trialists

I said earlier in the week that I would reserve judgement until I had seen them play. I have read other posters views about Clay and Ironside but tried to go with and open mind. I watched them pretty carefully and tried to make allowances for the fact we were playing league 1 opposition.
Summary:
Clay, well he is taller than our other midfielders which we could do with and he won a few headers. He can pass a ball 5 to 10 yards when given time and a bit of space. He is not particularly quick and missed a good number of tackles after which he gave up each time, did not try to recover. Not sure why but he did a little better in the second half as the pace slowed. He knew he was making mistakes and it was not going for him, the head shakes told the story. He has never established himself anywhere. Verdict: I'm out

Ironside, again a tall rangy young man who I admit only played half an hour or so but did try hard to win headers, not always successful, fairly strong trying to retain possession. Had one decent effort bringing a good save from the keeper. Not particularly quick or skilful on the ball. Clearly not a finisher (he has scored 2 goals in his career so far), more a target player if anything. Think of Andy Cook on an off day. Verdict: Not going to add anything, not worth using the budget. I'm out.

General point on these two. Probably still developing these two but can we wait to see if they turn out ok? This is a vital season.

Pittman, stocky, low centre of gravity, strong, quick. Never going to win much in the air but looks like he might turn defenders in tight areas and create chances for himself. He is more likely to win the ball, keep it and create openings than Hannah, who is a different type of striker. Nothing sinister in this but he has powerful thigh muscles which no doubt gives him his pace, at the same time this sort of physique can sometimes be prone to strains. Clearly experienced playing up front and could provide goals for us if he proves his fitness and signs. Verdict: Will score more goals than Ironside ever will but then again they are different types of forward player.

I leave it to Paul to make his decision but us fans seem fairly united in our views.

Why the red ticks? That's a decent summary from what I've read and heard. I'd say Pittman will be the best bet here, and I agree about taking these other two on for development, let's start doing that when we're in the League.

Quoted from oldun

I said earlier in the week that I would reserve judgement until I had seen them play. I have read other posters views about Clay and Ironside but tried to go with and open mind. I watched them pretty carefully and tried to make allowances for the fact we were playing league 1 opposition.
Summary:
Clay, well he is taller than our other midfielders which we could do with and he won a few headers. He can pass a ball 5 to 10 yards when given time and a bit of space. He is not particularly quick and missed a good number of tackles after which he gave up each time, did not try to recover. Not sure why but he did a little better in the second half as the pace slowed. He knew he was making mistakes and it was not going for him, the head shakes told the story. He has never established himself anywhere. Verdict: I'm out

Ironside, again a tall rangy young man who I admit only played half an hour or so but did try hard to win headers, not always successful, fairly strong trying to retain possession. Had one decent effort bringing a good save from the keeper. Not particularly quick or skilful on the ball. Clearly not a finisher (he has scored 2 goals in his career so far), more a target player if anything. Think of Andy Cook on an off day. Verdict: Not going to add anything, not worth using the budget. I'm out.

General point on these two. Probably still developing these two but can we wait to see if they turn out ok? This is a vital season.

Pittman, stocky, low centre of gravity, strong, quick. Never going to win much in the air but looks like he might turn defenders in tight areas and create chances for himself. He is more likely to win the ball, keep it and create openings than Hannah, who is a different type of striker. Nothing sinister in this but he has powerful thigh muscles which no doubt gives him his pace, at the same time this sort of physique can sometimes be prone to strains. Clearly experienced playing up front and could provide goals for us if he proves his fitness and signs. Verdict: Will score more goals than Ironside ever will but then again they are different types of forward player.

I leave it to Paul to make his decision but us fans seem fairly united in our views.

I saw both before last night and last night showed me again neither will improve us to a level were we need to be at all.

in fact I would go as far to say that who ever recommended them to us should never be allowed to recommend a trialist to us ever again.

what slightly puzzles me is to why we would bother taking a look at 2 lads who have come with nothing to suggest they could improve us.

ironside was deemed not good enough at Halifax and Harrogate and clay is now at worksop town after York fans rated him as one of their worst signings ever made.

I don't mind paul looking at the lower leagues but only if its a player on the way up not clearly on the way down.

Can't disagree with any of oldun's comment. I'd be amazed if we signed either Clay or Ironside, Clay being especially poor. Pittman is a possibility for his strength and pace.

As a couple of clownshoes appear to have given you a negative mark for your post, I'll give a tick. Don't normally bother with that sort of nonsense, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.  

Quoted from RoboCod

Why the red ticks? That's a decent summary from what I've read and heard. I'd say Pittman will be the best bet here, and I agree about taking these other two on for development, let's start doing that when we're in the League.

some weirdos on here just do it.

clearly cant counter the argument.

