Ross Stearn - is he right for Bath City?

Yes, shame. Their no. 16 was looking for trouble all second half, even barged into the linesman after the ball had gone. Unortunately Big Jase gave him some back. a pity, as was the only black on a great day. Good job we had a strong ref today, ha. he hasn't got any better since last time has he?
Adelsbury looks half decent as a rush goalie though.

Will be 14 days though til Mellor's ban, aye?

will be a bit p*!?#D Off if he were not with us next season
will not be suprised if he went elswhere though.
he want's to play every game and most of the City fans want him playing every game.

Probably only noticed by those on the stand side, but Stearn charged onto the pitch to celebrate Pratt's great goal. As he returned to the dug out he was given a bit of a lecture by Jim, warning that could have led to a yellow card. To his credit, Stearn appeared to accept it was a silly thing to do.

It put to bed any ideas that he is a divisive influence in the changing room. He wanted to celebrate with his team mates. He also celebrated with them at the end of the game.

It is really starting to look like people are trying to find reasons for not liking him. He played exactly as people said they wanted to see. He limited the stepovers. He tried to contribute defensively. He put in some great crosses and scored a goal.

BenE wrote:It put to bed any ideas that he is a divisive influence in the changing room. He wanted to celebrate with his team mates. He also celebrated with them at the end of the game.

It is really starting to look like people are trying to find reasons for not liking him. He played exactly as people said they wanted to see. He limited the stepovers. He tried to contribute defensively. He put in some great crosses and scored a goal.

and if he now gets a run in the team and keeps doing those things (which i still think only really happened after he scored) his spell on the bench will have served its purpose

spot on! I don't think any City supporters dislike him, they just believe in the old mantra that the team is bigger than any one individual. For me, yesterday's was easily his best game for a long time and I bet he thought so as well. Despite what Benny suggests about his influence, I have witnessed times when his manner has not endeared him to his team mates. That was clear from their reaction.

I really hope the management reward his performance with a run in the team now - of course, like any other player, it's up to him to take that chance. And if he learns from the likes of Jim (what a fantastic ambassador for the club he is!), then I think he does have the necessary qualities to play at a higher level.

Palms wrote:Will be 14 days though til Mellor's ban, aye?

So the first game he misses will be Eastbourne at home?

How can there be any doubt? He has great skill and flair and is clearly committed. What you also often get with creative individuals like Ross is an 'edge' or the potential for volatility. This can be true in all walks of life. Good managers will aim to harness that spark / (flame?) because it can be what makes the difference. Of course, it takes bravery and confidence and trust to pick and play him. Sometimes in some games he will be a liability. Much more often he can win the game for you. So be bold. The crowd love him clearly - because he is exciting, one way or another. Usually in a good way. So that puts more on the gate. Give him a decent run in the team and let him off the leash. I'd be bloody annoyed if he goes because of a lack of management bravery and vision. I wouldn't want us to have to play against him next season. And there are only a few I would say that about.

yuffie wrote:

BenE wrote:It put to bed any ideas that he is a divisive influence in the changing room. He wanted to celebrate with his team mates. He also celebrated with them at the end of the game.

It is really starting to look like people are trying to find reasons for not liking him. He played exactly as people said they wanted to see. He limited the stepovers. He tried to contribute defensively. He put in some great crosses and scored a goal.

and if he now gets a run in the team and keeps doing those things (which i still think only really happened after he scored) his spell on the bench will have served its purpose

What was its purpose? That's not clear to me at all

The fact that he had his best game for several months, I assume...

exactly - we saw what he was capable of during the first third of the season, it doesn't seem footballing rocket science that after a spell on the bench there were glimpses once again of that sort of form

Your logic escapes me.

Leave him on the bench for 2 months
He starts and we score 4 goals
What lesson did he learn?
Imagine where we might be if he'd started a few more

More than once, Josh Low has been picked ahead of him
Help me understand that one

Thanks for stating the obvious Roman Mike!

fine - i understand that defending how stearn has been used this season is heresy in some eyes - i have said i think he should have started more than he has but equally i can see why that has not been the case

for the first third of the season he was one of - if not the - best city player - he then got sent off so went a month without playing and came back with an injury - he then played three games in a row in january (we didn't win any of them) so ended up on the bench

since then either starting (basingstoke) or from the bench he hasn't been the same player he was before the sending off (quite possibly because of the lack of playing time, i accept) so, just like all our midfielders this season he has not been guarenteed a start

Thanks for stating the obvious, Yuffie!

 

Peteboa wrote:Thanks for stating the obvious Roman Mike!

Not sure if serious / sarcastic

I agreed with you Mike. The argument that not playing him was beneficial is at best presumptuous. It appears that some are so obsessed with him that if we don't win, it's probably his fault too. Rather bizarre.

I'm not sure I really agree or like the assumption being made that a spell on the bench did Stearn some good. If he's injured then fine. If he isnt then i still dont understand his presence on the bench, especially when at times we appeared to be down to the bare bones in midfield, playing Brown as a wide man on the left or Low on the right. neither of those selections make a lot of sense to me if Stearn is fit.
There seems to be a level of assumption that he is some sort of troublesome character who needed teaching a lesson. I'm not saying he is not or that he didnt; my point would be that there is no real evidence to back this up. I personally think he is a heart on the sleeve, young lad who puts in a lot of effort for the team but is possibly a bit highly strung. that i confess is based on little evidence but that is the impression i get from watching him play ( when he does!).
If he needed a spell on the bench for playing reasons - ie he was not doing what the management wanted then I can think of some far more deserving candidates.

Peteboa wrote:I agreed with you Mike.  The argument that not playing him was beneficial is at best presumptuous.  It appears that some are so obsessed with him that if we don't win, it's probably his fault too. Rather bizarre.

and aren't some so obsessed with him that his absence from the team is automatically given as the reason if it doesn't perform? yes, he is an entertaining player and when fully focused on the team rather than himself, can make an important contribution. but i don't see the argument for him starting every game, given his sporadic form since the autumn.

and i thought you weren't going to make any more posts on this subject...  

"and aren't some so obsessed with him that his absence from the team is automatically given as the reason if it doesn't perform?"

Not at all, the team can clearly also function well without him and I would also be equally bemused if Danny Ball or Andy Watkins were not starting. We have a small squad with limited options, particularly when going forward.

It's good to be diplomatic and try to understand why such decisions are made but there comes a point surely where there is a definite right or wrong. The vast majority of people would surely say to leave our top scorer (a midfielder!) on the bench at the crunch end of the season is the wrong decision!

The reason I post is I feel passionately about it because I want us to succeed. I believe the way for us to succeed is for us to score goals. I believe the way for us to score goals is by playing players who score goals.

Mcnulty wrote:If he needed a spell on the bench for playing reasons - ie he was not doing what the management wanted then I can think of some far more deserving candidates.

I think you are confusing what the management want and what the fans want.  

Besides being our highest goalscorer he is also our most effective crosser of the ball. He has put in some absolute peaches of crosses but there is very rarely anyone on the end of them. What he needs is someone like say Charlie Griffin in the middle.