Opening day Blues or all White on the night? Ipswich (A) Saturday 30th July. 3pm KO

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah I think Bradley is a good player and willing to do that higher up the pitch role I noted that in the friendly and yesterday. I’m just not sure he’s naturally suited for it. Though as you note he’s not slow and seems to get his head down.

More about the balance for me and whether we might want to look at the other side and add a bit more dynamism there as an option. You’ve noted why John can be frustrating and maybe there is at least a backup who offers a different style for some games. My issue with a lack of adequate wing backs cover still stands.

John seems to frustrate people - notably but not solely Prufrock - principally because he doesn't defend. If I'm reading you correctly, you want someone even more attacking on that side (as has Ghost with Cadden) - and yet you've often said that Sadlier doesn't have the skillset to be wingback.

Whoever we play there - and this includes Swear Jar - doesn't have the full skillset. Options, yes. But at the minute John is our "attacking" LWB, Iredale our "defensive" one. I fully agree that Iredale would not be suitable at home or even away to some low-block teams, but he's the alternative - unless we play Sadlier, whose best position is still arguably as a Dapo-style inverted LW, there.

Sadlier seems to be rwb cover.

For LWB I’d like some pace. Just to offer an alternative to Johns more measured game. Ideally.

[Bruce Rioja]

Big crowd today, you didn't bring many down for it

Mate - Ipswich is closer to fecking Dusseldorf than it is to Bolton, and on a day on which the trains weren't running I'd say that 1,400 is a very decent turn out from our end.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Sadlier seems to be rwb cover.

Flanners proposed, and I agree, that Sadlier is probably first replacement on either side - unless we're playing a team tough enough to require Iredale (and let's not forget Ipswich are no patsies).

Big crowd today, you didn't bring many down for it

Mate - Ipswich is closer to fecking Dusseldorf than it is to Bolton, and on a day on which the trains weren't running I'd say that 1,400 is a very decent turn out from our end.

For comparison, last time they came to ours they brought 1,054

[officer_dibble]

No rail strike then either

[The_Gun]

I have to say I’m looking forward to Sheehan getting a go in the role Lee played yesterday. I think he could be great given the freedom to stay further upfield and create.

I hadn’t realised he’s been out since November. That’s a blaaddy long time and it would be safe to assume he’ll be rusty for a while, but we’ve not seen him alongside all the good players we’ve signed in the past two windows, and I think he’ll flourish in a better team.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I have to say I’m looking forward to Sheehan getting a go in the role Lee played yesterday. I think he could be great given the freedom to stay further upfield and create.

I hadn’t realised he’s been out since November. That’s a blaaddy long time and it would be safe to assume he’ll be rusty for a while, but we’ve not seen him alongside all the good players we’ve signed in the past two windows, and I think he’ll flourish in a better team.

I can see him in that role, but I can also see him replacing/rotating Morley as the "passing" 8. He played as a deep quarterback for Newport and having someone calm on the ball might have helped yesterday. Especially as games open up later on, I can imagine him being good at springing team-mates with forward diagonals.

For me the straightest replacement/rotation for Lee will be Dempsey - not that he excelled as a 10 but in the way of leading the press, making things happen. The more attacking alternatives for 10 include Dapo and Sadlier (and, I suppose, Kacha). But yes, I'd be interested to see Sheehan back in the fold – and in a far better squad than we had for about half of his previous spell with us.

[TANGODANCER]

We're not bottom of the League..We're not bottom of the League..

[nicholaldo]

Big crowd today, you didn't bring many down for it

Mate - Ipswich is closer to fecking Dusseldorf than it is to Bolton, and on a day on which the trains weren't running I'd say that 1,400 is a very decent turn out from our end.

I did seem strangely uncalled for. I can't get overly het up about attendance figures but it's an even stranger remark considering they haven't exactly travelled here in large numbers previously.

