Team for Barnsley

[Guest]

Whats the crack with this Taylor everyone keeps talking about, nobby is the only signing we will make and the fact he got rejected by sheff united and Colchester speaks for it self ! down the table we go ?

Christ, you're a cheery fecker ain't ya?

[Guest Mee-9]

Christ, you're a cheery fecker ain't ya?

Can't beat abit of pessimism

[Manderic's pants]

Here's a radical thought for you,

Assuming Pearson plays his usual midfield, as I think likely, how about letting N'Guessan partner Fryatt up front.

Pacy, strong and a real goal threat...... :thumbup:

Agree it's worth a punt - Dany has the strength to hold the ball up as well as aerial ability, so hopefully wouldn't revert to hoofball tactics that playing Howard usually demands.

[Tony Pine]

[sbfox]

Not only one of the most bizarre, but also one of the best, ways to put up a starting XI on FT! 'Grats!

I'd like to see...

Weale

Morrison Hobbs Brown Powell/Berner

Oakley King Wellens

N'Guesan Kermogant Waghorn

Since when were we a team that played 4-3-3, its a little scary!

[Tony Pine]

i tried doing it manually....and failed hard

[lildave3]

I like it. Both the team and the style it was put up!

[marbelladave]

Wow - artistic

I have been suggesting some variant of 4-3-3 for months, maybe I need to work on my presentation.....

The only worry with the above line up is leaving Fryatt isolated up front, he really does not work well as a lone frontman.

I see 2 possible solutions, either deploy Fryatt to the right with N'Guessan to lead the line or drop Fryatt to the bench as a sort of 'planned supersub' and play Waghorn - Kermogant - N'Guessan or Waghorn - N'Guessan - Dyer as a front three.

The wide men have to play well forward, they are primarily strikers in this set up but when we lose possession the must press the defense by going wide and picking up their full backs.

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

Come to think of it I'd play the team that beat QPR away but with Morrison at CB for Brown and Powell at LB.

It was sort of 4-5-1 but with Waghorn and N'Guessan wide supporting Fryatt with it making us hard to break down but very attacking too.

Weale

Neilson

Hobbs

Morrison

Powell

Waghorn

Oakley

King

Wellens

N'Guessan

Fryatt

Bit like Tony Pine's team, but that was such a good performance that night as we had pace on the wings.

[milan_foxes]

Why are so many people taking/leaving Stevie Howard out of the starting line-up?

He's had some "good" games lately, for his standard.

[Tony Pine]

i think we all admit we should try mixing it up a bit, especially against a team like barnsley (no disrespect to them). we seem to have become a bit stagnant. i think matty can handle being alone if we get balls into him both crosses and balls behind the back line. if we just play it into him in front of the back four and theres no1 to provide options out wide e.g. diagonally (the corner flags) then he will struggle. but he has the skill and strength to hold the ball up if need be.

[marbelladave]

Why are so many people taking/leaving Stevie Howard out of the starting line-up?

He's had some "good" games lately, for his standard.

Howard is a must if we are going to continue playing the longball but we have been trying to pick teams that would get us away from all that!

After all, It is Fantasy Football.

i think we all admit we should try mixing it up a bit, especially against a team like barnsley (no disrespect to them). we seem to have become a bit stagnant. i think matty can handle being alone if we get balls into him both crosses and balls behind the back line. if we just play it into him in front of the back four and theres no1 to provide options out wide e.g. diagonally (the corner flags) then he will struggle. but he has the skill and strength to hold the ball up if need be.

Are you e.e.cummings in disguise?

I really can not see Fryatt being effective without a strike partner, he is primarily a poacher who thrives on knock downs and other 'bits and pieces that come his way. Holding the ball up and creating for others is really not his game.

Coming in (off either flank) and playing off a central striker is much more his game and it is just possible that, away from the center he would be less tightly marked. Then he would just need to work on his defensive deployment, shutting down his fullback, after all how many fullbacks would dare to bomb forward if they faced the likelyhood of letting a player of Fryatt's class in behind them?

[Tony Pine]

i'd agree with you to a certain extent, but i do think matty does have that facet to his game nowadays, and coming in off the flanks is definitely his strong points. i just think the option is there as he seems to be stronger now. i wouldn't want that as his sole repsonsibility though. i think dany and martyn would more than compensate for the lack of a big striker with their pace, delivery and skill. if anything matty has hit a dry patch when we've started using a target man. he looks disinterested at times and having him play off someones shoulder brings a forced rigidity to his game that he doesn't seem to enjoy. it also forces the team as a whole to play more centrally.

and no i'm not e.e. cummings

[buzzy]

Come to think of it I'd play the team that beat QPR away but with Morrison at CB for Brown and Powell at LB.

