Flynny Posted 31 July 2008 Posted 31 July 2008 Maths teacherFrench teacher, English teacher, German teacher, Urdu teacher; Biology teacher, Physics teacher, Chemistry teacher, Domestic Science teacher, Geography teacher, History teacher. If nothing else we'll get some marking done. Hahahahahaha! That shouldn't be funny I'm ashamed for laughing.
Flynny Posted 31 July 2008 Posted 31 July 2008 I'd try Adams on the left. He seems a good carrier of the ball and uses it well. Does it not more sense to use Gradel on the left where he played all last season and can cut inside and shoot at will?
Austin Posted 31 July 2008 Posted 31 July 2008 Does it not more sense to use Gradel on the left where he played all last season and can cut inside and shoot at will? Completely agree .. however id like to see Adams somewhere .. He's looked good pre season
Flynny Posted 31 July 2008 Posted 31 July 2008 Completely agree .. however id like to see Adams somewhere .. He's looked good pre season Right-wing or in the centre is fine. (As David Cameron would say)
Thracian Posted 31 July 2008 Posted 31 July 2008 The team I'd like to see: Henderson; James Chambers, Hobbs, Tunchev, Mattock; Adams, King, Porter, Gradel; Campbell, Fryatt. We've already seen Wesolowski and Oakley in midfield. I'd now like to see the effect of having the taller King in midfield where he can help with both defensive and offensive set pieces and to see him team up with the genuiine attacker levi Porter who's short, probing passes should provide opportunities galore for his team-mates. Gradel would be tried on the left where he played so succesfully for Bournemouth allowing Adams to raid down the right in what would be a flexible arrangement all round. I've no idea if Gilbert can play left-back but have left Mattock there for now and gone for the pace and determination of James Chambers at right back. King's presence should enable us to have an extra aerial defender when under pressure and may help us tighten that department. We would have six genuine scorers in the side which is probably as many as we can realistically muster and represents a much more potent line-up than last season. Lloyd Dyer, Ashley Chambers and Billy McKay would definitely be involved off the bench.
Bert Posted 31 July 2008 Author Posted 31 July 2008 The team I'd like to see:Henderson; James Chambers, Hobbs, Tunchev, Mattock; Adams, King, Porter, Gradel; Campbell, Fryatt. We've already seen Wesolowski and Oakley in midfield. I'd now like to see the effect of having the taller King in midfield where he can help with both defensive and offensive set pieces and to see him team up with the genuiine attacker levi Porter who's short, probing passes should provide opportunities galore for his team-mates. Gradel would be tried on the left where he played so succesfully for Bournemouth allowing Adams to raid down the right in what would be a flexible arrangement all round. I've no idea if Gilbert can play left-back but have left Mattock there for now and gone for the pace and determination of James Chambers at right back. King's presence should enable us to have an extra aerial defender when under pressure and may help us tighten that department. We would have six genuine scorers in the side which is probably as many as we can realistically muster and represents a much more potent line-up than last season. Lloyd Dyer, Ashley Chambers and Billy McKay would definitely be involved off the bench. Porter is not a centre midfielder. There's no ball winner in that midfield either, well not oen that will go in for a tackle and mean it.
Houdini Logic Posted 31 July 2008 Posted 31 July 2008 GK- Paul HendersonDL - Joe Mattock DR - James Chambers DC - Alex Tunchev DC - Jack Hobbs ML - Nicky Adams MR - Maxi Gradel MC - James Wesolowski MC - Radi Kishishev © FC - Steve Howard FC - Matt Fryatt Bench Warmers - Logan, Worley, Morrison, DJ, Hayles, Chambers, Gilbert, Dyer, Porter, Sappleton, King, Oakley I would go for exactly that team but with Chambers or DJ instead of Howard, or possibly even give Sappleton a go to see if he could step up to the mark.
Simi Posted 31 July 2008 Posted 31 July 2008 I'm only there for the bitches and the beer. And the cockney café.
Simi Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 Not taking it now. Toms car will get broken into. Heartbroken. I'll bring my LCFC quiz book.