I recall a few of their supporters' comments in their post-match interviews after the same fixture last season, expressing their astonishment that they could lose to a club like us. It's incredible what a big-money takeover does to the ego.

[Worthy4England]

I have to say I’m looking forward to Sheehan getting a go in the role Lee played yesterday. I think he could be great given the freedom to stay further upfield and create.

I hadn’t realised he’s been out since November. That’s a blaaddy long time and it would be safe to assume he’ll be rusty for a while, but we’ve not seen him alongside all the good players we’ve signed in the past two windows, and I think he’ll flourish in a better team.

I can see him in that role, but I can also see him replacing/rotating Morley as the "passing" 8. He played as a deep quarterback for Newport and having someone calm on the ball might have helped yesterday. Especially as games open up later on, I can imagine him being good at springing team-mates with forward diagonals.

For me the straightest replacement/rotation for Lee will be Dempsey - not that he excelled as a 10 but in the way of leading the press, making things happen. The more attacking alternatives for 10 include Dapo and Sadlier (and, I suppose, Kacha). But yes, I'd be interested to see Sheehan back in the fold – and in a far better squad than we had for about half of his previous spell with us.

I'm not sure I recall Sheehan as a 10, either. Always seemed to be deeper than that (generally). Not sure we have another natural 10 so happy to give it a go.

[GhostoftheBok]

That's the first time I've seen Evatt send a side out looking like he doesn't believe his team can win.

[BWFC_Insane]

That's the first time I've seen Evatt send a side out looking like he doesn't believe his team can win.

Nah not having that. He sent a team out that he thought could win. But as game went on we were second best and just about ground out a point.

I think some of the subs were questionable but I don’t think any were negative thinking we couldn’t win. Even late on when nobody could have ever imagined we were winning the game.

[Worthy4England]

That's the first time I've seen Evatt send a side out looking like he doesn't believe his team can win.

Nah not having that. He sent a team out that he thought could win. But as game went on we were second best and just about ground out a point.

I think some of the subs were questionable but I don’t think any were negative thinking we couldn’t win. Even late on when nobody could have ever imagined we were winning the game.

Yeah, I don't buy that either. And if he gives up that easy, he's got a bigger problem...

[GhostoftheBok]

Nah not having that. He sent a team out that he thought could win. But as game went on we were second best and just about ground out a point.

I think some of the subs were questionable but I don’t think any were negative thinking we couldn’t win. Even late on when nobody could have ever imagined we were winning the game.

I'm not saying he didn't send them out to win, I'm saying I don't think he believes his players are as good as Ipswich's players.

Not the same thing, but equally unlike Ian Evatt.

[Worthy4England]

Nah not having that. He sent a team out that he thought could win. But as game went on we were second best and just about ground out a point.

I think some of the subs were questionable but I don’t think any were negative thinking we couldn’t win. Even late on when nobody could have ever imagined we were winning the game.

I'm not saying he didn't send them out to win, I'm saying I don't think he believes his players are as good as Ipswich's players.

Not the same thing, but equally unlike Ian Evatt.

Better flirt him for someone who does, then. He sounds like a kid who didn't get all the Christmas prezzies he wanted...

[BWFC_Insane]

Nah not having that. He sent a team out that he thought could win. But as game went on we were second best and just about ground out a point.

I think some of the subs were questionable but I don’t think any were negative thinking we couldn’t win. Even late on when nobody could have ever imagined we were winning the game.

I'm not saying he didn't send them out to win, I'm saying I don't think he believes his players are as good as Ipswich's players.

Not the same thing, but equally unlike Ian Evatt.

I think that’s wrong too.

Evatt has built the squad he wants. And were it not for the fact he can’t seem to get the basics of set piece defending right after three years then we might well have won yesterday.

Ipswich only came back into it as we are still vulnerable on set pieces. And that’s down to the management and coaching. They need to improve.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I'm not sure I recall Sheehan as a 10, either. Always seemed to be deeper than that (generally). Not sure we have another natural 10 so happy to give it a go.

