Bolton boss Phil Parkinson set to bring back senior players

Phil Parkinson will bring some of his senior players back into the first team for tomorrow night’s Carabao Cup clash with Rochdale.

Remi Matthews, Jason Lowe and Luke Murphy are likely to be included in the squad after withdrawing from Saturday’s game against Coventry City.

Erhun Oztumer tweaked medial ligaments in his knee before the weekend and could be out of action for a couple of weeks, and Ben Alnwick was also considered a doubt yesterday, through illness.

But after speaking to his remaining senior players yesterday morning the Wanderers boss feels the time is right for them to return to the starting line-up.

“I was absolutely delighted with the way the young players did at the weekend,” he told The Bolton News. “As you’d expect there are a few tired legs and Dennis Politic has also tweaked his hip flexor, so we’re monitoring a few of them.

“What happened last week hit everyone hard. To hear there were doubts about the existence of the club beyond the weekend, the impact on the training ground was huge.

“On top of that the lads had concerns about injuries, and where it would leave them, so I think it was the right call to go with a younger, fresher team – mentally and physically.

“The senior players, those contracted to the club, have been excellent in helping the younger players on the training ground and so we’ve decided to go with a mixture to Rochdale.”

Harry Brockbank, one of Saturday’s heroes, has no qualms about going to the Crown Oil Arena.

“We need to do what we did against Coventry,” he said. “I don’t think anyone would complain if we just run and give everything we can for the club. We will be fine.

“If they turn around and tell us we’re playing at Rochdale, bring it on. We’ll pull the shirt on and enjoy it.”

Brockbank has been shifted from a centre-back to a right-back by development squad boss, David Lee, and Parkinson, and is starting to feel the part.

“I am feeling more comfortable,” he said. “The pace of the game is a lot faster than it is at Under-23 level but the more you play, the more you get used to it.

“Playing full-back is more tiring. The gaffer sees me playing there and if you look at me I’m not the biggest lad, so I think it’s my position now.”

Fans have been asked to buy tickets for tonight’s game in advance, wherever possible.

Rochdale will have cash turnstiles in operation for pay-on-the-night but are hoping to keep queues to a minimum.

Source

Dont bring any of the senior players back at all. Leave the under 23`s on, they perform far better.

So what's the difference between Saturday and tonight?

Are the players now picking and choosing when they play?

Natasha Whittam wrote:So what's the difference between Saturday and tonight?

Are the players now picking and choosing when they play?

Seems like it.

Iles other article today on the same subject (how does he get away writing the same thing twice and still gets paid?) is a bit more informative on the subject and seems to suggest that Parkinson got pissed off with their 'will they play, won't they play' fannying around (will they get on the coach, won't they get on the coach - will they play now we've got to the hotel, won't they play even though we are at the hotel) of the Wycombe game - and decided to just stonewall them and play the kids instead.

Whatever they thought they could achieve (more money out of FV, which they clearly haven't got) was blown out of the water with them now knowing the kids will play and games won't be called off because of them - and I guess they've now come crawling back.

Iles 'better' article here -

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t19912-can-the-senior-stars-blend-back-in-at-bolton-wanderers

The senior pro's need to speak up and explain their actions and say whether it was their call or the clubs, if they do come back into the team without that then i'm sure some fans will turn against them.

From the Iles article it appears to have been Parkinson's call. He instructed the youth team guys to get a team ready on Friday morning, before the players were due to receive their money (at lunchtime). That suggests to me the players didn't actually refuse to play, they were simply 'dropped' for want of a better word and replaced with the kids. 

Oztumer was genuinely injured anyway so he can't be blamed. As to the rest I have to be honest here and say I don't really blame them if they did refuse to play. We still have no idea if FV are ever going to take over, Bassini has his clownish mitts in the whole mess thanks to an idiotic decision by the EFL to allow him to bid in the first place and an equally idiotic judge granting him the injunction. From the staff's viewpoint be they backroom, coaches or players there's clearly no certainty we'll even exist in a few weeks so why risk getting the sort of injury that the likes of Stu Holden and CYL got when you might have no choice but to look for another club very soon.

