Basil Fawlty
Don't Mention The War
If we place him the first team straight away, then our displinary system is all wrong I'm affraid. Hopefully another run out in the reserves, will serve him well.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Dean Cox drops a bombshell
- Thread starter Monsieur Leclerc
- Start date
Marshy
Well-known member
Put him straight back in i would.
The Large One
Who's Next?
So... you're up for punishing him TWICE for the same offence?
Scotty Mac
New member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 24,405
how is playing him in the reserves a punishment? if the first team is playing well and he is not in it then surely that is where he should be?
The Large One
Who's Next?
No, dropping him from the first team is one punishment. You and Kev want him not to be starting as a further punishment. Or rather - you think it's wrong for him to start on Friday. I said nothing about the reserves.
Dean Wilkins has said the punishment has been handed out and the matter is closed. Therefore, Dean Cox is in contention for a starting place. The only thing that is stopping him now is whether Wilkins is prepared to drop Fraser for Cox, which is a separate issue from whether Cox should or shouldn't be starting because of disciplinary reasons.
Oh, and Cox IS playing well at present.
Scotty Mac
New member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 24,405
the reason i think its wrong for him to start on friday is because fraser has done enough to keep the shirt - and if fraser does keep his place, then cox will be playing in the reserves until such time as he regains his spot - which is NOT a punishment
The Large One
Who's Next?
For the second time, I do not consider Cox playing the reserves a punishment. Your point was, (and it now appears you've changed your tune...)
"meaning that what sort of message would it send out if a player dropped for disciplinary reasons walked straight back in after one game..."
I'm not saying Fraser doesn't deserve to start - for me, he does. But then again, so does Cox - it's just that you don't think so.
Who'd be the gaffer?
Scotty Mac
New member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 24,405
meaning that what sort of message would it send out if a player dropped for disciplinary reasons walked straight back in after one game - especially a 3-0 victory - the first in a month in a league - away from home against a mid table side, in which the man who took his place, o'callaghan, ran the game, and his replacement on the right, fraser, also had a very good game
conveniently leaving out the SECOND part where i made the point about fraser
wilkins has a BIG decision to make - especially in front of a full house, where we have the chance to advertise the footballing side of things andhopewfully attract a few new fans to come back
The Large One
Who's Next?
It wasn't 'convenient'. I fully agree about the fact that Fraser is playing well - did I not say that enough times?
The extra fact that you feel Cox should not play because he has just been disciplined should NOT be a factor in Wilkins' thoughts - assuming Wilkins really has closed this matter.
The extra fact that you feel Cox should not play because he has just been disciplined should NOT be a factor in Wilkins' thoughts - assuming Wilkins really has closed this matter.
Simon Morgan
New member
As Wilkins has stated, the disciplinary matter is now over. Cox's punishment was not playing last saturday. I believe Cox is better than Fraser and should start over him on Friday. I think the mythical "message it sends to the team" crap isn't as important as some are making out. He's had his punishment and I think it should be a footballing decision at the end of the day.
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,077
Surely you do not change a winning side?
Monsieur Leclerc
Café Rene. In disguise!
- Apr 24, 2006
- 554
- Thread starter
- #33
The bench for Cox is the correct answer.
Simon Morgan
New member
I can see what you're saying, but from what I've heard Ebbsfleet Town wouldn't have had much trouble defeating Swindon on saturday. It is a very difficult decision, but I believe Wilkins will go for Cox and due to his creativity will be right to do so.
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,077
Still should not change a winning side.
Simon Morgan
New member
We're a good side with either Cox or Fraser in it, it probably won't affect the outcome of the match in my opinion. Despite some people's refusal to accept it, Cox is one of our better players and provides a bit more energy on the wing than the central midfield player Fraser. All I'm saying is that I would feel more confident about friday night with Cox in the team.
TWOCHOICEStom
Well-known member
Cox is a little shite and although he's served his punishment I don't think you can change a team that's just won 3-0 away from home.
If we'd have lost then I wouldn't have argued at Cox coming straight back in. Even if he is a jumped up prima donna..
But we didn't, unfortunate for Coxy but thats the way the cookie crumbles!
If we'd have lost then I wouldn't have argued at Cox coming straight back in. Even if he is a jumped up prima donna..
But we didn't, unfortunate for Coxy but thats the way the cookie crumbles!
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,077
I do rate Cox and as a rule would have him in the side. However we won well without him in the side and I do not think he should walk straight back in. He will have to wait for his opportunity, which with Robinson in the side should not be too long.
The Large One
Who's Next?
It's the sort of thing McGhee used to get crucified for.
Fraser's best place is in the centre of midfield, yet plays out wide. And arguably one of the division's best wide men is not starting...
Who'd be the gaffer?
Simon Morgan
New member
I appreciate what you're saying, makes a lot of sense, but I disagree.