For clarity I don’t think The Gun was saying Sheehan *had* played 10 for us, but that he *could*, and I think most folk agree on that.

When we signed Sheehan last summer, we switched from the promotion-winning 4231 to more of a 433, with Sheehan one of the two in front of MJ. I’m not sure we played with a 10 before he got injured. It’s definitely an option.

[Worthy4England]

I'm not sure I recall Sheehan as a 10, either. Always seemed to be deeper than that (generally). Not sure we have another natural 10 so happy to give it a go.

For clarity I don’t think The Gun was saying Sheehan *had* played 10 for us, but that he *could*, and I think most folk agree on that.

When we signed Sheehan last summer, we switched from the promotion-winning 4231 to more of a 433, with Sheehan one of the two in front of MJ. I’m not sure we played with a 10 before he got injured. It’s definitely an option.

I wasn't suggesting just for us. He seemed to play deeper against us too...there's a few could play 10 for us, including probably Sads and Dapo it's whether they're any good at it. Happy to give him a go, there...

[GhostoftheBok]

Regarding Sheehan, right now we just need to see him get on the pitch and then through 90 minutes in one piece. How he fits in tactically can be worried about later.

I think he can play 10 or 6/8 in this system, but we have to see if he comes back and then what kind of player we have on our hands following a really bad injury.

[Bruce Rioja]

That's the first time I've seen Evatt send a side out looking like he doesn't believe his team can win.

Can you explain your thinking here, please?

[GhostoftheBok]

Can you explain your thinking here, please?

Yeah. I think Evatt may be having a bit of a lull after being surprised by the summer market. From listening to what he's said in public (and talking to various people in the game) I think he felt like the stature of the club and this sales pitch he and Markham worked would outweigh the finances and we'd be a much stronger 11 going into the first game of the season - even if there wasn't huge turnover of players.

We've gone into the first game with one new player in the 11 and Evatt has been very, very cautious in what he's said since we started to talk about going with what we have. "Only time will tell if we've done enough in the market", "everyone needs to understand this is a tough start", "you have to look at how much other sides have been able to spend" etc. It has not been his usual bravado.

Now I'd taken a lot of this change from brashness to realism as being learning from last season - where teams used his words to fire them up; but when we went out against Ipswich we played in a way that Evatt's sides usually don't against athletic teams. Usually we'd have tried to pass around them and make them run, but from the outset it was pretty clear from our own running patterns that we didn't think we could do that. When we got the ball the runners went away from, not towards, the possession zone and we immediately looked to go to a forward.

For other sides, that'd just be a sensible way to play Ipswich, but we're not built to do that. It led, as Evatt said after the game, to transitions galore and gave Ipswich control of the game after we ran ourselves out in the first half hour. I don't think Evatt believes that's a good way for Bolton to play football against Ipswich (which he said after the game), but it absolutely was how he set us up. Like I said in the pessimism thread, it felt like he chose the least bad option, rather than believing we had a strong path to victory.

After the game he talked up our drive, character and determination - all of which is right. He bemoaned our lack of quality, but he sent us out to play as though Ipswich had more quality than us. Again, that may well be true; but it's really unlike Ian Evatt to admit that and of the two options (trying to outplay them and going direct to runners) I think we lose the running game more often than the passing game....even if we feel Ipswich are a bit better at both.

I don't think it'll last and a couple of wins should see ol' big head back in the building, but my read is that he's not happy with things just yet.

I expect a few (as Insane has) will view that as utter nonsense, but it's the impression I get right now. I was a tad worried about it before the game and how we approached the match reinforced it. Like I say, it won't last and he just needs a couple of wins; but I think that's the first time I've seen Evatt put out a side that he thought wasn't as good as the opposition (aside from at the peak of the injury crisis). That was our best 11 and we didn't play our main game. It was weird. Made weirder by the fact that we obviously set up to do that and Evatt then came out after the game and talked as though it wasn't the plan