Not Reinstating Alex Pearce

[Tamworthram]

3 minutes ago, Rampage said:

Bit of a coincidence that Derby have not been the same since the Chris Martin saga started? Not a coincidence in my opinion. Confidence is fragile and we have lost a lot of it.

Absolutely a coincidence in my opinion. Why would the prospect of Martin coming back affect the majority (if not all) of the players with the possible exception of Bent and Vydra? 

[Rampage]

Just now, brady1993 said:

Or you know it could be to do with the serious disruption at left back and midfield over the past few games and playing 3 good sides away from home in a row ......

Largely agree brady1993 but what is the squad for if they cannot do the job?. Playing good sides is what we have to do and we have to beat them get promotion.

[brady1993]

Just now, Rampage said:

Largely agree brady1993 but what is the squad for if they cannot do the job?. Playing good sides is what we have to do and we have to beat them get promotion.

I see your point but the amount of disruption we've had recently is going to take a toll, against leeds there was only three players on the pitch who'd be a part of our strongest side in Ince, Keogh and Carson and we were right down to 5th choice at left back. Leeds are currently a good side in this league, with a full strength side I'd have been happy going and getting a point from them away from home. 

[Alph]

I don't think players are as sensitive as fans

Pearce would probably have been shocked and disappointed to be left out. And then got his head back down to work and would be supporting Shackell. He would have accepted it because it's part of football. Shackell played well at WBA, Shackell gets another go. Pearce last game was a 3-0 defeat. 

You just take decisions on the chin and get behind your teammates.

It's like the Chris Martin thing effecting Darren Bent. Will Bent lose confidence, will his morale drop by 15%, will Ince lose 5pts off his chemistry etc etc

No, they just work hard, do their thing and over a period of time they'll reflect on how the job is working out for them. You can't let every up and down effect you. You can't get carried away with wins and upset by losses. You can't get upset everytime your club is linked with a player that plays in your position. 

Someone like Darren Bent is old enough to know how football works to start getting worked up by day to day ********. Same with Alex Pearce. 

They don't analyse like this. 

[RodleyRam]

Prefer Pearce. Both are good. Don't think it would have made much impact on the Leeds game. Shackell is good if we're not trying to play football and up against it. Pearce would be my choice generally. Top attitude. Fits better with Keogh. Norwich aside our problems aren't really at CB.

[lrm14]

I'm amazed this is even a topic. Pearce was hardly impressive against Wigan and Norwich, get's dropped and Shack has a blinder against inform premier league opposition, then people question why he starts the next game.

Sure Pearce is having a good season but I'm happy that we have a manager who isn't afraid to drop players when they dip a little out of form, then reward players who impress in their place.

[Wolfie20]

15 minutes ago, lrm14 said:

I'm amazed this is even a topic. Pearce was hardly impressive against Wigan and Norwich, get's dropped and Shack has a blinder against inform premier league opposition, then people question why he starts the next game.

Sure Pearce is having a good season but I'm happy that we have a manager who isn't afraid to drop players when they dip a little out of form, then reward players who impress in their place.

If that's the case, how come Russell was being picked week after week? 

[Supermac]

On 16/01/2017 at 08:55, RoyMac5 said:

Shacks is as good a centre half as Pearce, they just have different qualities. Pearce should think himself lucky he missed the last match!

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you RoyMac5, I think Pearce is a better reader of the game than Shackell. His positional play is better, he is a better ball player and I think Richard Keogh looks a much better player alongside Pearce.

i must admit to not being a Shackell fan, even the first time. I tend to judge centre halves by yours and my username and whilst all fall short some are nearer the mark than others. 

[Sexydadbod]

Pearce has to start on Saturday for me. There's nothing in it between who is better out of Pearce and Shackell defensively. However, Pearce is better at bringing the ball out from the back which is key in this team.

[superzak]

Whats wrong with pearce and shacks, Keogh aint that good that he is not droppable { if droppable is a word } lol

[lrm14]

21 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

If that's the case, how come Russell was being picked week after week? 

Is this the same Russell that was dropped for Camara?

Unless of course you wanted him to be dropped when we on that winning streak, which makes 0 sense.

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, Supermac said:

.....and whilst all fall short some are nearer the mac than others. 

[brady1993]

2 hours ago, ostrichram said:

Whats wrong with pearce and shacks, Keogh aint that good that he is not droppable { if droppable is a word } lol

I'll stick my neck out and say that with the way we want to play football Keogh is borderline undroppable right now (assuming the pairing if he doesn't play is Shackell and Pearce). He's by far the best passer out of the three and is the only one capable of carrying the ball out from the back, this makes him crucial if we want to play out from the back. Another factor is that he is the only centre back out of the three who is even remotely mobile, with both Shackell and Pearce being slow. Essentially to play a pairing of Pearce and Shackell effectively you'd have to play with a deepline and virtually never play out from the back, which is the complete antithesis of how we are aiming to play.