Oh jeez, now I'm definitely in trouble. Please don't blame me for Dane winning the award, all I said was that I wouldn't be disappointed if we resigned him! Lol.
Oh jeez, now I'm definitely in trouble. Please don't blame me for Dane winning the award, all I said was that I wouldn't be disappointed if we resigned him! Lol.
Originally Posted by Jeterpool
I was initially surprised too. But honestly, are there even any better candidates? I struggled to come up with a name I'd put forward. At least he did play every week like others have said.
I thought it was about the quality, not the quantity.
They both showed form Ingham can only dream of. And we've already mentioned Papas being bias to senior players
You've mentioned it... Many times. The only youth player swho didn't get a fair shake was Natta instead of Jenkinson/Jurman and Al Taay over O'Neil. But honestly, O'Neil is the better player so really it's only Natta.
The other younger guys not getting a game were competing with players their own age like Sotirio or Buhagiar for starting spots.
Yeah, the other players who had locked in their spots (Thurgate, Beka, O'Neil) all had very bad seasons by their own standards. And the guys like Piscopo who had a higher peak were super inconsistent and struggled to stay in the team.
Realistically the only suitable options who played the majority of the games and actually played to their level or above were Dane, Sotirio and maybe Buhagiar. Our spine had a below average year, which is the reason we didn't make the finals, you can't do much in football when your spine is off unfortunately.
Piscopo probably looked like our "best" player - but between injuries and form, I would guess he only looked "good" for roughly 1/4 of the season?
Jurman had a pretty decent second half of the campaign.
O'Neill looked good before the injury (which was pretty early from memory)
Tbh if Natta had played the whole season he would probably have my vote. The first and last quarters when he was played, he looked like a bright spot.
Bon and I both said exactly the same. Natta was the bright spark of the season and looked a cut above when he played. But for whatever reason he couldn't get a start after that injury.
I reckon we would have been a lock for 7th place, maybe even snuck into the 6, if Natta had played all season at CB.
Stynes looked good and he's a younger player. I would've given Cancar a run as well and let's not even get started on the lies about Goodwin and the Muragis debacle
I would offer we looked a lot worse defensively the second Jenkinson was moved from right back to centre back
We looked better when Natta and Jurman were in the centre
I haven't seen any lies about Goodwin or Mauragis. Goodwin didn't train, so wasn't ready to play. He trained the next week and was given a start. Then subbed off when he was cooked. Mauragis was on loan, not sure how he could have started for us this season.
I really hope Mauragis is our LB next season tho. He didn't lock down the LB role at the Nix, but they were a level above us so hopefully he can come back here and start every game.
If we can sign a decent quality, experienced CB to play with Natta, start Lucas at LB and get Jenkinson back to decent form at RB we would have an A League quality backline.
I concur
The Championship Chronicles - The Jetstream's review of the 2007/08 season. www.newcastlefootball.net/chronicles
It remains to be seen, but i'm not confident we can play both Cancar and Natta together next season (getting in before it's mentioned). At 20ish (or early 20's) are either going to adept at vocally controlling and organising the backline? An experienced CB is a must - and I think it will likely be Jurman again. He's the captain and he played in a generally consistent manner last year. That leans towards Cancar starting at CB and not Natta.
The year we didn't have a vocal presence we got the spoon, we then paid for Boogaard and started to have that sorted.
The Championship Chronicles - The Jetstream's review of the 2007/08 season. www.newcastlefootball.net/chronicles
Did Natta and Jurman even play/start together as a central pairing?
I remember Natta and Elsey early in the season.
I thought Jenkinson was even worse defensively at RB than at CB to be honest. I thought for the most part he did OK at CB (although still had some egregious errors) and did at least give us a ball playing option which is required when partnering Jurman.
I admittedly haven't followed Mauragis at all this season, when he was with us I thought he was fine to good going forward but really poor defensively, which is the sort of thing people have been slamming Ingham, Aquilina for (and I'm branding Jenkinson in that manner too). Is he really going to solve our problems at LB if he's another guy who is good going forward and a liability in defense? McGarry was the same again, he was decent going forward. I have to assume that trade was made because he was seen as the same sort of player as Mauragis, and there was no point having both here next season.
edit: I'll add, I'd be happy to pencil Natta in at LB for next season if he can't find a starting spot in the centre based on his last few games.
Last edited by Macca; 04-05-2023 at 10:36 AM.
They did in our second match (rd 3 v Wellington at Home - 3-1 Win), 3rd match (rd 4 v Wanderers - 0-2 loss), 6th match (Rd 7 v CCM - 2-1 Win), 7th match (Rd 8 v Roar - 0-1 Loss). Round 12 is when Natta fell out of the team and returned off the bench for 5 minutes in Rd 14.. They didn't start together centrally for the rest of the season.
The Championship Chronicles - The Jetstream's review of the 2007/08 season. www.newcastlefootball.net/chronicles
I feel like we are a team perfectly suited to a back 3. We have more wingbacks than fullbacks, our CBs are not ideally suited to a high line and our midfield is not exactly sorted yet.
GK
Jenkinson, new CB, Natta
Ingham,Aquilina or Mauragis at wingback.
2 man midfield with O'Neil and either Grozos/Stynes/Timmins or a new signing.
3 forwards who don't need to track back wide BUT a striker who can drop deep to collect and help create.
Piscopo, Stynes, Buhagiar, Sotirio could all play as wide forwards, even Archie could play out there, however we would 100% need to find the right Striker to make this sort of system work.
Mustve missed all the stuff about Goodwins body only being able to handle more then 10-15 mins for the back half of the season and needing surgery then bam he starts.
I watched a fair bit of the Jets this year, I really don't think we were as bad as some are making them out to be. The biggest problem was obviously goals and if we converted more of our chances it would have taken pressure off other areas of the park.
We do have alot of players of similar quality, so deciding who stays and who goes isn't straight forward. Ingham winning player of the year indicates that he should be resigned. Sort of makes the award a joke if he isn't offered a contract. For mine Natta looked superb as a left back, I wouldn't be changing that. Ingham is your right back, won't score enough goals up the park.
For mine striker is the big one, along with a left winger. We need goals.
And I guess we wait to see what happens with Thurgate.
You just misunderstood and confused two separate statements together.
He hadn't trained during the week leading up to the derby, so he was only going to be good for 15 mins of impact. Pappas said he didn't play him because once we went down to 10 men he would have needed to work twice as hard and I assume they were worried he wouldn't even last that long.
Then the following week he was able to train, so Pappas let him start and go as long as his body would last.
The surgery was known about before the season started, so obviously they were extra mindful to not kill the kid knowing he had surgery and a long pre season on the horizon. But the surgery wasn't the reason he didn't play in the derby.
Dane Ingham has been signed for 2 years
Posting Permissions
