Gamesmaster Posted 15 October 2005 Posted 15 October 2005 same again for me, dont suppose many would change things, why change a good performance and winners.
rossporterlc Posted 15 October 2005 Posted 15 October 2005 got to be same team, sounded like a good performance so hopefully can carry that on with a new team
Northants Fox Posted 15 October 2005 Posted 15 October 2005 same again for me, dont suppose many would change things, why change a good performance and winners. Agreed :thumbsup:
Guest Gist Posted 15 October 2005 Posted 15 October 2005 He needs to stick to a side instead of changing it .. especially a winning one
Anish Posted 15 October 2005 Posted 15 October 2005 You can't expect Levein to keep it the same. After all, we beat Sheff Wednesday and then changed the team for the next game!
Gamesmaster Posted 15 October 2005 Author Posted 15 October 2005 You can't expect Levein to keep it the same. After all, we beat Sheff Wednesday and then changed the team for the next game! theres always someone spannering the works. ok we`ll kich mdv out
Thracian Posted 15 October 2005 Posted 15 October 2005 same again for me, dont suppose many would change things, why change a good performance and winners. To improve the team. This was a good and welcome win. You might say why change the team after Sheffield Wednesday or Stoke or after the second half against Derby. There are many factors to consider. Anyway, and I'm sick of saying this, but play Sheehan at left back. Why. Quite simply because he is far and away the best left back and for loads and loads of reasons I and others have mentioned. We're celebrating a win and everyone's mentioned Dion's cock-up in an otherwise immaculate and influential display. But they forget how Nils was left for dead earlier (and after gifting the ball to Watford) and it was only Dion who saved us from what looked a certain Watford opener as a consequence. We would certainly have struggled for three points had that gone in and it wasn't just an error of judgement, Nils was totally exposed and seemed uncomfortable in the position as he has done previously. Sheehan is an accomplished left back, he adds lots of other things to the team which Nils never will from that position. That decision is a simple one to me. The others are not so simple. I'm still concerned about central defence. And also about the little use we're making of Hume. With Sheehan in the side it would be so much easier to play one winger with, as I've said, Hume filling behind the front two. One wonders also about the two wingers playing two games in such quick succession. Anyway I'd definitely play the following defence: Douglas, Stearman, Nils or Gerrbrand, Dion, Sheehan; ============== Then I'd go: Sylla, Kisnorbo, Hughes, Tiatto; MDV, Hammond. Subs: Hammill, Hume, Nils or Gerrbrand, Wilcox, Joey. Tiatto would come in (with emphatic orders) to give Hammill half a game's rest and to provide width and fresh energy. I just don't think both wingers would find it easy playing two games so quickly. However, if Levein stuck with his midfield four and front two from Watford I could well understand his reasoning.
Hitesh Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 he wont stick with the same side! He will bring Maybury back in, shift some defenders about and he will bring tiatto back in. He might even play Hume instead of Hammond.
martyn Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 Despite Elvis giving a decent display yesterday, I reckon Hume will start with MdV for Cov. Also if we had a ready made replacement for Sylla then that should be considered, but alas we don't.
Thracian Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 Despite Elvis giving a decent display yesterday, I reckon Hume will start with MdV for Cov. Also if we had a ready made replacement for Sylla then that should be considered, but alas we don't. No - but you could play one orthodox winger and Hume in the gap behind the front two. Hammill works quite hard. He and Sheehan on the same flank would be quite formidable. And with Kisnorbo in right midfield there would be enough energy for the midfield to pivot and cover any threat from the Burnley left. Hume will pose far greater threat to Burnley than Sylla in my view but not at the expense of Hammond...who would have had another goal at Watford but for a fluke bounce having previously put two in the net (both disallowed but one wrongly so) at Derby. Levein's problem is that he prefers to play a right winger more as a fourth midfielder than an out and out attacker and is afraid of losing that aspect of solid, guaranteed cover. On balance I think he'll stick with that and he may be right, whoever partners MDV to start. But he's not right about Sheehan who should be in now because he's the best at the job and Nils should be considered only for the centre-back spot alongside Dion. This would be close to our best available side - at last.