Thracian Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 Porter is not a centre midfielder. There's no ball winner in that midfield either, well not oen that will go in for a tackle and mean it. Porter's looked good in central midfield on all but one of the occasions I've watched him for the reserves, totally controlling the pace and direction of the game on many occasions. And, while King is not a traditional hardcase, he wins his fair share of possession and in the air too. Besides, being a central midfielder is not just about ball winning. There are many other factors and we're missing out on some of them just as we did last season. You talk about ball winners and I'd agree Weso is tenacious enough in the tackle. But neither he nor Oakley are what I'd call enforcers. And even if they were it would just result in dangerous free-kicks being conceded because any tackle nowadays that looks "meant" is penalised with a free-kick so long as the "victim" remembers to fall over. Referees are increasingly penalising zealous tackling so much so that ball winning today is mainly down to the team's effort in closing down space and harrassing. King and Porter do both perfectly well. As do Weso and Oakley. However though I'm a big enough fan of Weso and was delighted when Oakley arrived but that doesn't mean I'm blind to their limitations. In our relegation season Weso scored just one goal and had one assist in 18 starts. His stats were exactly the same the season previously in terms of goals/assists. Oakley last season had two assists and failed to score once in 20 starts. It's just not enough and to give you an idea of what I mean Joey Gudjonsson had nine assists and 9 goals from central midfield in 2005/6 which explains exactly what we're missing. If we're going to win things we'll need goals/assists from central midfield and from free-kicks too.
Flynny Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 Porter is not a centre midfielder. There's no ball winner in that midfield either, well not oen that will go in for a tackle and mean it. I semi-agree. By which I mean I agree and I'm nursing a semi. Porter should only play centrally if we go with a 5-man midfield, free the wingers almost entirely of defensive responsibility and play two less attack minded midfielders like King and Weso behind them. Only trouble is that rules out Fryatt, who plays almost in midfield anyway, and Howard, who's much too slow to play alone, as a lone striker. In that lineup I could see Campbell, Dickov(?) or even someone like McKay profitting.
BoneHead. Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 Adams Adams Adams Adams Adams Adams Adams Adams Adams Adams Adams Ched knows
Bert Posted 1 August 2008 Author Posted 1 August 2008 Porter's looked good in central midfield on all but one of the occasions I've watched him for the reserves, totally controlling the pace and direction of the game on many occasions. And, while King is not a traditional hardcase, he wins his fair share of possession and in the air too.Besides, being a central midfielder is not just about ball winning. There are many other factors and we're missing out on some of them just as we did last season. You talk about ball winners and I'd agree Weso is tenacious enough in the tackle. But neither he nor Oakley are what I'd call enforcers. And even if they were it would just result in dangerous free-kicks being conceded because any tackle nowadays that looks "meant" is penalised with a free-kick so long as the "victim" remembers to fall over. Referees are increasingly penalising zealous tackling so much so that ball winning today is mainly down to the team's effort in closing down space and harrassing. King and Porter do both perfectly well. As do Weso and Oakley. However though I'm a big enough fan of Weso and was delighted when Oakley arrived but that doesn't mean I'm blind to their limitations. In our relegation season Weso scored just one goal and had one assist in 18 starts. His stats were exactly the same the season previously in terms of goals/assists. Oakley last season had two assists and failed to score once in 20 starts. It's just not enough and to give you an idea of what I mean Joey Gudjonsson had nine assists and 9 goals from central midfield in 2005/6 which explains exactly what we're missing. If we're going to win things we'll need goals/assists from central midfield and from free-kicks too. Reserve football, doesn't matter. He's never played centre midfield for the 1st team, so tell me how he's so great in the centre of the park. You have a vendetta against the players in the team that keep out your special ones, it's obvious for everyone too see. Both Oakley and Wesolowski got into the box a number of times on Wednesday, you fail to mention that. If King was as good as you made out, he wouldn't have played for the ressies two weeks on the trot. I have no doubt he'll be a top player in the future, but one thing that's for sure now is that he is not ready for the first team, and Pearson has seen this. How? King hasn't started a 1st team pre season friendly yet, Oakley who is the best centre midfielder here has, Wesolowksi has and even Kish who played a mega two times last season has. Oh and King only scored once last season too, the same amount as Weso, Oakley scored a goal as well, that if it'd had been scored by Sheehan, you would've added on to his tally.
