Team for West Brom

[FallowfieldBlade]

Regardless, did he press? Nope. Did he harass? Nope. Did he do anything of note off the ball? Nope. He's got a single pass to his name. Needs game time to see what he's about but hopefully will show what he's about against "lesser" opponents.

Fair enough may aswell sell him then

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

The BS nonsense you refer to was the manager playing him in those games.
Except the BS you just came out with expecting a player who has been selected to not produce anything because it's "the 3 best teams in the league".
Just stop and think about what you have written before you post it you come across as an utter idiot. Apologies if you are and can't help it.

Yeah its still a load of nonsense


What's nonsense is idiots writing of our new signing after 3 games probably the hardest games he will play in all season


You think what you put before using logic

 

[ComedyClub]

Fair enough may aswell sell him then

I mean. I'd rather we didn't. We wouldn't get anywhere near what we paid as things stand.

 

[LondonBlade89]

McBurnie has started the last 5 except the one where he had been 'ill'.
Brewster has started 3 of the 4 games since he signed and got 25 minutes in the other. (And what has he done? One neat pass).
Lowe has started 4 of the last 5 with the exclusion being the 'concussion recovery' game.

LondonBlade89

Lowe is starting because he's the back-up left back, and our first choice left back is playing in a different position. I don't think him starting four out of five in that circumstance particularly "bizarre". Brewster was signed as our first choice striker, so again starting three consecutive games before being dropped to the bench I don't think can be "bizarre". Persisting with McBurnie, you have more argument there, but we don't exactly have a tonne of options really do we?

In any case, more than anything, if you bring a new player into the Premier League and start them, you can't just drop them straight away if they don't perform. Standing by them, letting them have a run of a few games and settle in, instead of hitting their confidence by dropping straight away and switching the team around again, is literally the opposite of bizarre.

 

[Jan Age]

we hoof it because mcburnies in the side if he doesnt start that option goes whatever system we play and no doubt it will be 352 but even with that system i would play 2 from brewster burke or mousset and bring mcburnie on if were chasing game then we can play longer the mcgoldrick mcburnie combination isnt gonna keep us in the premier league imo

I disagree I think Mcburnie is in the side because we hoof it.

mcgoldrick is in the side to try and keep hold of the ball.

in reality neither is working.

having two slow players up top us giving the opposition the luxury of playing 10 yards further up the pitch.

This means our defenders and midfielders are put under pressure quicker when they get hold of the ball. They then hoof it.

We need to change the front two and change our style to have any chance.

 

[guancheblade]

I thought you were doing one of those clever coded message things there like you see in the movies, then I realised Awrbbmb Mrbbb means nothing, it's not Welsh is it?

Is it not?

 

[guancheblade]

I like Osborn at LWB if Stevens isn't available. I see the value in Burke off the bench too, but it sounds like Mousset will be in the match-day squad. Mousset v Burke feels like a head-to-head for me unless you go three strikers in the bench (which you could against WBA). Not sure I like Jags at LCB though...

Fair points.

Just seems silly not to have Burke available in case he can come back to haunt his previous club.

Jags at LCB > Robinson and Stevens (especially considering the opposition. Will win all those headers we've been missing, and Jags at 38 can still probably out run Callum Robinson.

 

[Rudders]

Burke got to start this game, could be just like McB v Brighton last year, point to prove etc etc. Similar result needed!

 

[DronnieBlade]

I disagree I think Mcburnie is in the side because we hoof it.

mcgoldrick is in the side to try and keep hold of the ball.

in reality neither is working.

having two slow players up top us giving the opposition the luxury of playing 10 yards further up the pitch.

This means our defenders and midfielders are put under pressure quicker when they get hold of the ball. They then hoof it.

We need to change the front two and change our style to have any chance.

There is, almost literally, no other option than to do this due to a complete lack of off the ball movement up top. Thus the sideways and backwards passes that pisses folks off, but which is perfectly understandable to me.

Outcome ?

Hoof it !!!!

Then.

When our Scottish hero does drop deep to pick it up in midfield areas, there is NO
FUCKER in front of him. Which beggars the question why ??

Bizarre offensive tactics coupled with bizarre individual selection policy.

UTB

 

[robbiez666]

This is a must-win really. I think we'll play it cautiously. They have a lot of movement upfront and will definitely score. I think we're better going back to basics and try and balance the left-hand side out again. My worry is that we'll not stop the West Brom midfield running through us.