It was sort of 4-5-1 but with Waghorn and N'Guessan wide supporting Fryatt with it making us hard to break down but very attacking too.

Weale

Neilson

Hobbs

Morrison

Powell

Waghorn

Oakley

King

Wellens

N'Guessan

Fryatt

Bit like Tony Pine's team, but that was such a good performance that night as we had pace on the wings.

well thats not the team that beat qpr is it because you've replaced to players

[Bert]

Weale

Morrison

McGivern

Hobbs

Brown

N'Guessan

Dyer

Oakley

Wellens

Howard

Waghorn.

Balanced, with two pacey wingers and a perfect strike partner for Waghorn. Perhaps the best (realistically) defence we can field too.

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

well thats not the team that beat qpr is it because you've replaced to players

I did mean same sort of style with the same team where possible, not that I hadnt put that above the team or anything.

[the buckwheat]

Upfront

Waghorn, Kermorgant

[Thracian]

Weale,

Oakley,

Hobbs,

Brown,

McGivern;

N'Guessan,

Wellens

King,

Dyer;

Howard,

Waghorn.

Subs: Gallagher and whoever's left.

It's still a frustrating compromise. That back line looks horrible to me and the passing speed and accuracy is far too suspect in so many places.

[Flynny]

I love that a few weeks ago everyone was berating Pearson for attempting a 4-3-3 and saying we needed wingers back. Couple of bad results against good teams and all of a sudden we need another shake-up.

[Flynny]

Weale,

Oakley,

Hobbs,

Brown,

Neilson;

N'Guessan,

Wellens

King,

Dyer;

Howard,

Waghorn.

Subs: Gallagher and whoever's left.

It's still a frustrating compromise. That back line looks horrible to me and the passing speed and accuracy is far too suspect in so many places.

Is that Neilson at left-back? Odd but defence certainly needs tightening up there and even if he has to play quite a limited game like a batsman cutting out his natural strokes during a bad spell, it might be worthwhile.

[Shrenchel]

I love that a few weeks ago everyone was berating Pearson for attempting a 4-3-3 and saying we needed wingers back. Couple of bad results against good teams and all of a sudden we need another shake-up.

Yeah, it's jokes. I'm sure if you had enough time on your hands you could find some pretty laughable examples of people suggesting exactly the same team as they were berating Pearson for playing a few weeks back. It's still all his fault though, square headed cvnt.

[Thracian]

Is that Neilson at left-back? Odd but defence certainly needs tightening up there and even if he has to play quite a limited game like a batsman cutting out his natural strokes during a bad spell, it might be worthwhile.

I mixed the two up in fact. Both register so indifferently to me that I actually don't want either. But no I wouldn't risk Neilson on the left even though it might, as you suggest, be an improvement

[Fox You Forest]

Why on earth would you drop Morrison?

[Daggers]

Weale

Morrison - Hobbs - Brown

N'Guessan ---------------------------- Dyer

Oakley - King - Wellens

Kermit - Waghorn

Removes both of the dodgiest aspects of defence, speed down the flanks, release King to roam to shoot from distance and Wellens to dance into the box. Build up some more match-time time understanding between the front two coupling the paciest man in the side with the (allegedly) best striker (on the training pitch). Moving through a fluid set of formations from defensive 442 with Oakley dropping back to an attacking 343, pushing N'Guessan into the front line.

[marbelladave]

Yeah, it's jokes. I'm sure if you had enough time on your hands you could find some pretty laughable examples of people suggesting exactly the same team as they were berating Pearson for playing a few weeks back. It's still all his fault though, square headed cvnt.

Whilst undoubtably true, it is kind of missing the point.

A lot of people want to see us get away from the turgid 4-4-2 system and the tedious hoofball that it produces and the only way they can express this is by trying to come up with different formations and options.

In reality, it probably does not matter so much who plays or in what formation, what really matters is that we find some energy and pace from somewhere. If we can't manage that, then at least keep the ball on the floor and try and play some possession football rather than just hoofing the ball forward and giving it away every few seconds.

Now where's my picture of that flying porker.............