As a fan I want to be mad at them, to say they should have played anyway but in truth as a person, a husband and father I can't truly say I blame them. I suspect that I would have done the same thing in their shoes.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:As a fan I want to be mad at them, to say they should have played anyway but in truth as a person, a husband and father I can't truly say I blame them.

It's a game of football, not the LA Riots.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:As a fan I want to be mad at them, to say they should have played anyway but in truth as a person, a husband and father I can't truly say I blame them.

It's a game of football, not the LA Riots.

Nat, that's not the point and you know it. If they'd played then there's a real possibility they could have picked up a serious knock. We lost two players for at least 8 weeks in the first match and given our track record of early season injuries I'd say the older players can't be blamed for not risking that when there might not even be a Bolton Wanderers in a few weeks. And if we go pop (as is still eminently possible) then it's unlikely the insurance would pay out their full wages for however long they were injured for.

In their shoes I don't believe I would risk the rest of my career (like Stu Holden and CYL) when I've still not been paid the full wage I'm already owed and there's no guarantee I'm ever going to see another penny because the takeover's now mired in the courts and may never happen.

They will all be insured in case of any serious injury happening LPP, I think they all just want to leave

luckyPeterpiper wrote:Nat, that's not the point and you know it. If they'd played then there's a real possibility they could have picked up a serious knock.

What a load of rubbish.

Even ignoring the fact they would be insured against injury even if Bolton go bust, how many players actually sustain career ending injuries or even season ending ones?

It's probably much less than 1% of professional footballers per season.

Stop making out playing football is like jumping into the shark pool at Seaworld.

Can you imagine Nat Lofthouse and Tommy Banks being scared of getting a 'knock'.

Get on with it you soft ponces. And I mean that constructively.

Why is it that the first thing out of any fan's mouth when a player does something they don't like is "they get paid a fortune so they should just do it"?

For one thing the players involved hadn't been paid anything, ie they got zero pounds and zero pence for five months and even last Friday they still only got seventy percent of what they're owed to date so they're still missing almost a third of the money they were supposed to get in April, May, June, July and August.

The amount is irrelevant frankly. The club failed to honour their contracts so why do idiots insist that the players should just lie down and take it? And bonce, I don't give a toss what Nat Lofthouse et al would have done sixty years ago because that's totally irrelevant too. The game is completely different now as you well know. These players aren't local lads who'll spend their entire career at one club. There haven't been any of them in about thirty years or possibly more. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Matt LeTissier at Southampton.

If my boss didn't pay me at all for five months then left me with a third of my back pay still missing I wouldn't be happy at all and I see no reason why people should say it's different for footballers. If anything given the nature of the game, the shortness of careers and the fact these guys weren't exactly getting paid the same sort of money as a Mo Salah or a Ronaldo I'd say the question of avoiding injury and ensuring they still have a chance to make a living elsewhere should BWFC go bust was made all the more urgent for them.

I am sick and tired of fans banging on about "they should play 'cos loads would do it for free' or whatever other piece of crap you wanna spout. Bottom line, they signed a contract. The club failed to honour it and are STILL failing to honour it. The players have been patient but eventually even a Saint's patience runs out. Given the response they're getting from the moron brigade I wouldn't blame any of them for going elsewhere TODAY and suing the club for their missing pay.

They owe BWFC NOTHING! BWFC owes them money and whether we like it or not, whether we say their performance was poor or not they have a right to that money.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:Why is it that the first thing out of any fan's mouth when a player does something they don't like is "they get paid a fortune so they should just do it"?

Reports suggest they'd just been paid a good percentage of their outstanding wage. Do you think that was £120 and a bag of grapes?

You trying to relate the BWFC situation to your own work place is laughable, if you downed tools would it have the potential to bring the whole company down?

Would it fook.