A good result - but...

[Ricky]

I hope we at least try out all partnerships, it's something we haven't done in the past. We should look at Clarke and Lavery together in the U23s cup.

 

[Jehovah]

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

I would try Lavery with Sharp. I see no reason to drop Sharp whilst he is scoring. That strikes me as tinkering for the sake of it.

If its not broke and we have won the last two, why does Lavery get in?

 

[metalblade]

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

I would try Lavery with Sharp. I see no reason to drop Sharp whilst he is scoring. That strikes me as tinkering for the sake of it.

I don't see where I have said drop Sharp, my point is we have four strikers yet most want us to go with Sharp and one other. I agree Billy is scoring and the shirt is his to lose but we do have the option to play other ways rather than naming Billy and then picking the rest of the team to suit him. Any of the other three could come on as subs and knock a few goals in or do it in training they will get their chance in the coming weeks I just don't see Billy as indispensable or see a reason for his to be the first name on the team sheet.

 

[Bergen Blade]

the deciding goals in the games we have picked up all our 7 points in have been from set plays.

I don't claim that set piece goals are unimportant. We have scored 3 set piece goals from 8 matches. I doubt that's more than average.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Le Tissier's penalty record is 48 out of 49, Shearer's record is 45 out of 50, all at the top level football. Sharp's record for last season is 5 out of 8 in League 1 and in Johnstone's Paint Trophy! No comparison!

Shearer scored 313 goals in the top level that were boosted by 45 penalties

Last season Sharp scored 20 league 1 goals that were boosted by 5 penalties!

Hate to be a pedant but Billy got 21 goals last season.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I think this is the best way to fit Sharp and Clarke in the same team...


Freeman E-Landell O'Connell Lafferty

............Duffy Basham Coutts/Fleck

.................................................Lavery

.....................Sharp Clarke


4-4-2 but with Duffy narrow and Freeman playing more like a wing back, covered by a RCB with decent pace, and Basham. Duffy playing more central would free Lavery up to stay in an advanced position. Duffy could move wider when necessary and Lavery could drop back to make a conventional midfield four when we've not got the ball. I think this could give us more control in the middle, more of a wide threat and more pace than we currently have, creating more space for Sharp and Clarke up front.

That looks a side that would be easy on the eye but I’d worry about the defence. I’m not sure EEL or JOC are real leaders/organisers. For his limitations, Wright probably has to play to help us keep our shape. IF we were going with that formation, I think I’d sacrifice the crossing from Lafferty and go with


--------------------Moore

Freeman----EEL-------Wright---O Connell

----Duffy----Basham--Coutts/Fleck-
------------------------------------------------Lavery

--------------Sharp-----Clarke


That would give Lavery more license to attack than Duffy in the way you mentioned. We would lose some crossing ability from the LB position but I think it would make us more solid. All that said, I would make Clarke and Lavery earn their starting places back and would stick with a very similar side to the one that beat Gillingham for now (perhaps EEL coming in for Wilson).

 

[1danewhitehouse]

How come no one thinks about trying Clarke & Lavery up front? why do we have to shoehorn Sharp into the team and play one style which will suit him?

In the immediate future, Clarke and Lavery would be my “Chief and Pesch” combo to throw on for Sharp and Done around the 70 minute mark. Depending on how they do compared to Sharp and Done, one or both could of course earn a starting place.


I thought we had a nice balance against Gillingham and I wouldn’t hasten to change it. But it’s nice to know we have Fleck, Lavery, Clarke and to a lesser extent Chapman and Scougall as options to change things as required.

 

[Silent Blade]

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
.

It is not a case of "If it isn't broken, don't fix it.". The pairing is definitely "limited" and "ineffective"

 

[sheffielder]

It is not a case of "If it isn't broken, don't fix it.". The pairing is definitely "limited" and "ineffective"

Sounds like our midfield

 

[Revolution]

It is not a case of "If it isn't broken, don't fix it.". The pairing is definitely "limited" and "ineffective"

What, Done and Sharp? Played 2 won 2 with them isn't it?

 

[Silent Blade]

What, Done and Sharp? Played 2 won 2 with them isn't it?

The pairing wont get us promotion

 

[DronnieBlade]

It is not a case of "If it isn't broken, don't fix it.". The pairing is definitely "limited" and "ineffective"

In the eyes of you and the other fully subscribed and paid up members of the S2 legion of the "hoofwaffe", maybe yes.

Others see it quite differently !

UTB

 

[Revolution]

The pairing wont get us promotion

No, of course not. Neither will any other pairing. Our midfield is too weak for that.

But you can't say something is ineffective when it was effective.

 

[Silent Blade]

In the eyes of you and the other fully subscribed and paid up members of the S2 legion of the "hoofwaffe", maybe yes.

Others see it quite differently !

UTB

I am a Coutts fan! Didn't realize he is a hoofer!

 

[DronnieBlade]

I am a Coutts fan! Didn't realize he is a hoofer!

Fair dinkum.

I just fail to see how Done and Sharp are ineffective. On paper, it should be a terrific combo. It hasn't been thus far but I remain optimistic.

But ineffective ???????

Nah.

UTB

 

[Grizzly blade]

When looking at the forward pairing, I look at how often they lose the ball when given to them, how well they work as a pair laying off etc, and how often they turn defenders and get them running back towards their own goal chasing after them.

On that basis, the ball is often lost when played forwards, there is very little interchange between the two of them to get in behind opponents, and neither have the pace to stretch teams and cause panic.

Defenders can let them get hold of it knowing it is always going back to a midfield player. Teams that are organised and work hard can nullify our possession and creativity easily. They can also rest easy knowing that if they do get a yard on them, they have a very good chance of catching them.

I just want something else up there. I want some pace, some flair, some swagger and a trick perhaps. Give defenders something else to think about.

 

[Come from away]

Speculation is great but we will need to wait a couple of weeks before seeing Lavery

 

[Bartleby]

I don't claim that set piece goals are unimportant. We have scored 3 set piece goals from 8 matches. I doubt that's more than average.

No I know you weren't saying that, though my point is they have been key so far in all the points we've picked up, and I think we are starting to look more dangerous from them this season. Think the figure often quoted is 30% of goals from set pieces is it?