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 If Porter was in the middle of the park, my one worry would be the distinct lack of experience in that midfield.
lildave3 Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 Want Gradel to get as long as possible, that's my only wish. Well, I also wish Sappleton would play.
clazkel Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 Henderson Gilbert Hobbs Worley MattockGradel Weso Kishishev Adams/Dyer/Porter (can't decide)Fryatt Sappleton Adams played really well at Kettering and after that game i thought he would def be in Pearsons starting 11, but didn't play too well against Birmingham. Porter was really influential against Quorn and his goal was superb against Birmingham but i don't think he played that well (against Birmingham). And Dyer is consistant and enthusiastic but hasn't really done that much, so i don't know who will be selected for the left.
Thracian Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 Reserve football, doesn't matter. He's never played centre midfield for the 1st team, so tell me how he's so great in the centre of the park. You have a vendetta against the players in the team that keep out your special ones, it's obvious for everyone too see. Both Oakley and Wesolowski got into the box a number of times on Wednesday, you fail to mention that. If King was as good as you made out, he wouldn't have played for the ressies two weeks on the trot. I have no doubt he'll be a top player in the future, but one thing that's for sure now is that he is not ready for the first team, and Pearson has seen this. How? King hasn't started a 1st team pre season friendly yet, Oakley who is the best centre midfielder here has, Wesolowksi has and even Kish who played a mega two times last season has. Oh and King only scored once last season too, the same amount as Weso, Oakley scored a goal as well, that if it'd had been scored by Sheehan, you would've added on to his tally. I don't have a vendetta against anyone. I've seen Oakley and Wesolowski in the centre of midfield. Neither have done badly. But, because of certain shortcomings I'd like to see a different pairing, King and Porter, used against Palace. King had only one first team goal last season because he only started a handful of games but he scored regularly enough at other levels as you well know, and spectacular goals too some of them. His ability to support attacks was a feature. As for Weso and Oakley getting into the box I did notice that they made more effort in that department against Birmingham and was pleased about it. But neither looked like natural finishers as demonstrated by Weso's wasting of the open goal. Not that the cock up particularly bothered me. I'd rather he got into positions to miss than didn't but if you think Weso and Oakley are better finishers/creators than King and Porter then it's not me who's steered by bias. Bottom line is we need more help from central midfield for certain defensive situations and in terms of goals/assists. We also need more goals/assists from free-kicks and if we don't address these problems we'll fall short of our target. If Oakley and Weso can deliver them I'll be delighted but I don't feel it's likely. They have important roles to play anyway. But if you've no interest in seeing anyone else given a chance that's up to you. However I had exactly the same sort of argument with others last season about Gradel who, almost like King, hadn't played anything but reserves football either. We preferred the vastly experienced Newton. Worked out well that!. We should have made a video of Newton's goals/assists - and those of all the other wingers we thought were better than the kid from the ressies. Do you seriously think Porter would have had a blank tape if he'd been available? Porter was badly missed last season and having seen him play regularly as both winger and central midfielder, I have no doubts about his ability in either position but just feel he can be of more benefit in the middle. That said I've little doubt Pearson will give him more attacking freedom than he ever seemed to have under Rob Kelly. Beaglehole moved Porter from the wing to the centre and, despite a bad first game, he quickly became a fixture there and a major influence in the side. Why should you be so reluctant to see if he can have the same impact at first team level?
