Tielemans63 Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Tricky one as there's no gurantee that guys like Moore and Kennedy will be as effective next time - but if you don't give them a chance you won't know. Would you change it?
Webbo Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 From listening to the radio I'd expect Peltier to return if fit.
Tielemans63 Posted 2 January 2012 Author Posted 2 January 2012 From listening to the radio I'd expect Peltier to return if fit. I think Pelts would thrive in a 5-3-2.
Haydos Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Probably Peltier back in. Feel like Kennedy should keep his place. What about keeping the same system....or do we go back to 4-4-2? What was Tunchev like today? Youngy said he wasn't up to it but I trust his opinion as much as.....I just don't. Midfield sounds like it should be kept the same. We are lacking options up front though. Beckford has to score at some point....
Tielemans63 Posted 2 January 2012 Author Posted 2 January 2012 From listening to the radio I'd expect Peltier to return if fit. I think Pelts would thrive in a 5-3-2.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Probably Peltier back in. Feel like Kennedy should keep his place. What about keeping the same system....or do we go back to 4-4-2? What was Tunchev like today? Youngy said he wasn't up to it but I trust his opinion as much as.....I just don't. Midfield sounds like it should be kept the same. We are lacking options up front though. Beckford has to score at some point.... So sadly true. Maybe Beckford instead of Schlupp - much as the youngster tries harder, there's not much to show for the effort and surely Beckford must do something soon.
EnderbyFox Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Can't see Wellens getting back in, King seemed to thrive without him Kennedy is definitely knocking on the door as well. Schlupp should also keep his place.
Charl91 Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Beckford always sounds dangerous when he's brought on. Would be nice to see him get more then 10 - 20 minutes.
Haydos Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Can't see Wellens getting back in, King seemed to thrive without him Kennedy is definitely knocking on the door as well. Schlupp should also keep his place. Did you go today? Schlupp was poor against Pompey so unless he looked very good today then I don't see why he should keep his place.
dannythefox Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Yes lets keep it the same give the young hungry lads a chance.
acooling08 Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 We kept the same shit for weeks and weeks and saw boring, uninspired draws. Why would we go back to that after a win?
EnderbyFox Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Did you go today? Schlupp was poor against Pompey so unless he looked very good today then I don't see why he should keep his place. I did not, no. But hearing opinions from people that did, it appeared he had a good game and was unlucky not to score.
Kitchandro Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Did you go today? Schlupp was poor against Pompey so unless he looked very good today then I don't see why he should keep his place. He wasn't poor, he was very dangerous early on and was given the ball in the wrong positions after 1-0. We didn't play to his strengths enough but he still put in more effort and looked more dangerous than Beckford has for the majority of his appearances. We keep hoping that Beckford will do something but he still hasn't, he's showing little signs of improvement and there's only so long I can continue to be frustrated by him before I suggest he isn't going to cut it here. Service or not 2 goals and often a lack of effort isn't good enough. Keep Schlupp in, give him a run of games and get some midfielders in to give him service ASAP.
Haydos Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 He wasn't poor, he was very dangerous early on and was given the ball in the wrong positions after 1-0. We didn't play to his strengths enough but he still put in more effort and looked more dangerous than Beckford has for the majority of his appearances. We keep hoping that Beckford will do something but he still hasn't, he's showing little signs of improvement and there's only so long I can continue to be frustrated by him before I suggest he isn't going to cut it here. Service or not 2 goals and often a lack of effort isn't good enough. Keep Schlupp in, give him a run of games and get some midfielders in to give him service ASAP. I'm not out-and-out advocating Beckford. I just didn't think Schlupp looked ready in the Pompey game. He looked low on confidence (a lot of times he wouldn't commit to beating a man he could probably out pace), his touch was a bit iffy and he got bundled off the ball a lot. I'm referring to his general play, not specifically his goalscoring ability.
cc_star Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Can't see Wellens getting in, probably on the bench in place of Howard, our midfield conceded too much ground as the 2nd half went on, could maybe have done with a substitution there today King thrived today, Abe was his usual nuisance & Danns obviously came up with the goods Heard conflicting reports on Schlupp today, but he faded badly Vs Pompey & to me Beckford looks dangerous as hell and running at opposing defences like Nuge & Schlupp haven't done today has caused them great problems. He's going to get the rub of the green soon, surely? Moore did amazing, but Pelts is my player of the season so far, but Moore's tackling was immense Kennedy deserves to stay for me, Konch has been consistent defensively aside from the Pompey game but Kennedy offered much more in attack I'm unclear on the Tunchev situation, whether he was just off the pace or what, but I'd give 5-3-2 a go again, if fit. Kasper Mills - Bamba - Tunchev Peltier ---------------------- Kennedy Danns - King - Abe Beckford - Nugent Subs: Moore, Wellens, Schlupp, Gally, Dyer
Kitchandro Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 I'm not out-and-out advocating Beckford. I just didn't think Schlupp looked ready in the Pompey game. He looked low on confidence (a lot of times he wouldn't commit to beating a man he could probably out pace), his touch was a bit iffy and he got bundled off the ball a lot. I'm referring to his general play, not specifically his goalscoring ability. He's not the complete player yet no doubt. But I do think he's a better choice as Beckford at the moment. Beckford's general all-round play is terrible if that's what you want to compare. Beckford always looks like he might do something but he's had a lot of chances and has rarely delivered. I think there's no harm in sticking with Schlupp for a few games and if he can get one maybe he'll go on a great run. I don't think he can be more furstrating than Beckford and he'll try harder.
