AyewJoking Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 Why play Howard unless you want to hoof it up to him? I think Holloway will be out to get a draw tonight, stop the losing run before it reaches 3 in a row and for a club in our position you cant really argue with a point away to Watford. Alnwick Chambers McAuley Kisnorbo Clapham Bori Oakley Clemence Laczko Hume Howard (thats the team I think Holloway will pick, not necessarily my choice)
Chimp Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 I'd like to see something a bit different... - - - - - - - - -Alnwick Stearman - McCauley - Kisnorbo - Mattock - - - - - - - - Oakley Bori- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Laszcko - - - - - - - - -Hume - - - -Howard- - - - - -Campbell Hume given license to terrorise the midfield and get forward whenever he wants, Oakley mopping up but also getting forward when he can. Sure, such an attacking line-up may leave us vulnerable but what the hell, the chances of us coming away from Watford with anything are remote anyway so why not go all out. If we look like we're being overrun in midfield we could always swap out Hume/Campbell for Clemence and go back to a 4-4-2.
Thracian Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 Why play Howard unless you want to hoof it up to him? I think Holloway will be out to get a draw tonight, stop the losing run before it reaches 3 in a row and for a club in our position you cant really argue with a point away to Watford.Alnwick Chambers McAuley Kisnorbo Clapham Bori Oakley Clemence Laczko Hume Howard (thats the team I think Holloway will pick, not necessarily my choice) Howard's fast reminding me of Horsfield. Marginally better but it's a small margin so far.
Manwell Pablo Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 Howard's fast reminding me of Horsfield. Marginally better but it's a small margin so far. A bit harsh prehaps? At least he wins headers.
Babylon Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 Howard's fast reminding me of Horsfield. Marginally better but it's a small margin so far. So would any big man if we continued to use them incorrectly and play them with the wrong partner.
Benji Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 I'm concerned that if we manage a sh1te scrappy win with a similar team to that played on saturday, we'll have to endure the next 6 games with the same rubbish and probably lost them all, i fear we need a drubbing before it becomes clear to him.
Babylon Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 FRYATT DAMN IT!!! FRYATT! You won't have it will you.
izzetafox? Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 only having 4 subs? couldnt be bothered to think of the subs....really not entusiastic about this one!, but the main thing is i think its worth trying mattock at left wing
Thracian Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 Totally agree The ONLY striker we've got among Holloway's Chosen Men with any pace is Campbell. I would say we need pace like a mountaineer needs oxygen. Fryatt last 20 minutes might be a worthwhile option but he's not played a lot of football lately.
ronnup Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 I'd like to see something a bit different...- - - - - - - - -Alnwick Stearman - McCauley - Kisnorbo - Mattock - - - - - - - - Oakley Bori- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Laszcko - - - - - - - - -Hume - - - -Howard- - - - - -Campbell Hume given license to terrorise the midfield and get forward whenever he wants, Oakley mopping up but also getting forward when he can. Sure, such an attacking line-up may leave us vulnerable but what the hell, the chances of us coming away from Watford with anything are remote anyway so why not go all out. If we look like we're being overrun in midfield we could always swap out Hume/Campbell for Clemence and go back to a 4-4-2. I'd give that a bash too, but I don't know how tactically aware Olly is.
AyewJoking Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 Have you forgotten how Fryatt struggled when he was a regular in the team? All our other strikers are so inept we're now looking to Fryatt as the messiah I'm not picking on Fryatt, its just that without decent service he isnt gonna be much use to us.
Thracian Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 Have you forgotten how Fryatt struggled when he was a regular in the team? All our other strikers are so inept we're now looking to Fryatt as the messiah I'm not picking on Fryatt, its just that without decent service he isnt gonna be much use to us. Fryatt enjoys special status when it comes to his limitations being overlooked. However even some of his most stalwart supporters rarely say a word in his defence just now (though they're waiting if the chance arises ) and calls for his inclusion really do centre around the idea that he'd probably be no worse than anyone else. Other than DJ I really don't give a toss who plays up front. I've long believed no two strikers of ours are really good enough and would personally play three. But, mend one area and you may well make problems elsewhere because all our areas are weak in one way or another.
Joe. Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 I've long believed no two strikers of ours are really good enough and would personally play three.But, mend one area and you may well make problems elsewhere because all our areas are weak in one way or another. I think you're right there. If we're going to insist on playing long ball and very little football actually on the floor it might make sense to take one of out midfield and add another forward. Because long ball effectively eliminates a midfield anyway. Personally I'd like us to try 4-3-3. As long as it doesn't mean gung ho football that's going to leave us too exposed at the back I think it'd be a good idea.
Legend_in_blue Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 I think you're right there. If we're going to insist on playing long ball and very little football actually on the floor it might make sense to take one of out midfield and add another forward. Because long ball effectively eliminates a midfield anyway. Personally I'd like us to try 4-3-3. As long as it doesn't mean gung ho football that's going to leave us too exposed at the back I think it'd be a good idea. How about 'a diamond formation'? Don't think that one's been tried out yet. Or better still, 'a sweeper system', allowing one of the centre backs to come out of defence with the ball... along the floor...? Errm, on second thoughts, perhaps not eh?
DB11 Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 I think we should go with a front three, consisting of Hume (work rate) ----- Hayles (goal scorer) ------------Howard (target man) ----------
Wycombe Fox Posted 12 February 2008 Posted 12 February 2008 Square peg round hole - Chambers at left back Hume and Hayles on the bench, DJ and Howard up front
Ultra Posted 12 February 2008 Author Posted 12 February 2008 He also left plenty of dross in. I don't think the team I picked could have done much worse.
Manwell Pablo Posted 13 February 2008 Posted 13 February 2008 He also left plenty of dross in.I don't think the team I picked could have done much worse. He also left plenty of dross in.I don't think the team I picked could have done much worse. He also left plenty of dross in.I don't think the team I picked could have done much worse. oh right so it was IMPOSSIBLE to have done any worse than last night? Well in that caase we can give my team a go as well Douglas N'Gotty Stearman Hellings Chambers Hammond Kishishev Kisnorbo Weso Mattock Clapham
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.