marbelladave Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 After 3 months off-line moving house and country I have just spent an hour on the forum catching up on events. Strangely, apart from all the new names, the debate has changed little. We have the all out, give the youngsters a chance, attacking style advocated by Thracian and his handful of supporters and the more experienced, pragmatic approach of the majority. Whilst it is clear that the pragmatic approach failed miserably under Holloway, many seem reluctant to to support the more attacking options. However with due deference to Thracian I feel that 1 defensively minded midfielder is a must, if only because it gives the others more confidence to get forward. Playing 2 gets us into the same trouble as last season. Given that we now appear to have a choice of genuine wide men to choose from, and by all accounts a rejuvenated Matty Fryatt, the shape of the team seems to decide itself. I cannot suggest a lineup as I have not seen any of the new boys play, but a defensive/attacking centre midfield with wingers and Fryatt off a front man seems the way to go. The centre midfield seems to be the pivotal selection, any one have a view on this?
Thracian Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 After 3 months off-line moving house and country I have just spent an hour on the forum catching up on events.Strangely, apart from all the new names, the debate has changed little. We have the all out, give the youngsters a chance, attacking style advocated by Thracian and his handful of supporters and the more experienced, pragmatic approach of the majority. Whilst it is clear that the pragmatic approach failed miserably under Holloway, many seem reluctant to to support the more attacking options. However with due deference to Thracian I feel that 1 defensively minded midfielder is a must, if only because it gives the others more confidence to get forward. Playing 2 gets us into the same trouble as last season. Given that we now appear to have a choice of genuine wide men to choose from, and by all accounts a rejuvenated Matty Fryatt, the shape of the team seems to decide itself. I cannot suggest a lineup as I have not seen any of the new boys play, but a defensive/attacking centre midfield with wingers and Fryatt off a front man seems the way to go. The centre midfield seems to be the pivotal selection, any one have a view on this? I well understand that point of view. But how is it King doesn't rate in the defensive role. Or Porter in his own way? King was actually used as a centre-back for the reserves at times. It is not something I'd recommend but he's fairly good in the air and well used to taking defensive responsibilities. At one stage I thought the club used him too defensively and stiffled his attacking instincts. Porter's not an aggressive tackler in the Wesolowski sense but he's a sound coverer because he's got a good engine, good positional sense and doesn't get caught ball-watching. Kelly seemed to have Porter doing more defending than attacking at times and right back into his own penalty area. I don't say either are better combative midfielders than Weso but King gives more aerial presence and both the alternatives are better in an attacking sense. I'm sure they'll all be involved - and Kishishev as well - but I just can't help feeling that we'll go for two essentially defensive midfielders at the same time and therefore sometimes waste the chance to really take the initiative in matches - not a new problem of ours. As you say, that appoach has failed in the past. In fact it has continually failed and I really don't see how we can do without goals/creativity from central midfield. But, you're right, some will prefer the experience of the steady eddy's whatever. PS: Pity we've not got a front man like The Doog!
Houdini Logic Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 If Porter was in the middle of the park, my one worry would be the distinct lack of experience in that midfield. Joking aside, mine would be the lack of height!
marbelladave Posted 1 August 2008 Posted 1 August 2008 I did not mention King or any other of the attacking midfield options for the simple reason that I have not seen any of them play! I was more concerned with the shape of the side and avoiding the disastrous situation last season where we had 2 (sometimes 3!) defensive players sitting just in front of the back 4. To my mind this was the main reason we were so poor, as this setup forced the back 4 to play way too deep and offered no support to the attacking players. If Weso and Oakley both play, I can see this problem recurring. Play one of them as the sitting player, this is good for two reasons. 1) Having a player shield the back 4 stops the opposition playing the ball around in attacking positions and gives them less time and space to play in the final ball. 2) More importantly giving one player the responsibility for that role frees up the more attacking midfielders to get forward in the knowledge that they have cover. It also helps to define the shape of the team and the role of the other players in a way that having two more flexible players, ie both men sharing attacking and defensive duties, does not. At present the holding role should go to either Weso or Oakley with a more attack minded player alongside. If that player is King then fine, he should be free to concentrate on more creative play with his defensive skills complimenting his more defensive partner, rather than have the defensive roll as a priority. As I have said, this is the pivotal decision for me, get it wrong and we could be in trouble again!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.