davieG Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 No - but you could play one orthodox winger and Hume in the gap behind the front two. Hammill works quite hard. He and Sheehan on the same flank would be quite formidable. And with Kisnorbo in right midfield there would be enough energy for the midfield to pivot and cover any threat from the Burnley left. Hume will pose far greater threat to Burnley than Sylla in my view but not at the expense of Hammond...who would have had another goal at Watford but for a fluke bounce having previously put two in the net (both disallowed but one wrongly so) at Derby. Levein's problem is that he prefers to play a right winger more as a fourth midfielder than an out and out attacker and is afraid of losing that aspect of solid, guaranteed cover. On balance I think he'll stick with that and he may be right, whoever partners MDV to start. But he's not right about Sheehan who should be in now because he's the best at the job and Nils should be considered only for the centre-back spot alongside Dion. This would be close to our best available side - at last. Agree about Sheehan/Nils at left back, but Nils & Dublin together as centre backs is too slow a combination.
cisono Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 So far, CL has never stuck with the same side, but I would like him to do so in this particular case... Davieg: are you trying to say that you totally agree with Thracian?
Thracian Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 Think you could be right about Nils. It was just that considering that Nils was polled as Levein's best signing so far I wondered if I'd under-rated him and was prepared to accept that. In reality I have no particularly firm opinions about whether McCarthy, Gerrbrand or Nils is actually best with Dion, having some concerns about McCarthy and having not seen enough of Gerrbrand. Certainly Nils has never looked convincing to me - either at centre-back or at number three. Daft as it seems I believe Sheehan is also the best sweeper in the club but I don't want to go down that road, it'd waste his talents at full back. .
davieG Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 Think you could be right about Nils. It was just that considering that Nils was polled as Levein's best signing so far I wondered if I'd under-rated him and was prepared to accept that.In reality I have no particularly firm opinions about whether McCarthy, Gerrbrand or Nils is actually best with Dion, having some concerns about McCarthy and having not seen enough of Gerrbrand. Daft as it seems I believe Sheehan is also the best sweeper in the club but I don't want to go down that road, it'd waste his talents at full back. . I'm hoping that in the long run Gerrbrand is going to be the key central defender, although like you I haven't formed a personal opinion just based on his pedigree. The choice then will be who plays alongside him. If he has sufficient pace then Nils would be OK, if not it will need to be Paddy/Stearman with Nils being Gerrbrand's deputy. Of course if Gerrbrand proves to be slow as well then we really need Stearman and Paddy fast tracked to be the pair.
Benji Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 I'm hoping that in the long run Gerrbrand is going to be the key central defender, although like you I haven't formed a personal opinion just based on his pedigree. The choice then will be who plays alongside him. If he has sufficient pace then Nils would be OK, if not it will need to be Paddy/Stearman with Nils being Gerrbrand's deputy. Of course if Gerrbrand proves to be slow as well then we really need Stearman and Paddy fast tracked to be the pair. against inter milan the striker had a headstart on a bouncing ball to go through one on one but gerrbrand caught up and cleared it not slow trouble is everyone says they can't make a judgement so play someone else. Well why buy the lad then? its up to levein to pick a game and play him constantly otherwise there goes a waste of talent, he's got to come in the side sometime.
davieG Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 against inter milan the striker had a headstart on a bouncing ball to go through one on one but gerrbrand caught up and cleared it not slow trouble is everyone says they can't make a judgement so play someone else. Well why buy the lad then? its up to levein to pick a game and play him constantly otherwise there goes a waste of talent, he's got to come in the side sometime. I didn't say that, in fact I can't wait to see the guy get a decent run in the side, but I'm not one to make up my mind without seeing the evidence. We signed Nissa but in my opinion he's a bit slow and certainly too slow to partner Dublin. Levein has signed 3 centrebacks only 2 can play, so someone is going to be 'wasted'. The point is which one?
