• 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.

Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
4,695
Location
Loughton - the only way is Orange!
Would some agree with me that 55 players (perm and loan) is too many over three seasons? This doesn't include the few players we had when Sturrock came to the club or the youth players which came through either. For a club with no money I feel that is a incredible amount of bodies with sadly no end result.
 

Semi-Spanish Shrimper

High School Student
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
626
Location
East Stand Reds
Would some agree with me that 55 players (perm and loan) is too many over three seasons? This doesn't include the few players we had when Sturrock came to the club or the youth players which came through either. For a club with no money I feel that is a incredible amount of bodies with sadly no end result.

I agree. All the chopping and changing Sturrock had to make often led to the team looking a little disjointed. A lot of the issues on the pitch have been out of Sturrock's hands (i.e. injuries, having to use a ridiculous amount of loanees), added to the significant issues off it. He did a good job considering, and I can imagine he would be frustrated because we all know that our strongest side is easily good enough to get us out of this division.
 

the_saafender

Director
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
2,661
I think bringing back Mohsni was a bad move for Sturrock. It's hardly helped our form.

True but again I'm not sure whether that was his decision. It was done at a stage of the season when we were crippled with injuries and had one of our best players from last season still around the club if not the payroll. I think it was just a bit of a gamble coz we all know that Mohsni last season could win us games with moments of brilliance or towering headers in the dying seconds. I agree it hasn't really worked out this year as he doesnt look anything near his best IMo. But I dont think Sturrock should be criticised for taking that gamble when we were pretty damn desperate.
 

dan_mays

Coach
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
685
Location
Southampton
I think bringing back Mohsni was a bad move for Sturrock. It's hardly helped our form.

TBH he did what he thought was right at the time, team crippled with injuries and then Cresswell getting suspended we needed him back so at that moment in time it was the right thing to do. Otherwise we would of been stuck with Spillane at centre back
 

Jai

President
Joined
Nov 27, 2003
Messages
5,796
Location
Witham
Perhaps he should have fielded the youth players when 9 or 10 first teamers were out injured in February. At least then we wouldn't have all this inconvenience of going down and queuing for Wembley tickets.

It's no surprise. When he came in, he had to get bodies in fast. This meant some were inevitably not up to scratch, so he's had to get rid of them and get higher quality replacements. Plus you can't do much about people like Grant, Ferdinand and Hall leaving to better themselves. Had a lot of loan players this season but he's had to.
 
Top