Team for Watford

[James.]

Weale

Neilson --- Hobbs --- Tunchev --- Berner

N'Guessan --- Oakley --- Wellens --- Adams

Waghorn --- Fryatt

That's what I'd like to see. Would be intrigued to see how the team performs without Howard and I agree in that coupling Fryatt with a man with pace has the potential to be very fruitful.

Find it a bit strange that Adams has barely featured after impressing so much at the start of the season. And that Pearson seems to repeating last season's "mistake" of sticking with Dyer through a bad run of form (or like last night playing a striker there) - why not Adams?

[breadandcheese]

That's what I'd like to see. Would be intrigued to see how the team performs without Howard and I agree in that coupling Fryatt with a man with pace has the potential to be very fruitful.

Find it a bit strange that Adams has barely featured after impressing so much at the start of the season. And that Pearson seems to repeating last season's "mistake" of sticking with Dyer through a bad run of form (or like last night playing a striker there) - why not Adams?

I find it strange that we've paid a sizeable amount of money for Gallagher, yet it seems that he's 4th choice striker behind Waghorn.

[RowlattsFox]

I find it strange that we've paid a sizeable amount of money for Gallagher, yet it seems that he's 4th choice striker behind Waghorn.

I think that if Howard is dropped on Saturday then Gallagher is more likely to start with Fryatt so I'm not sure he's 4th choice. I think Pearson is trying to find a place in the side for Gallagher, thats why he's trying him on the wing, wouldn't be totally suprised to see Gallagher popping up on the right one game to see how he does there.

[Guest Basildon Fox]

I think that if Howard is dropped on Saturday then Gallagher is more likely to start with Fryatt so I'm not sure he's 4th choice. I think Pearson is trying to find a place in the side for Gallagher, thats why he's trying him on the wing, wouldn't be totally suprised to see Gallagher popping up on the right one game to see how he does there.

Would be preferable to the big shower of shit we have on the right side at the moment. Perhaps we might even get a cross into the box...

[Fox92]

Weale

Nielson -- Hobbs -- Tunchev -- Berner

Oakley -- King -- Wellens

Gallagher

Fryatt -- Howard

_________

Howard was great again.

N'Guessan was again poor so dropped.

Waghorn hasn't done much since Swansea so bench place.

King sat in well so start that formation.

[marbelladave]

Weale

Nielson -- Hobbs -- Tunchev -- Berner

Oakley -- King -- Wellens

Gallagher

Fryatt -- Howard

_________

Howard was great again.

N'Guessan was again poor so dropped.

Waghorn hasn't done much since Swansea so bench place.

King sat in well so start that formation.

Pretty much how we played last night, second half.

Controlled in midfield but no pace, no width and no idea.

Think again!

[James.]

I find it strange that we've paid a sizeable amount of money for Gallagher, yet it seems that he's 4th choice striker behind Waghorn.

Ideally I'd like to see both play alongside Fryatt, just went with Waghorn because I think his pace could be particularly useful on Saturday.

[Fox92]

Pretty much how we played last night, second half.

Controlled in midfield but no pace, no width and no idea.

Think again!

Yes the second half performance was better but I agree no width, thats why Nielson didn't look good - coz' he aint a right midfielder.

Gallagher looked dangerous there though and King sat in nicely. Thats what it's based on.

No pace? I agree, but who do you suggest? Because Waghorn has done nothing since Swansea and N'Guessan is rubbish/hit and miss.

[MPH]

We should re-sign Barry Hayles. All our problems would be solved.

[Pete_foxes]

Weale

Neilson

Hobbs

Tunchev

Berner

N'Guessen

Oakley

Wellens

Adams/Dyer*

Fryatt

Gallagher/Howard*

*Personally I would opt for Gallagher and Adams but suspect Nige will go for Howard and Dyer.

[MPH]

Weale

Neilson

Hobbs

Tunchev

Berner

N'Guessen

Oakley

Wellens

Adams/Dyer*

Fryatt

Gallagher/Howard*

*Personally I would opt for Gallagher and Adams but suspect Nige will go for Howard and Dyer.

the last time he played Nicky Adams over Dyer he said he opted for him because of his stronger Defensive capabilities... playing away to Watford might mean that would happen again...

I really do think though we would need a target man playing away from home too...

[TrickyTrev]

I can't believe nearly every team has Oakley and Wellens as a midfield duo, they have been over run 3 games in a row! Twice we have resorted at half time to putting a defensive midfielder in, against Blackpool and Peterborough, and we desperately needed to do the same against Newcastle.