------------Ramsdale-------------------

--------Bash--Egan--Robinson-------

Baldock-Berge-Norwood-Fleck-Stevens

--------McBurnie-McGoldrick-----------

 

[8lade]

What's nonsense is idiots writing of our new signing after 3 games probably the hardest games he will play in all season


You think what you put before using logic

I haven't written anybody off and so you are now showing your inability to understand the written word.
There is a difference (if you can see it) between saying somebody shouldn't start because they have shown so little in previous appearances and 'writing somebody off'.

 

[8lade]

Lowe is starting because he's the back-up left back, and our first choice left back is playing in a different position. I don't think him starting four out of five in that circumstance particularly "bizarre". Brewster was signed as our first choice striker, so again starting three consecutive games before being dropped to the bench I don't think can be "bizarre". Persisting with McBurnie, you have more argument there, but we don't exactly have a tonne of options really do we?

In any case, more than anything, if you bring a new player into the Premier League and start them, you can't just drop them straight away if they don't perform. Standing by them, letting them have a run of a few games and settle in, instead of hitting their confidence by dropping straight away and switching the team around again, is literally the opposite of bizarre.

Left back - we can use Robinson or Ampadu there, keep Stevens at LWB or use Osborn at LWB.
Brewster, who just isn't ready for the Prem yet and McBurnie were appalling for most of the time they were on the pitch in those games but persistently playing, them how is that a better confidence boost than putting alternatives in there?
And alternatives to those 2? Any of McGoldrick, Sharp, Burke would've been at least as successful and I'd wager more so given how poor are front line was in that period.
Seriously if ther is no alternative to McBurnie as you suggest this season is done already.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

............................Ramsdale
..........Basham........Egan.......Ampadu
Baldock...............................................Stevens
.............................Norwood
.............Bogle.........Berge........Fleck..
................................Burke


...........................Ramsdale
...........Basham.......Egan.........Stevens
Baldock................................................Osborn
.....................Berge........Ampadu.
....Lundstram..................................Fleck
..............................Burke...



..........................Ramsdale..
.......Basham.........Egan.........Ampadu..
Baldock..............................................Stevens..
...........................Norwood..
.............Berge........................Fleck...
.........................McGoldrick
...........................Brewster

 

[Jan Age]

There is, almost literally, no other option than to do this due to a complete lack of off the ball movement up top. Thus the sideways and backwards passes that pisses folks off, but which is perfectly understandable to me.

Outcome ?

Hoof it !!!!

Then.

When our Scottish hero does drop deep to pick it up in midfield areas, there is NO
FUCKER in front of him. Which beggars the question why ??

Bizarre offensive tactics coupled with bizarre individual selection policy.

UTB

Agreed

 

[Blade58]

I haven’t read all this thread so apologies but as CW says we have another injury, an unnamed player, I’m guessing Ampadu, as he was limping v Wet Sham. Guessing then it’s a Robbo start at the back.

 

[VictoryBlade]

Deane and Agana to start up front for me please

 

[VictoryBlade]

Especially against West Brom away!

 

[Medlock]

Ramsdale
Baldock-Bash-Egan-Ampadu-Osborn
Berge - Norwood -Fleck
Burke
Brewster

Brewster as lone striker, Burke playing as a false 9, and bursting forward to support through the middle, or down his natural position on the right. Its all about dominating the midfield, and getting the ball to Brewster, who is an out and out finisher. Osborn was outstanding against Liverpool in that position, and he's really got an engine. Mousset to come on on 70 minutes to finish the job.

 

[ancientblade]

I disagree I think Mcburnie is in the side because we hoof it.

mcgoldrick is in the side to try and keep hold of the ball.

in reality neither is working.

having two slow players up top us giving the opposition the luxury of playing 10 yards further up the pitch.

This means our defenders and midfielders are put under pressure quicker when they get hold of the ball. They then hoof it.

We need to change the front two and change our style to have any chance.

agree we cant keep playing mcgoldrick and mcburnie 2 players with no pace one can play but it has to be behind brewster burke or mousset other alternative is put goldie in the number 10 spot and play 2 others up front with berge and fleck as the midfield 2 tomorrow at the hawthorns would be a good time to try it

Especially against West Brom away!

august 1988 ?

 

[pommpey]

Still an advocate of looking at change. We clearly cannot play the cavalier 5-3-2 (or 3-5-2) we did of old and the standout obviousness of O'Connell's absence weakening both our back three and the left side needs addressing first, with the obvious non-productivity in midfield, next and finally sorting out our dud forwards last.

