Ric Flair Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 After reading various other threads, it's time something drastic was done to this team. Kelly needs to go, but sadly that won't happen unless Mandaric takes over very soon. Andy King is on fire for the youth team, as is Gradel and Mattock. I would include all 3 in the 16 for saturday. There are some players seriously under-performing in this team. I think we're as good as relegated, I really do. Something has to be done to create a reaction that might produce some much needed points. With the bunch of cretins we have, I think 3-5-2 is the best formation for us. It won't happen, but i'm still going to type it to make me feel better. I think Newell will twist the knife again on saturday. It all started back on August 5th when we were shown up as out of our depth and un-fit. Clueless is being kind to us. Logan McAuley Kisnorbo © Nisse Stearman Hughes King Tiatto Porter Fryatt Hume Subs: Gradel, Mattock, Dodds, Williams/Wesolowski, Hammond Let's go down in style.
Manwell Pablo Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 After reading various other threads, it's time something drastic was done to this team. Kelly needs to go, but sadly that won't happen unless Mandaric takes over very soon. Andy King is on fire for the youth team, as is Gradel and Mattock. I would include all 3 in the 16 for saturday. There are some players seriously under-performing in this team. I think we're as good as relegated, I really do. Something has to be done to create a reaction that might produce some much needed points. With the bunch of cretins we have, I think 3-5-2 is the best formation for us. It won't happen, but i'm still going to type it to make me feel better. I think Newell will twist the knife again on saturday. It all started back on August 5th when we were shown up as out of our depth and un-fit. Clueless is being kind to us. Logan McAuley Kisnorbo © Nisse Stearman Hughes King Tiatto Porter Fryatt Hume Subs: Gradel, Mattock, Dodds, Williams/Wesolowski, Hammond Let's go down in style. I was under the impression Mattocks formed had somewhat dropped over the past few months, Gradel and King I might except but Mattock? too soon mate he's 16. Apart from that I'd give that a go, I'd give anything that isn't 4-4-2 a go atm.
Dr The Singh Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 I agree, I made one change as Mattock is considered abit young!!! Logan McAuley Kisnorbo © Nisse Stearman Hughes King Tiatto Porter Fryatt Hume Subs: Gradel, Singh, Dodds, Williams/Wesolowski, Hammond
Ric Flair Posted 29 January 2007 Author Posted 29 January 2007 I was under the impression Mattocks formed had somewhat dropped over the past few months, Gradel and King I might except but Mattock? too soon mate he's 16. Apart from that I'd give that a go, I'd give anything that isn't 4-4-2 a go atm. Well according to John Blue Fox, Mattock has been training with the first team regularly, more so than Gradel and King. So perhaps he is being looked at for the first team, even at 16. Get him in.
Dr The Singh Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Well according to John Blue Fox, Mattock has been training with the first team regularly, more so than Gradel and King. So perhaps he is being looked at for the first team, even at 16. Get him in. Your beginning to sound like Thrac, Rik!!!
Geo V Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 As much as I hate to admit it, we may well have to try AJ again in midfield and hope that it allows the likes of Williams and Hughes to get forward. I wouldnt go for wingers as we have to make us a more difficult side to breakdown as we have conceeded 12 in 5. I would "allow" the likes of Hughes and Williams to edge wider but by playing Stearman and Tiatto as full-backs, hopefully they would link up with the midfield and get down the byline. GK - LOGAN RB - STEARMAN CB - KISNORBO CB - McAULEY LB - TIATTO DM - JOHNSON CM - HUGHES CM - WESO CM - WILLIAMS CF - HUME CF - FRYATT Subs - Big foot and the Henderson, Paddy Mac, Kenton, Levi and Elvis. I wouldnt want that lot to start the season thats for sure but we need points
Manwell Pablo Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 As much as I hate to admit it, we may well have to try AJ again in midfield and hope that it allows the likes of Williams and Hughes to get forward. I wouldnt go for wingers as we have to make us a more difficult side to breakdown as we have conceeded 12 in 5. I would "allow" the likes of Hughes and Williams to edge wider but by playing Stearman and Tiatto as full-backs, hopefully they would link up with the midfield and get down the byline. GK - LOGAN RB - STEARMAN CB - KISNORBO CB - McAULEY LB - TIATTO DM - JOHNSON CM - HUGHES CM - WESO CM - WILLIAMS CF - HUME CF - FRYATT Subs - Big foot and the Henderson, Paddy Mac, Kenton, Levi and Elvis. I wouldnt want that lot to start the season thats for sure but we need points Can't we have him shot instead?
