Sharp in for who

[Isaw Joeshaw]

Everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that the basic question behind this thread is flawed, in that it pre- supposes the idea that our Billy could not come in and play along with Brooks , Duffy , Leon /Donaldo etc.

It's a it like the one which asks "When did you stop beating your wife ?" In that it makes an assumption which can't be justified.

For what it's worth, my dream team using the current squad, particularly at home would be :-

Blackman

Bash. Wright. JOC

Duffy Counts Fleck. Stevens

Brooks

Sharp. Clarke / Donaldo

Too many attack minded players I hear some of you scream, before reaching for the Prozac , but in that respect I would refer you to the line up of Man Ure under Ferguson which was based on the principle of " They might score the odd goal, but we'll get more" and they didn't do too badly, did they ?

Also, put yourself in the position of a Manager or 30 year old centre half who was handed that team sheet and I know if it were me, I'd be thinking " Fucking hell, I'll be glad when today's over "

 

[Foody]

Surely we have to keep to the 3-5-2 shape, and given that Brooks can only realistically play as either part of the front two, or in Duffy's position then in order to accommodate Brooks and Sharp, Duffy cant play. Sharp and Brooks as a front two lacks height and movement, pushing brooks back, with Duffy leaves us with two up top and two midfielders who need to be free of defensive responsibility in order to be successful. To me dropping either Duffy or Brooks at this moment in time feels really harsh (although either could be a fantastic impact sub), but form players deserve their shirt and therefore Sharp shouldn't start. That isn't because I hate him, and actually I think he'll be our highest goal scorer. However, I believe in the system we play and also believe that an in form player should not be dropped. Sharp should have to (and will) earn back his shirt, but no player deserves to walk back into the starting line up without question.

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

Surely we have to keep to the 3-5-2 shape, and given that Brooks can only realistically play as either part of the front two, or in Duffy's position then in order to accommodate Brooks and Sharp, Duffy cant play. Sharp and Brooks as a front two lacks height and movement, pushing brooks back, with Duffy leaves us with two up top and two midfielders who need to be free of defensive responsibility in order to be successful. To me dropping either Duffy or Brooks at this moment in time feels really harsh (although either could be a fantastic impact sub), but form players deserve their shirt and therefore Sharp shouldn't start. That isn't because I hate him, and actually I think he'll be our highest goal scorer. However, I believe in the system we play and also believe that an in form player should not be dropped. Sharp should have to (and will) earn back his shirt, but no player deserves to walk back into the starting line up without question.

My suggested 3-4-1-2 is only a very minor variation on our standard formation which, after all is not cast in stone (or at least it shouldn't be) and gives us more attacking options which I suspect we're going to need as many teams will have noted Norwich's success against us and play a similar type of game.

 

[BushBlade]

My suggested 3-4-1-2 is only a very minor variation on our standard formation which, after all is not cast in stone (or at least it shouldn't be) and gives us more attacking options which I suspect we're going to need as many teams will have noted Norwich's success against us and play a similar type of game.

It's not even a variation. It's what we play most of the time. But with Duffy just behind the front two, in almost a free role. You seem to be playing him at wing back. I'd be surprised if CW did that.

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

It's not even a variation. It's what we play most of the time. But with Duffy just behind the front two, in almost a free role. You seem to be playing him at wing back. I'd be surprised if CW did that.

No, I'm playing Duffy as an attacking right sided midfielder but with an obligation to track back when needed , just as Beckham did for Manure.

With Brooks playing in the free role in his place, that gives us 4 naturally attack minded players rather than the usual 3 , or sometimes even 2.

I'm not saying it's appropriate for every situation but could be for some . What I do know is that it's the very minimum that Sralex would have put out and it didn't turn out too badly for him.

 

[BushBlade]

No, I'm playing Duffy as an attacking right sided midfielder but with an obligation to track back when needed , just as Beckham did for Manure.

With Brooks playing in the free role in his place, that gives us 4 naturally attack minded players rather than the usual 3 , or sometimes even 2.

I'm not saying it's appropriate for every situation but could be for some . What I do know is that it's the very minimum that Sralex would have put out and it didn't turn out too badly for him.

Beckham tended to play in front of Gary Neville though.

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

Beckham tended to play in front of Gary Neville though.

Yes, shame he never got to play in front of The Bash .......who knows what he could have achieved ? !!!
!!!

 

[Champagneblade]

When CCV hit the post vs Forest, Clarke was static and watched it bounce back and cleared. Sharp would have followed the ball and put it in. Sharp would have got us a point, that's the difference between him and the alternatives. There's no debate to be had.

And Billy would not have been strong enough to score Clarke’s second against the Pigs.

Swings and roundabouts.

Probably a mistake vs Forest resting a striker with 4 in 2 but Chris has earned sone leeway!

You could always play 4-4-2 against Inpswich and get everybody in. We are at home afterall.

 

[finlaytheblade]

No, I'm playing Duffy as an attacking right sided midfielder but with an obligation to track back when needed , just as Beckham did for Manure.

With Brooks playing in the free role in his place, that gives us 4 naturally attack minded players rather than the usual 3 , or sometimes even 2.

I'm not saying it's appropriate for every situation but could be for some . What I do know is that it's the very minimum that Sralex would have put out and it didn't turn out too badly for him.

Playing Duffy as a right sides wing back would unbalance us apart from that Duffy couldn't get up and down as is necessary with our way of playing.

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

Playing Duffy as a right sides wing back would unbalance us apart from that Duffy couldn't get up and down as is necessary with our way of playing.

See my reply to Bush Blade's very reasoned comments on my suggestion and, by the way, I've seen nothing in Duffy's performances so far that suggest that he can't get ' up and down '.