Steve Howard currently looks like Steve Howard looks in the Championship. A man too slow and with too little mobility to get himself involved in general play, who has the pleasing upside of winning flick ons from goal kicks. I'd like to hope that we can find a more productive use of one of our attacking spots from the players that we have in our squad.

....................Weale....

Nielson...Hobbs....Tunchev...Berner

...................King.....

..........Oakley....Wellens....

..............Gallagher...

.N'Guessen/Waghorn.Fryatt

Subs- Gradel, Adams, Logan, Brown, McGivern, Howard, Waghorn/N'Gusssen

This is pretty similar to how we have played in the second half against Blackpool and Peterborough. Defensively it looks a hell of a lot more secure than a flat four. The major change is that we have two strikers instead of one that offers something in general play. This increased movement should give the likes of Wellens and Gallagher more options to aim at and make us dangerous on the break.

[Corky]

Weale

Neilson

Tunchev

Hobbs

Berner

Adams

Oakley

Wellens

Dyer

Fryatt

Gallagher

Subs:

Logan

Brown

N'Guessan

Waghorn

Howard

McGivern

King

[marbelladave]

Yes the second half performance was better but I agree no width, thats why Nielson didn't look good - coz' he aint a right midfielder.

Gallagher looked dangerous there though and King sat in nicely. Thats what it's based on.

No pace? I agree, but who do you suggest? Because Waghorn has done nothing since Swansea and N'Guessan is rubbish/hit and miss.

I would actually start with the two you so easily dismiss, but have options on the bench, Dyer probably.

They will need to get into wide positions but also come inside to support Fryatt. Waghorn's pace may create space and N'Guessan is better starting wide and coming inside where his strength and good first touch can be put to use.

Got to be worth a go!

[Vlad The Impaler]

GK. Weale

RB. Neilson

CB. Hobbs

CB. Tunchev

LB. Berner

CM. Oakley

CM. King

CM. Wellens

ST. Gallagher

ST. Howard

ST. Fryatt

Yes we would miss the width but it's not as if we've been flooding the box with crosses really, though I do rate N'Guessan and Adams and wouldn't rule out starting them 2 on the wings, Adams inperticular deserves a chance.

[billyfox1]

Weale

Brown - Tunchev - Hobbs

Adams - Oakley - Wellens - King - Berner

Gallagher - Fryatt

[marbelladave]

I can't believe nearly every team has Oakley and Wellens as a midfield duo, they have been over run 3 games in a row! Twice we have resorted at half time to putting a defensive midfielder in, against Blackpool and Peterborough, and we desperately needed to do the same against Newcastle.

Steve Howard currently looks like Steve Howard looks in the Championship. A man too slow and with too little mobility to get himself involved in general play, who has the pleasing upside of winning flick ons from goal kicks. I'd like to hope that we can find a more productive use of one of our attacking spots from the players that we have in our squad.

....................Weale....

Nielson...Hobbs....Tunchev...Berner

...................King.....

..........Oakley....Wellens....

..............Gallagher...

.N'Guessen/Waghorn.Fryatt

Subs- Gradel, Adams, Logan, Brown, McGivern, Howard, Waghorn/N'Gusssen

This is pretty similar to how we have played in the second half against Blackpool and Peterborough. Defensively it looks a hell of a lot more secure than a flat four. The major change is that we have two strikers instead of one that offers something in general play. This increased movement should give the likes of Wellens and Gallagher more options to aim at and make us dangerous on the break.

Not bad. Although if, as I think you are suggesting, Wellens and Oakley are pushed further forward, do we need Gallagher in the hole?

Personally I see Gallagher as an alternative to Fryatt and would go with more pace up front.

Also for what it is worth, if we play 3 in midfield than their is no need for King to play anything but his normal game. I know he is good defensively but we need his incisive passing and his goal threat too.

[MPH]

GK. Weale

RB. Neilson

CB. Hobbs

CB. Tunchev

LB. Berner

CM. Oakley

CM. King

CM. Wellens

ST. Gallagher

ST. Howard

ST. Fryatt

Yes we would miss the width but it's not as if we've been flooding the box with crosses really, though I do rate N'Guessan and Adams and wouldn't rule out starting them 2 on the wings, Adams inperticular deserves a chance.

im not sure thats the way Pearson sees things long term... he has a strong emphasis on wingers in the squad...

[MPH]

Weale

Brown - Tunchev - Hobbs

Adams - Oakley - Wellens - King - Berner

Gallagher - Fryatt

i could appreciate that concept more than i could the 4-3-3, but it would need howard up front...