So for me:

---------------------------------------Ramsdale-----------------------------------

----Baldock----------------Egan---------------------Ampadu---------Stevens---

----------------------------------------Basham------------------------------------

----------------Berge--------------------------------------Osborne--------------

---------------------------------------McGoldrick--------------------------------

-------------------------Burke/Mousett---------------Brewster------------------

I'll explain: Basham has proven himself in midfield, and has to drive and determination to do exactly what Norwood doesn't do, namely get stuck into advancing attackers and attacking midfielders and protecting the back four. If push comes to shove, you can slide both he and McGoldrick back when possession changes hand and we are defending and have what we have at the moment - 5-3-2. I also trust Basham to be more productive with the ball and find Berge and Osborne, thereby ending the 'ping it over the far wing' nonsense we see today. I do think also that bringing Stevens and Baldock into a traditional back four solidifies the defence more and we are not then forced into the predictable area outside of the penalty area where we fail badly and defences now have the measure, especially since they are not being caught on the hop with a surprise, marauding centre-back in O'Connell suddenly appearing rom nowhere and paying like some monstrous winger, mixing it up and crossing with pretty decent accuracy. The central four will have to play pretty compact, accurate passing football but play in the direction they face, resisting the check back and pass back tactic. WBA are the best team to experiment this on. Playing with Dids as No10 also gives far more passing and running opportunities to the front two. We have to score goals now, and stop dicking about playing 'tactical' football out wide hoping for a one-two to break down toward the goal line for the cross. All three strikers there are not without pace and we should be exploiting that rather than pissing about trying to work an opening.

pommpey

 

[Silent Blade]

august 1988 ?

1989

 

[ancientblade]

Still an advocate of looking at change. We clearly cannot play the cavalier 5-3-2 (or 3-5-2) we did of old and the standout obviousness of O'Connell's absence weakening both our back three and the left side needs addressing first, with the obvious non-productivity in midfield, next and finally sorting out our dud forwards last.

So for me:

---------------------------------------Ramsdale-----------------------------------

----Baldock----------------Egan---------------------Ampadu---------Stevens---

----------------------------------------Basham------------------------------------

----------------Berge--------------------------------------Osborne--------------

---------------------------------------McGoldrick--------------------------------

-------------------------Burke/Mousett---------------Brewster------------------

I'll explain: Basham has proven himself in midfield, and has to drive and determination to do exactly what Norwood doesn't do, namely get stuck into advancing attackers and attacking midfielders and protecting the back four. If push comes to shove, you can slide both he and McGoldrick back when possession changes hand and we are defending and have what we have at the moment - 5-3-2. I also trust Basham to be more productive with the ball and find Berge and Osborne, thereby ending the 'ping it over the far wing' nonsense we see today. I do think also that bringing Stevens and Baldock into a traditional back four solidifies the defence more and we are not then forced into the predictable area outside of the penalty area where we fail badly and defences now have the measure, especially since they are not being caught on the hop with a surprise, marauding centre-back in O'Connell suddenly appearing rom nowhere and paying like some monstrous winger, mixing it up and crossing with pretty decent accuracy. The central four will have to play pretty compact, accurate passing football but play in the direction they face, resisting the check back and pass back tactic. WBA are the best team to experiment this on. Playing with Dids as No10 also gives far more passing and running opportunities to the front two. We have to score goals now, and stop dicking about playing 'tactical' football out wide hoping for a one-two to break down toward the goal line for the cross. All three strikers there are not without pace and we should be exploiting that rather than pissing about trying to work an opening.

pommpey

like the look of that team pompey with one exeption fleck for osborn think if hes to play it has to be lwb but like you i would like us to ditch this present system and go to 4 at the back and back to the number 10 system basham to midfield and goldie to number 10 i like and why not nowt to lose just go for it cant see us getting out of this carrying on with the present tactics utb fto

 

[metalblade]

Ramsdale
Baldock Basham Egan Robinson Stevens
Burke Berge Fleck
McBurnie Mousset

subs:-
Verrips
Bogle
Osborn
Jags
Brewster
McGoldrick
Sharp

That is if we are going 3-5-2 or is it 5-3-2
Ampadu most likely injured, no place for Lundstram or Lowe and I don't see any other options in our squad unless Rodwell and Bryan suddenly become players.
If we want to try a different formation sit Bash in front of the back four and Berge or Burke behind the front two and go 4-1-2-1-2, or 4-3-1-2 with Burke behind the front two or a more adventurous 4-1-3-2 getting Fleck and Burke running at em.

