty of other players still.
 
Thats not what you said, you said he is being forced to play him.Out of the last 5 games before Saturday he has appeared once, for 14 minutes. He isnt being forced to do anything.

He does have final say on who plays full stop, whoever signed Barnard.

Whether these "vanity" signings are right or wrong is another thing entirely. Barnard and Eastwood didnt do much, but Goater did. Brown has had plenty of freedom to bring in plenty of other players still.


The budget will control who Phil brings in that is certain.How can you be so sure about the final say on team selection?.

I also said "it must be possible to assume he is forced to give him cameos" which means if Phil did not want him why would he use a player who he did not rate in the first place.Do you think it is possible?
 
Take one professional football manager who has been hired to select his team and sign players he wants !,Now if others sign players over the mangers head then the manager has been undermined and certainly does not have the final say on team matters..Anybody disagree so far ?

So if the above is true then the manager maybe undermined on team selection..Anybody disagree with this ?

Whether Lee was a vanity signing or whatever the sorry fact is this club has a habit of signing over the hill players who will be expensive by our budget restraints.

If you're talking about Southend United & Phil Brown, then I couldn't disagree more. In fact I think that's utter BS.
 
The budget will control who Phil brings in that is certain.How can you be so sure about the final say on team selection?.

I also said "it must be possible to assume he is forced to give him cameos" which means if Phil did not want him why would he use a player who he did not rate in the first place.Do you think it is possible?

100% no.

Because whilst he wouldnt have chosen him originally and might not see him as his first choice he still recognises Barnard as an experienced pro and thinks he is the best option in the absence of Corr.

He is not being forced to play him, he had only played 14 minutes in 5 games prior to Saturday so the only logical and reasonable reason he played on Saturday was because he thought he was the best player to put on.

As for budgets, yes Barnard will be taking part of that, but it didnt stop us buying Bolger for 25k and now having 4 centre halveson our books, if the budget was that much of an issue and Brown wanted another striker he wouldnt have signed either him or Max

These facts will of course no doubt be totally ignored and you will continue to look for conspiracy theories to match your perceptions.
 
Can you think if a logical scenario where Phil is being forced to play him. Forced by who, what motive and also think about the bigger picture at the same time. Ie the club, the chairman, the manager all want promotion[/


Football club owners want the best for themselves,Sometimes relegation is what they want simply because the wage bill will reduce considerably .Whether this event happened here I don't know but Tilson was left high and dry during the relegation from league 1.
 
Back
Top