Thracian Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Pearson referred to needing to improve the "team first" attitude and it's been clear this last month that he's right. Kennedy's MOM performance doesn't negate all that Konch has done this season and nor does Moore's efforts at right back suddenly make Peltier useless. In fact we have more serious worries than in either of those positions. Victory shouldn't cloud the fact that we hadly sounded like promotion contenders from anything said on the radio. If Pearson believes he can strengthen any position he will, and should, do so. But in considering that he should also be aware that we need to develop as a collective unit and that will open happen if people get used to playing with the people around them. I wouldn't say Pearson sounded especially happy in his interview. Yes, the three points pleased him and so did the battling qualities seemingly shown by most of our players. But winning promotion requires teams with more to offer than just battling qualities and surely, he'll be looking to improve certain areas while retaining/improving our overall willingness to dig in. People, for instance, mentioned bringing Gallagher on. But we were winning and Gallagher, for all the qualities he has, is not a battler and he doesn't have the pace to be a harrasser either. He's much more the sort of player i might ask to help us conjure a goal. I don't much care who Pearson chooses next week except I'd definitely learn the lesson that King/Wellens are not complimentary and that, when it comes to choosing battlers i wouldn't be inclined towards Gallagher or Beckford for that matter. That's not saying anyone should necessarily be discarded. Gallagher/Beckford have their own qualities and, for the manager, it's all about getting the balance right.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 I think i would keep the same team. They never looked like scoring at 2-1 we looked fairly solid. Tunch looked a bit shaky but maybe that is harsh. Peltier probably back in for Moore but maybe he deserves to keep his place. Kennedy should play again to prove again how good he is, i just hope NP doesnt play Weale!
Tielemans63 Posted 2 January 2012 Author Posted 2 January 2012 Pearson referred to needing to improve the "team first" attitude and it's been clear this last month that he's right. Kennedy's MOM performance doesn't negate all that Konch has done this season and nor does Moore's efforts at right back suddenly make Peltier useless. In fact we have more serious worries than in either of those positions. Victory shouldn't cloud the fact that we hadly sounded like promotion contenders from anything said on the radio. If Pearson believes he can strengthen any position he will, and should, do so. But in considering that he should also be aware that we need to develop as a collective unit and that will open happen if people get used to playing with the people around them. I wouldn't say Pearson sounded especially happy in his interview. Yes, the three points pleased him and so did the battling qualities seemingly shown by most of our players. But winning promotion requires teams with more to offer than just battling qualities and surely, he'll be looking to improve certain areas while retaining/improving our overall willingness to dig in. People, for instance, mentioned bringing Gallagher on. But we were winning and Gallagher, for all the qualities he has, is not a battler and he doesn't have the pace to be a harrasser either. He's much more the sort of player i might ask to help us conjure a goal. I don't much care who Pearson chooses next week except I'd definitely learn the lesson that King/Wellens are not complimentary and that, when it comes to choosing battlers i wouldn't be inclined towards Gallagher or Beckford for that matter. That's not saying anyone should necessarily be discarded. Gallagher/Beckford have their own qualities and, for the manager, it's all about getting the balance right. I agree with your point about Gallagher - he goes missing for long, long periods in a game. I think if we are able to bring in a winger or two then we could try Gally in the hole behind Nuge. As yet we don't have a decent striking partnership - perhaps that could be it?
MikeyT Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 It's a hard one in regards to the left back spot. Konchesky for the most part along with Kasper has arguably been player of the season so far and made that spot his own, albeit with no competition really. Now Kennedy has come in and played a blinder and is man of the match. Do you give him another go or do you stick with the reliable Konchesky. Tough one really. Whoever you leave out it won't be particularly fair on. But they do say, never change a winning side.
EnderbyFox Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 It's a hard one in regards to the left back spot. Konchesky for the most part along with Kasper has arguably been player of the season so far and made that spot his own, albeit with no competition really. Now Kennedy has come in and played a blinder and is man of the match. Do you give him another go or do you stick with the reliable Konchesky. Tough one really. Whoever you leave out it won't be particularly fair on. But they do say, never change a winning side. Maybe this is the reason we haven't won back to back games in almost a year
Corky Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 I reckon Kennedy should stay in, don't know about Moore. Would like to see the same midfield.
Joeb.lcfc Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Moore is cup-tied. Kennedy deserves to keep his place
bluearmy7 Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Can't see Wellens getting in, probably on the bench in place of Howard, our midfield conceded too much ground as the 2nd half went on, could maybe have done with a substitution there today King thrived today, Abe was his usual nuisance & Danns obviously came up with the goods Heard conflicting reports on Schlupp today, but he faded badly Vs Pompey & to me Beckford looks dangerous as hell and running at opposing defences like Nuge & Schlupp haven't done today has caused them great problems. He's going to get the rub of the green soon, surely? Moore did amazing, but Pelts is my player of the season so far, but Moore's tackling was immense Kennedy deserves to stay for me, Konch has been consistent defensively aside from the Pompey game but Kennedy offered much more in attack I'm unclear on the Tunchev situation, whether he was just off the pace or what, but I'd give 5-3-2 a go again, if fit. Kasper Mills - Bamba - Tunchev Peltier ---------------------- Kennedy Danns - King - Abe Beckford - Nugent Subs: Moore, Wellens, Schlupp, Gally, Dyer like it but i would have konchesky instead of wellens on the bench
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.