Quoted from oldun

I said earlier in the week that I would reserve judgement until I had seen them play. I have read other posters views about Clay and Ironside but tried to go with and open mind. I watched them pretty carefully and tried to make allowances for the fact we were playing league 1 opposition.
Summary:
Clay, well he is taller than our other midfielders which we could do with and he won a few headers. He can pass a ball 5 to 10 yards when given time and a bit of space. He is not particularly quick and missed a good number of tackles after which he gave up each time, did not try to recover. Not sure why but he did a little better in the second half as the pace slowed. He knew he was making mistakes and it was not going for him, the head shakes told the story. He has never established himself anywhere. Verdict: I'm out

Ironside, again a tall rangy young man who I admit only played half an hour or so but did try hard to win headers, not always successful, fairly strong trying to retain possession. Had one decent effort bringing a good save from the keeper. Not particularly quick or skilful on the ball. Clearly not a finisher (he has scored 2 goals in his career so far), more a target player if anything. Think of Andy Cook on an off day. Verdict: Not going to add anything, not worth using the budget. I'm out.

General point on these two. Probably still developing these two but can we wait to see if they turn out ok? This is a vital season.

Pittman, stocky, low centre of gravity, strong, quick. Never going to win much in the air but looks like he might turn defenders in tight areas and create chances for himself. He is more likely to win the ball, keep it and create openings than Hannah, who is a different type of striker. Nothing sinister in this but he has powerful thigh muscles which no doubt gives him his pace, at the same time this sort of physique can sometimes be prone to strains. Clearly experienced playing up front and could provide goals for us if he proves his fitness and signs. Verdict: Will score more goals than Ironside ever will but then again they are different types of forward player.

I leave it to Paul to make his decision but us fans seem fairly united in our views.

wouldn't disagree too much.

think Ironside and Clay could well play in this division for a mid-table team easily, but we want promotion and the best available players.

i was impressed with Pittman, considering he hasn't been here long, which will explain why him and LJL was not on the same wave length at times, he looks impressive, strong, fast and looked very confident, BUT, can he keep fit ? worth a punt IMO

Quoted from oldun

I said earlier in the week that I would reserve judgement until I had seen them play. I have read other posters views about Clay and Ironside but tried to go with and open mind. I watched them pretty carefully and tried to make allowances for the fact we were playing league 1 opposition.
Summary:
Clay, well he is taller than our other midfielders which we could do with and he won a few headers. He can pass a ball 5 to 10 yards when given time and a bit of space. He is not particularly quick and missed a good number of tackles after which he gave up each time, did not try to recover. Not sure why but he did a little better in the second half as the pace slowed. He knew he was making mistakes and it was not going for him, the head shakes told the story. He has never established himself anywhere. Verdict: I'm out

Ironside, again a tall rangy young man who I admit only played half an hour or so but did try hard to win headers, not always successful, fairly strong trying to retain possession. Had one decent effort bringing a good save from the keeper. Not particularly quick or skilful on the ball. Clearly not a finisher (he has scored 2 goals in his career so far), more a target player if anything. Think of Andy Cook on an off day. Verdict: Not going to add anything, not worth using the budget. I'm out.

General point on these two. Probably still developing these two but can we wait to see if they turn out ok? This is a vital season.

Pittman, stocky, low centre of gravity, strong, quick. Never going to win much in the air but looks like he might turn defenders in tight areas and create chances for himself. He is more likely to win the ball, keep it and create openings than Hannah, who is a different type of striker. Nothing sinister in this but he has powerful thigh muscles which no doubt gives him his pace, at the same time this sort of physique can sometimes be prone to strains. Clearly experienced playing up front and could provide goals for us if he proves his fitness and signs. Verdict: Will score more goals than Ironside ever will but then again they are different types of forward player.

I leave it to Paul to make his decision but us fans seem fairly united in our views.

Clay is not for me but it think there is a footballer in Ironside, I don't get the comparison with Cook, Cook's link up play was poor, his strength was finishing, this lad may bring others into play.

Quoted from RoboCod

Why the red ticks? That's a decent summary from what I've read and heard. I'd say Pittman will be the best bet here, and I agree about taking these other two on for development, let's start doing that when we're in the League.

Because it doesn't matter what you say it is who is saying it.

If you are outspoken and prepared to say sh!t is sh!t then some of the w@nkers on here don't like it and will red cross you no matter what you say.

Quoted from headingly_mariner

Clay is not for me but it think there is a footballer in Ironside, I don't get the comparison with Cook, Cook's link up play was poor, his strength was finishing, this lad may bring others into play.

With you on Ironside, i dont think he is the answer we are looking for however...but on last nights viewing he was certainly an improvement on LJL's offerings. Definatley sees what is going on around him, nice dummy that let Aswad through for a one on one, good position for his saved close range attempt and within two minutes him and Hannah had completed more link ups than LJL and Pitmann managed in 60.
I think Hurst may well have another look at him, perhaps paired up with Pittman.  

What's all this tick lark. I never look and don't bother about it. People are free to disagree, I merely put together my considered view after watching them all play. I cannot agree Ironside is better than LJL but I appreciate there are some who cannot see any good in LJL anyway.