Lord Nibblington Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Can't we have him shot instead? Not yet. That's the prize for the end of season raffle.
MBK Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Can't we have him shot instead? Give another couple of matches' chance. He was far from the worst last Saturday from what I read on the forum.
Monk Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 As much as I'd love to see 3-5-2, its not going to happen. I know we are in serious trouble, and I also realise we have no tried and tested strategy with our current set of players which we know works. RK will be with us till the end of the season - anyone who thinks a rushed sacking and shipping in of another manager (bearing in mind takeover timescales also) is a fool. We have to stick with RK until the end of the season. Its going to be 4-4-2 like it or not. We have scored 5 goals in 2 games - that SHOULD have been enough (regardless of who scores them - in the short term) Therefore the defence is clearly the problem. Get McCarthy out, I think that is the first step. Also I would have Williams out as he hasn't been good enough of late. Bring Tiatto infield so we have some strength to support Weso I have chosen Maybury, please don't flame me for that - I reckon he is quite a solid full back for the Championship My team would be GK - LOGAN RB - STEARMAN CB - KISNORBO © CB - McAULEY LB - MAYBURY RM - HUGHES CM - TIATTO CM - WESO LM - PORTER CF - HUME CF - FRYATT / DC (if/when fit)
davieG Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 As much as I'd love to see 3-5-2, its not going to happen.I know we are in serious trouble, and I also realise we have no tried and tested strategy with our current set of players which we know works. RK will be with us till the end of the season - anyone who thinks a rushed sacking and shipping in of another manager (bearing in mind takeover timescales also) is a fool. We have to stick with RK until the end of the season. Its going to be 4-4-2 like it or not. We have scored 5 goals in 2 games - that SHOULD have been enough (regardless of who scores them - in the short term) Therefore the defence is clearly the problem. Get McCarthy out, I think that is the first step. Also I would have Williams out as he hasn't been good enough of late. Bring Tiatto infield so we have some strength to support Weso I have chosen Maybury, please don't flame me for that - I reckon he is quite a solid full back for the Championship My team would be GK - LOGAN RB - STEARMAN CB - KISNORBO © CB - McAULEY LB - MAYBURY RM - HUGHES CM - TIATTO CM - WESO LM - PORTER CF - HUME CF - FRYATT / DC (if/when fit) Your two central midfielders haven't managed a full 90 minutes for some time!
Thracian Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Young and hungry has been quietly diluted by a "Hard to beat" theory that is just not working and the sooner we get back to young, (fit) and hungry the better. Fit fast full-backs, forward-driving midfield players, forwards who live for goals and believe they're going to score em. And a bloody great injection of confidence and self-belief from the manager. There's an air of despondency creeping over City and there's neither reason for it no excuse for it. People think we can't put out an attacking team and I turned bhack to the old 2-3-5 system. and this is what turned out. Logan; Stearman, Sheehan/Tiatto; King, Kisnorbo, Hughes; Hammond, Hume, Fryatt, Dodds, Porter. It's just a very provocative thought at a time when we need some initiative. And there's seven or eight potential scorers in that side. I suppose I'd rather rely on scoring goals than any remote chance of our failing to concede them. Anyway that's not so much a proposal as food for thought and debate. It is based on the system which led Leicester to their greatest ever achievements. No, we don't have that quality of player - but nor do we face that quality of opposition, thankfully.
Monk Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Young and hungry has been quietly diluted by a "Hard to beat" theory that is just not working and the sooner we get back to young, (fit) and hungry the better. Fit fast full-backs, forward-driving midfield players, forwards who live for goals and believe they're going to score em. And a bloody great injection of confidence and self-belief from the manager. There's an air of despondency creeping over City and there's neither reason for it no excuse for it. People think we can't put out an attacking team and I turned bhack to the old 2-3-5 system. and this is what turned out. Logan; Stearman, Sheehan/Tiatto; King, Kisnorbo, Hughes; Hammond, Hume, Fryatt, Dodds, Porter. It's just a very provocative thoguht. But there's seven or eight potential scorers in that side. Yes, but we'd leak more goals than Thames Water leaks the clear stuff!
Thracian Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Yes, but we'd leak more goals than Thames Water leaks the clear stuff! So why didn't the 60's team leak lots more goals than they scored? Why didn't the great Manchester United and Arsenal sides who constantly get seven and eight players into the box?. We leak goals now - four against Wednesday and Fulham, three against Cardiff and Villa... It really isn't as simple as simply dismissing the idea. Somehow we have to collect more than one point a game to save our status. We always concede so we have to score. What is your answer?