[dogadug]

i could appreciate that concept more than i could the 4-3-3, but it would need howard up front...

I don't think we need Howard, whenever he's in the team, we just resort to the long ball, rather than passing the ball around, which is what we're good at.

[MPH]

I don't think we need Howard, whenever he's in the team, we just resort to the long ball, rather than passing the ball around, which is what we're good at.

well. especially away from home that attack would struggle. theyd be muscles off the ball every time... you'd need a target man, even if its just to hold the ball up..

[TrickyTrev]

Not bad. Although if, as I think you are suggesting, Wellens and Oakley are pushed further forward, do we need Gallagher in the hole?

Personally I see Gallagher as an alternative to Fryatt and would go with more pace up front.

Also for what it is worth, if we play 3 in midfield than their is no need for King to play anything but his normal game. I know he is good defensively but we need his incisive passing and his goal threat too.

I want to make use of King and Wellens incisive passing, but I think it is important that one of them does so from a deeper position.

King is pushed further backwards in the diagram to make it obvious that there is a clear difference in roles. In defensive terms, King is a sitter and a protector, making sure that the hole between our midfield and our defense that has been so gaping in the past few games dissapears. Wellens and Oakley are then left free to pressurise and close down. We can 'get into and fook them up' without being ripped to shreads.

This is the great advantage of a 3 man midfield over a 2 man midfield, you can close the opposition down without leaving large gaps for the opposition to move into and pass around you. You can also afford to have one of your central players out of defensive duty and not be left with a 2 on 1 situation in the midfield.

A designated holding player gives you better defensive shape, more opportunities to close down and press the opposition and greater license for your attacking midfield players to get involved as a two. Whether that man be King or Wellens I do not particuarly care, both have the passing range to bring other players into play from deep, but I know we need one. Flat midfields have been extinct for decades now, you only see them in footballing backwaters like the lower leagues of English football. They only work if you have two players who combine great engines and great attacking finesse, allowing you to cover the same ground with 2 men that your opponents can with 2. Sadly there are only one or two Michael Essiens in this world, and none of them play for Leicester City.

Wellens and Oakley are then, in this formation, breaking from a normal midfield position. I put Gallagher in the hole so that our midfield 3 have a target to pass to who isn't looking to run over the top, else we would constantly be pinging 40/50 yard balls that run through to the goalkeeper or is easily dealt with by the defense. This player could be a wide player who is able to hold onto the ball, in which case N'Guessen would be our best bit, but I picked Gallagher because he looks like he has a bit of poise and quality to me. The most potential to get Wellens and Oakley playing triangles and Fryatt slipped through.

[TrickyTrev]

well. especially away from home that attack would struggle. theyd be muscles off the ball every time... you'd need a target man, even if its just to hold the ball up..

How well does Howard actually hold the ball up? Unless you pass the ball directly to his feet or his chest his mobility means he has next to no chance of holding onto the ball for you. Its not like he is a monster athlete who you put the ball in the vicinity of and he gives you a chance of retaining possession. He is very much a 'flick on only' sort of target man. The difference between these two types of target men is why Capello prefers Heskey to Crouch.

[Vlad The Impaler]

im not sure thats the way Pearson sees things long term... he has a strong emphasis on wingers in the squad...

Yeah I agree, I wouldn't completely rule it out as we did play it 2nd half against Peterborough and looked alot better.

Also, a bit off topic but just looking at the spine of our team yesterday and we have Tunchev, Hobbs, Wellens, Oakley, King, Gallagher, Fryatt, Howard.

We all know that good teams have a good line up down the middle, and that looks pretty darn good for a championship team, alot of quality with Tunch, Wellens and Gallagher, can see a few nice passing moves between them aswell.

[Nod.E]

Weale

Neilson Tunchev Hobbs Berner

Adams Oakley Wellens Gallagher

Fryatt Howard

--------------------------

Brown

N'Guessan

Dyer

Morrison

Waghorn

King

GK... I genuinely believe that i'd be better back up than Logan. For that reason, i'm gonna say 'myself'

If it wasn't working, and we were losing, i'd change it to:

Weale

Neilson Tunchev Hobbs Berner

N'Guessan Oakley Wellens Dyer

Fryatt Gallagher

... hoping in vein that their full backs would be unsettled by two new wingers. Dyer would come with his running trainers, and N'guessan would come on with a bit of steel in place of big Steve. That said, the move to take Howard off would hopefully make the players resist the hoof, and feed the ball to the feet of the theoritcally hungry Gallagher, in his natural role of CF.