 

[NuddysGloves]

I've seen nothing in Duffy's performances so far that suggest that he can't get ' up and down '.

Well he doesn't like bouncing for a start......

 

[DazBlade88]

See my reply to Bush Blade's very reasoned comments on my suggestion and, by the way, I've seen nothing in Duffy's performances so far that suggest that he can't get ' up and down '.

He's been substituted after 60-70 minutes in every game bar one this season for a reason.

Duffy has many qualities, and we are lucky to have him, but he is not fit enough to play a wing back role. Your fittest players have to play wing back in a 3-5-2.

EDIT: Interesting fact... He has completed 90 minutes 14 times in 54 appearances.

 

[finlaytheblade]

See my reply to Bush Blade's very reasoned comments on my suggestion and, by the way, I've seen nothing in Duffy's performances so far that suggest that he can't get ' up and down '.

He Doasnt play 90mins very often my thoughts are about his ability (stamina ) to do it ,I rate him very highly as a player

 

[cahill]

Everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that the basic question behind this thread is flawed, in that it pre- supposes the idea that our Billy could not come in and play along with Brooks , Duffy , Leon /Donaldo etc.

It's a it like the one which asks "When did you stop beating your wife ?" In that it makes an assumption which can't be justified.

For what it's worth, my dream team using the current squad, particularly at home would be :-

Blackman

Bash. Wright. JOC

Duffy Counts Fleck. Stevens

Brooks

Sharp. Clarke / Donaldo

Too many attack minded players I hear some of you scream, before reaching for the Prozac , but in that respect I would refer you to the line up of Man Ure under Ferguson which was based on the principle of " They might score the odd goal, but we'll get more" and they didn't do too badly, did they ?

Also, put yourself in the position of a Manager or 30 year old centre half who was handed that team sheet and I know if it were me, I'd be thinking " Fucking hell, I'll be glad when today's over "

Good points. Think I'd always play Sharp, although I'd have Coutts in for Count. I think Clarke has a great touch and is great to watch but Sharpe is the more instinctive finisher. Sharpe works hard and his overall impact is better than Clarke. I've not seen Donald yet but looking forward to it

 

[dazzlingblade]

When CCV hit the post vs Forest, Clarke was static and watched it bounce back and cleared. Sharp would have followed the ball and put it in. Sharp would have got us a point, that's the difference between him and the alternatives. There's no debate to be had.

well actually yes there is a debate to be had, i'm a sharp fan, but using your argument in reverse would sharp have out jumped his marker to head in the free kick against wolves, would sharp have had the pace to get one on one like clarke did for his first at the sty, or out muscle 2 defenders for his 2nd at the sty??? see i've offered you a debate

 

[snootyfenooty]

well actually yes there is a debate to be had, i'm a sharp fan, but using your argument in reverse would sharp have out jumped his marker to head in the free kick against wolves, would sharp have had the pace to get one on one like clarke did for his first at the sty, or out muscle 2 defenders for his 2nd at the sty??? see i've offered you a debate

There's still no debate to be had. By your logic Sharp is supposed to get every goal we score from every possible scenario that may arise. Seeing as we play two up front then Donaldson, Clarke or whoever plays alongside him will still be available to score from the scenarios you suggest. In addition, Clarke's second goal at the sty could also have been scored by one of our defenders who came up for the set piece. But none of them other than Sharp has the wit to anticipate and score from the rebound such as that at Forest. Leaving out someone who is going to guarantee you 20-30 goals per season is madness.

 

[Fanny magnet]

Wilder done well rotating the strikers so far this season with the exception being forest where Donaldson didn't look match Sharp

All 5 of Clarke,Sharp,Donaldson,Brooks and Duffy should be firing on all cylinders ders next game so it should be interesting think Billy will have to force his way in past Clarke and Brooks

 

[dazzlingblade]

There's still no debate to be had. By your logic Sharp is supposed to get every goal we score from every possible scenario that may arise. Seeing as we play two up front then Donaldson, Clarke or whoever plays alongside him will still be available to score from the scenarios you suggest. In addition, Clarke's second goal at the sty could also have been scored by one of our defenders who came up for the set piece. But none of them other than Sharp has the wit to anticipate and score from the rebound such as that at Forest. Leaving out someone who is going to guarantee you 20-30 goals per season is madness.

sorry of course you"re correct, how very foolish of me to disagree, i bow to your superior knowledge

 

[snootyfenooty]

sorry of course you"re correct, how very foolish of me to disagree, i bow to your superior knowledge

Flattery gets you nowhere.

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

Good points. Think I'd always play Sharp, although I'd have Coutts in for Count. I think Clarke has a great touch and is great to watch but Sharpe is the more instinctive finisher. Sharpe works hard and his overall impact is better than Clarke. I've not seen Donald yet but looking forward to it

I have to agree that Coutts could do a better job than Count, although the latter was pretty good before he went on the Monte Cristo's but now his breathing's not that good.

As for the other one, it's not Donald ( he ducked out ) it's Donaldo - you must have seen him, he's a bit like Ronaldo but older and wiser.

 

[cahill]

I have to agree that Coutts could do a better job than Count, although the latter was pretty good before he went on the Monte Cristo's but now his breathing's not that good.

As for the other one, it's not Donald ( he ducked out ) it's Donaldo - you must have seen him, he's a bit like Ronaldo but older and wiser.

I spotted my error but I’m in a difficult place with technology

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

I spotted my error but I’m in a difficult place with technology

Join the club.

 

['Doc' Pace my hero]

If fully match fit,then the team captain would normally be the first name on the team sheet.

 

[Grappler]

What a disappointment this thread has been, I thought it was going to explain that the BBC had seen the folly of their ways, and had targeted Billy Sharp as the next Dr. Who