Geo V Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Can't we have him shot instead? He`s far from my favourite player but his game is one dimensional and he should be able to tick things over and allow Hughes and Williams to get forward. Why this pair dont score more goals is beyond me. Its time to play our players in the best positions and hopefully they will start to deliver.
RowlattsFox Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 i'd go for: logan stearman kisnorbo mcauley johansson hughes king tiatto porter hume fryatt - if fit, anyone know why he came off on sat? subs: henderson, mccarthy, williams, hammond, cadamarteri
Monk Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 So why didn't the 60's team leak lots more goals than they scored? Why didn't the great Manchester United and Arsenal sides who constantly get seven and eight players into the box?. We leak goals now - four against Wednesday and Fulham, three against Cardiff and Villa... It really isn't as simple as simply dismissing the idea. Somehow we have to collect more than one point a game to save our status. We always concede so we have to score. What is your answer? If we play 2-3-5 as you suggest (which he will not, lets face it) and we lost, then Kelly would look like an absolute idiot. I agree that 3-5-2 can be attacking with those players, but who has played 2-3-5 in the last 5 years in the top 2 leagues and got away with it? Football has changed a LOT since the 60s! Plus Hammond would just play them all offside anyway... Yes maybe its a good tactic to play if 1-0 down with 10 mins to go, but not for a full 90. The solution I posted above is trying to be in line with what Kelly is realistically going to do... Its going to be 442, and I think the problem could be solved quite simply. Definately give Dodds a run out after 70 mins or so and if successful, ease him into the team. I just don't agree with the big bang approach to a crisis. It could just as easily make the situation worse.
Manwell Pablo Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Young and hungry has been quietly diluted by a "Hard to beat" theory that is just not working and the sooner we get back to young, (fit) and hungry the better. Fit fast full-backs, forward-driving midfield players, forwards who live for goals and believe they're going to score em. And a bloody great injection of confidence and self-belief from the manager. There's an air of despondency creeping over City and there's neither reason for it no excuse for it. People think we can't put out an attacking team and I turned bhack to the old 2-3-5 system. and this is what turned out. Logan; Stearman, Sheehan/Tiatto; King, Kisnorbo, Hughes; Hammond, Hume, Fryatt, Dodds, Porter. It's just a very provocative thought at a time when we need some initiative. And there's seven or eight potential scorers in that side. I suppose I'd rather rely on scoring goals than any remote chance of our failing to concede them. Anyway that's not so much a proposal as food for thought and debate. It is based on the system which led Leicester to their greatest ever achievements. No, we don't have that quality of player - but nor do we face that quality of opposition, thankfully. Now I know your taking the piss, thats not a formation it's suicide.
Geo V Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Now I know your taking the piss, thats not a formation it's suicide. Its the funniest team selection Ive seen in years. Well Done Thracian
Lord Nibblington Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Its the funniest team selection Ive seen in years. Well Done Thracian What makes it funnier, is that is was done in all seriousness!
Monk Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 What makes it funnier, is that is was done in all seriousness! Well hang on a minute, I think Thrac made a valid point in that we need to be more attacking. And it would make it very on edge to watch. I'd really like to see us just go for it sometimes. But 2-3-5 is unstructured and dangerous. If we win games 6-5 then thats fine but if we start losing 8-3 then... we have bigger problems than we started with.
Manwell Pablo Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Well hang on a minute, I think Thrac made a valid point in that we need to be more attacking. And it would make it very on edge to watch. I'd really like to see us just go for it sometimes. But 2-3-5 is unstructured and dangerous. If we win games 6-5 then thats fine but if we start losing 8-3 then... we have bigger problems than we started with. Oh come on, it extremism, it's like playing 7 CB's so we don't concead. We need a balanced side and he knows it, he's just trying to get a debate going.
Finn Claw Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 considering none of our team is used to playing 3-5-2 I don't think we should play that, so i'd stick with 4-4-2 Logan Stearman McAuley Kisnorbo Nils Gradel Weso King Porter Hume Fyatt Slightly attacking midfield - but Williams isn't interested and AJ is shite perhaps i'd swap King for TIatto subs, danny T, danny C, Mayberry, williams, Dodds
Candidcamera Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 I agree Luton are there for the taking. We only need 2 in midfield rest in attack. Two wingers and a tall centre forward with a smaller nippy youngster. I am fed up with the old formation. We have got talented players. Anyone else notice how Troare refused to give in yesterday. Come on Kisnorbo venture forward more.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.