Gamesmaster Posted 16 October 2005 Author Posted 16 October 2005 he wont stick with the same side! He will bring Maybury back in, shift some defenders about and he will bring tiatto back in. He might even play Hume instead of Hammond. possibly cos hammond didnt have a good game.
Gené and Tonic Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 About the right side, on FM it says Hume can be a right winger. Maybe he should be put there if/when Sylla is off form or injured.
TrickyTrev Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 There is no need to stick with the same side, there were certain aspects that worked very well but it was not exactly a flawless performance. I'd be tempted to keep the same midfield as they had real shape and balance that I have not seen much this year. In defence Nils was shocking and is clearly not sa left back and Dion might not be able to play 2 games in so few days. Hume was far more dangerous than Hammond when he cam eon so I think he will be given his chance. ......................Douglas Stearman..Gerrband..Nils/Dion...Maybury Sylla........Kisnorbo..Hughes.....Hammill .................De Vries...Hume
breadandcheese Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 There is no need to stick with the same side, there were certain aspects that worked very well but it was not exactly a flawless performance. I'd be tempted to keep the same midfield as they had real shape and balance that I have not seen much this year. In defence Nils was shocking and is clearly not sa left back and Dion might not be able to play 2 games in so few days. Hume was far more dangerous than Hammond when he cam eon so I think he will be given his chance. ......................Douglas Stearman..Gerrband..Nils/Dion...Maybury Sylla........Kisnorbo..Hughes.....Hammill .................De Vries...Hume I would agree with that, except I do not think Levein will pick Gerrbrand to play against Akinbiyi as his introduction to Championship football. For all his faults, Akinbiyi is quick, runs all game and is physically strong (not the easiest welcome to football at this level after coming back from injury). McCarthy will play and I think Maybury will return at left-back. The only question is whether Dion's legs will allow him to play the two games in a row. I hope so because we need him. I also think Hume will start on the bench again to allow Hammond to run like a nutter for 70 odd minutes before allowing Hume to exploit the tired Burnley defence.
Benji Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 I didn't say that, in fact I can't wait to see the guy get a decent run in the side, but I'm not one to make up my mind without seeing the evidence. We signed Nissa but in my opinion he's a bit slow and certainly too slow to partner Dublin. Levein has signed 3 centrebacks only 2 can play, so someone is going to be 'wasted'. The point is which one? By saying everyone i didn't mean just davieg infact you've been one of the few to hype up most of the new signings as soon as they were completed. How can you make up your mind though without seeing him play? We are still letting in goals so i see no reason why not to give a different defender a chance. Dublin played brilliantly it seems y'day, but remember his age, and we have seen many faults in nisse and mccarthy this season. People are screaming for sheehand to get a foot in the team, but equally the centre back position is definitely not sorted in my opinion.
Thracian Posted 16 October 2005 Posted 16 October 2005 There is no need to stick with the same side, there were certain aspects that worked very well but it was not exactly a flawless performance. I'd be tempted to keep the same midfield as they had real shape and balance that I have not seen much this year. In defence Nils was shocking and is clearly not sa left back and Dion might not be able to play 2 games in so few days. Hume was far more dangerous than Hammond when he cam eon so I think he will be given his chance. ......................Douglas Stearman..Gerrband..Nils/Dion...Maybury Sylla........Kisnorbo..Hughes.....Hammill .................De Vries...Hume Even accepting my declared view on who should play left back I am QUITE SURE it should not be Maybury. It is not a natural position for him. Maybury is competing for the right-back slot with Stearman and just might have an alternative use in defensive midfield but there's no vacancy that I can see. Maybury vacated his place with his idiocy in getting sent off and Stearman, the man in possession, is playing well. That being the case is NO REASON to accomodate Maybury where he doesn't belong. I wouldn't even call him second in line for left-back, or even third now I think about it. First requirement for a left back. Be a natural left-footer (if you're not genuinely two-footed).
Gamesmaster Posted 16 October 2005 Author Posted 16 October 2005 has maybury ever played well at LB? hes not having a great season in his prefered position, so keep johanson there.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.