What's our best team?

[chili_con_carne]

If our whole squad including the U18's were match fit and available what would be our strongest line up?

I would say something along the lines of this;

-------------------------Logan

---Stearman---McAuley---Kisnorbo---Johansson

---Porter---Williams---Wesolowski---Tiatto

---------------Hume----------Fryatt

Subs: Henderson, Kenton, Hughes, Hammond, O'Grady

[Kilworthfox]

If our whole squad including the U18's were match fit and available what would be our strongest line up?

I would say something along the lines of this;

-------------------------Logan

---Stearman---McAuley---Kisnorbo---Johansson

---Porter---Williams---Wesolowski---Tiatto

---------------Hume----------Fryatt

Subs: Henderson, Kenton, Hughes, Hammond, O'Grady

You seem to have missed off our club captain!

[chili_con_carne]

You seem to have missed off our club captain!

I would say McAuley deserves his place in the team and Kisnorbo is a definite so McCarthy has to drop out. He's overrated anyway, just because he's the captain doesn't make him a must starter.

[Kilworthfox]

I would say McAuley deserves his place in the team and Kisnorbo is a definite so McCarthy has to drop out. He's overrated anyway, just because he's the captain doesn't make him a must starter.

Not even a bench spot? Kenton come on! I do agree after McAuley's performance vs the Wolves tho he was v.good.

[Filbert_Ross]

I would say McAuley deserves his place in the team and Kisnorbo is a definite so McCarthy has to drop out. He's overrated anyway, just because he's the captain doesn't make him a must starter.

i dont know many who overrate McAuley.

[lookwhaticando]

i dont know many who overrate McAuley.

Understated & Underrated player.

[chili_con_carne]

Not even a bench spot? Kenton come on! I do agree after McAuley's performance vs the Wolves tho he was v.good.

Kenton is good cover though. He can play anywhere along the back

[Guest Gist]

I think this:

Logan/Henderson

Stearman

McAuley/McCarthy

Kisnorbo

Nisse

Sylla

Williams

Weso

Porter

Hume

Fryatt

[Thracian]

Well, whatever we think it sounds from this that Kelly has decided our best team for now is virtually the same dour line-up that managed two shots against Wolves, apart from a forced change at full-back.

Not that I'd necessarily be inclined to believe this:

http://www.thebluearmy.co.uk/details.asp?k...122006376514931

Kelly will have a capacity crowd behind him tomorrow and if goes out into a home match with only five-and-a-bit potential scorers and we fail to score it will be a akin to professional suicide.

We've done it before of course. Kelly has given no indication to me that anything will get him to attack a match wholeheartedly, home or away.

But if I were the club chairman I'd be concerned about putting on a display which might just persuade a few of our occasional visitors to become more committed.

Our best team presently available?

It depends what tactics you want to adopt and even then there are different teams for different systems:

But as I would wish to attack and entertain any sell-out crowd my choices would be:

4-4-2:

Henderson/Logan (don't mind)

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan;

Porter, King, Williams, Tiatto;

Hammond, Hume.

4-4-3

Henderson/Logan;

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan;

King, Williams, Porter;

Hammond, Hume, Dodds

I wouldn't give a toss which system we used. Both would give us a free-flowing attacking team with balance in every department and, with half points awarded to people like Williams, we'd have seven potential scorers and seven potential creators.

Compare that with tomorrow's most likely line-up:

Henderson,

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Johansson;

Hughes, Williams, Tiatto, Porter,

Hammond, Hume

This team has five and a half potential scorers and five and a half potential creators.

That's the simplest way I can explain the reasons Kelly team selections so often underperform.

Ah people might say, but we'd lose something defensively. We lost four goals against Sheffield and have shipped around two goals a game for ages. I'd feel safer if the ball's up the other end more often.

[Simon]

But as I would wish to attack and entertain any sell-out crowd my choices would be:

4-4-2:

Henderson/Logan (don't mind)

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan;

Porter, King, Williams, Tiatto;

Hammond, Hume.

4-4-3

Henderson/Logan;

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan;

King, Williams, Porter;

Hammond, Hume, Dodds

Who the hell is going to win the ball back for us in that midfield when we (inevitably) lose it Thrac?

I love to see attacking football; I want to see more it in our team, and I agree when you say that the team needs to become more attacking minded. BUT, we're not Arsenal or Man Utd we can't keep the ball constantly, at some point we will lose it.

Personally I'd rather have Weso (or even Tiatto if we're desparate) holding in an attacking 3-5-2 formation, to provide stability in order that the rest of the team can get forward. That midfield is too lightweight.

[dandannieldanok]

Who the hell is going to win the ball back for us in that midfield when we (inevitably) lose it Thrac?

I love to see attacking football; I want to see more it in our team, and I agree when you say that the team needs to become more attacking minded. BUT, we're not Arsenal or Man Utd we can't keep the ball constantly, at some point we will lose it.

Personally I'd rather have Weso (or even Tiatto if we're desparate) holding in an attacking 3-5-2 formation, to provide stability in order that the rest of the team can get forward. That midfield is too lightweight.

Totally agree, in this league you need a ballwinner.

[Thracian]

Who the hell is going to win the ball back for us in that midfield when we (inevitably) lose it Thrac?

I love to see attacking football; I want to see more it in our team, and I agree when you say that the team needs to become more attacking minded. BUT, we're not Arsenal or Man Utd we can't keep the ball constantly, at some point we will lose it.

Personally I'd rather have Weso (or even Tiatto if we're desparate) holding in an attacking 3-5-2 formation, to provide stability in order that the rest of the team can get forward. That midfield is too lightweight.

I didn't consider Weso cos I don't think he's fit. If you play Tiatto in midfield the right wing becomes a problem again. King is a perfectly good worker in midfield.

What I think you've forgotten is that both full-backs would push up and support the midfield, acting on a pivot according to which side the opposition developed play. Both wingers would supplement midfield when we're defending so the different sections of the team move in tandem.

This reliance on ball-winner Tiatto is a myth. He only plays for parts of games anyway and his passing is so poor that we invariably have to win the ball back again almost as soon as we've got it.

King plays 90 minutes, wins balls in the air as does Williams and is much better at retaining possession. As for Porter he's probably more at home in midfield than on the wing.

With the 4-3-3 again in attack the midfield would be supplemented by one of the full-backs and in defence, any two or those three forwards would be perfectly able to help out in attacking midfield - they do now.

What's important in today's midfield is not destructive tackling but speed to the ball and passing accuracy. All you get for whacking people is an early booking and then you get substituted.

[MBK]

Stupid question Thracian but would King survive the bad tackles? Because I have no doubt you have seen the guy play and if you prefer him to Tiatto you have good reason to do so. But then you worry if his fitness levels would suffer with the amounts of knocks he'd pick up. Especially when he's meant to work for the ball as well which means a lot of contrast with players having superior physique.

[Thracian]

Stupid question Thracian but would King survive the bad tackles? Because I have no doubt you have seen the guy play and if you prefer him to Tiatto you have good reason to do so. But then you worry if his fitness levels would suffer with the amounts of knocks he'd pick up. Especially when he's meant to work for the ball as well which means a lot of contrast with players having superior physique.

Well he's six foot odd - probably Dodds' build. He's been pretty well ever present this season and that says something because he's a truly industrious player and basically plays in a two-man midfield with the Academy which is bloody hard work considering how greedy their strikers are for passes.

He doesn't strike me as especially quick, more a steady economical athlete like Hughes. But he's got stamina all right especially when you see the extraordinary amount of times he manages to get into the attacking penalty box - and by that I mean to the six yard line.

He's a genuine threat with his head. Not cos he's big or especially brilliant jumper - it all seems down to the timing of his runs into the box which are very David Platt/Martin Peters-like.

Fitness wise Tiatto rarely lasts 90 minutes and has often been injured, Weso's not been fit for ages and Hughes, who certainly doesn't tackle better than King, has only just seemed to be finally over his injury problems.

Johnson, meanwhile, has hardly been fit since he's been here so Kingy would probably be a bonus fitness wise. He's very much a thoughtful rather than a wreckless player.

None of this is aimed at Tiatto or any other City midfield incumbent. Tiatto's picked in my 4-4-2. I simply look for what players can do rather than what they can't do. And Kingy does a lot.

He's not quite the twinkletoes Porter can be but for a biggish guy he's a skillful, probing footballer who manages a truly phenomenal number of shots per game for a midfielder, although admittedly in the sort of team where chances will always present themselves.

Williams and Porter would love having him around and he'd also give Hume and Hammond far more chances and options for their running than they get right now.

[Simon]

I didn't consider Weso cos I don't think he's fit. If you play Tiatto in midfield the right wing becomes a problem again. King is a perfectly good worker in midfield.

What I think you've forgotten is that both full-backs would push up and support the midfield, acting on a pivot according to which side the opposition developed play. Both wingers would supplement midfield when we're defending so the different sections of the team move in tandem.

This reliance on ball-winner Tiatto is a myth. He only plays for parts of games anyway and his passing is so poor that we invariably have to win the ball back again almost as soon as we've got it.

King plays 90 minutes, wins balls in the air as does Williams and is much better at retaining possession. As for Porter he's probably more at home in midfield than on the wing.

With the 4-3-3 again in attack the midfield would be supplemented by one of the full-backs and in defence, any two or those three forwards would be perfectly able to help out in attacking midfield - they do now.

What's important in today's midfield is not destructive tackling but speed to the ball and passing accuracy. All you get for whacking people is an early booking and then you get substituted.

I'm not talking about destructive tackling, I'm talking about going and getting the ball back. The formation and most of the players I won't fault, but if you're telling me that two wingers getting back into midfield is going to do the ball winning for us then I remain to be convinced. If your telling me that King can be the man to go and win us the ball back then great, I'll believe you, you know him a lot better than I do. It may spoil some of his effectiveness going forwards though.

Remember we don't want square pegs in round holes.

[Thracian]

I'm not talking about destructive tackling, I'm talking about going and getting the ball back. The formation and most of the players I won't fault, but if you're telling me that two wingers getting back into midfield is going to do the ball winning for us then I remain to be convinced. If your telling me that King can be the man to go and win us the ball back then great, I'll believe you, you know him a lot better than I do. It may spoil some of his effectiveness going forwards though.

Remember we don't want square pegs in round holes.

It's the way he is - he never stops working really. He's also quite useful as defensive help on set plays.

If people like Porter I can't see the problem with King cos, although they're much different in style, he's ever bit the same sort of positive footballer.

Whatever team we chose right now will have potential flaws - Sheehan's state of readiness would concern me for a start - but I honestly believe that side would provide a basis from which you could go forwards with a bit of pride.

It would look like a team and would create chances. It might need fine tuning to chase the prizes but I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

Even people like Stearman, Williams and Hammond would benefit from having more and better options and support. And the centre-backs would simply have to destroy attacks and pass the buck to someone close by instead of the nonesense we have right now with them trying to hoof the ball and even take free kicks in Kisnorbo's case.