 

[pommpey]

like the look of that team pompey with one exeption fleck for osborn think if hes to play it has to be lwb but like you i would like us to ditch this present system and go to 4 at the back and back to the number 10 system basham to midfield and goldie to number 10 i like and why not nowt to lose just go for it cant see us getting out of this carrying on with the present tactics utb fto

I'd bring Fleck on 2nd half for either Didsy or Osborn. I think Fleck needs to regenerate his 'clever, dangerous' personna. There are plenty of options amongst that lineup.

BTW. What ever happened to Kean Bryan as LCB?

pommpey

 

[Keen Blade]

As per, my blend of what I think Wilder will go with and what I'd like to see given our injury situation

WILDER

Ramsdale

Basham - Egan - Ampadu

Baldock - Berge - Norwood - Fleck - Osborn

McBurnie - McGoldrick


Bench: Verrips, Jags, Robinson, Lowe, Lundstram, Burke, Brewster

vs

ME

Ramsdale

Basham - Egan - Jagielka

Baldock - Berge - Ampadu - Fleck - Osborn

Brewster - McGoldrick


Subs: Verrips, Robinson, Bogle, Norwood, Lundstram, Burke, Sharp


Regardless, if we are not winning by 60mins, Burke HAS to come on against his former club

Jags ? At his age/speed ? On the left side ? Jesus wept.

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

Still an advocate of looking at change. We clearly cannot play the cavalier 5-3-2 (or 3-5-2) we did of old and the standout obviousness of O'Connell's absence weakening both our back three and the left side needs addressing first, with the obvious non-productivity in midfield, next and finally sorting out our dud forwards last.

So for me:

---------------------------------------Ramsdale-----------------------------------

----Baldock----------------Egan---------------------Ampadu---------Stevens---

----------------------------------------Basham------------------------------------

----------------Berge--------------------------------------Osborne--------------

---------------------------------------McGoldrick--------------------------------

-------------------------Burke/Mousett---------------Brewster------------------

I'll explain: Basham has proven himself in midfield, and has to drive and determination to do exactly what Norwood doesn't do, namely get stuck into advancing attackers and attacking midfielders and protecting the back four. If push comes to shove, you can slide both he and McGoldrick back when possession changes hand and we are defending and have what we have at the moment - 5-3-2. I also trust Basham to be more productive with the ball and find Berge and Osborne, thereby ending the 'ping it over the far wing' nonsense we see today. I do think also that bringing Stevens and Baldock into a traditional back four solidifies the defence more and we are not then forced into the predictable area outside of the penalty area where we fail badly and defences now have the measure, especially since they are not being caught on the hop with a surprise, marauding centre-back in O'Connell suddenly appearing rom nowhere and paying like some monstrous winger, mixing it up and crossing with pretty decent accuracy. The central four will have to play pretty compact, accurate passing football but play in the direction they face, resisting the check back and pass back tactic. WBA are the best team to experiment this on. Playing with Dids as No10 also gives far more passing and running opportunities to the front two. We have to score goals now, and stop dicking about playing 'tactical' football out wide hoping for a one-two to break down toward the goal line for the cross. All three strikers there are not without pace and we should be exploiting that rather than pissing about trying to work an opening.

pommpey

Still an advocate of looking at change. We clearly cannot play the cavalier 5-3-2 (or 3-5-2) we did of old and the standout obviousness of O'Connell's absence weakening both our back three and the left side needs addressing first, with the obvious non-productivity in midfield, next and finally sorting out our dud forwards last.

So for me:

---------------------------------------Ramsdale-----------------------------------

----Baldock----------------Egan---------------------Ampadu---------Stevens---

----------------------------------------Basham------------------------------------

----------------Berge--------------------------------------Osborne--------------

---------------------------------------McGoldrick--------------------------------

-------------------------Burke/Mousett---------------Brewster------------------

I'll explain: Basham has proven himself in midfield, and has to drive and determination to do exactly what Norwood doesn't do, namely get stuck into advancing attackers and attacking midfielders and protecting the back four. If push comes to shove, you can slide both he and McGoldrick back when possession changes hand and we are defending and have what we have at the moment - 5-3-2. I also trust Basham to be more productive with the ball and find Berge and Osborne, thereby ending the 'ping it over the far wing' nonsense we see today. I do think also that bringing Stevens and Baldock into a traditional back four solidifies the defence more and we are not then forced into the predictable area outside of the penalty area where we fail badly and defences now have the measure, especially since they are not being caught on the hop with a surprise, marauding centre-back in O'Connell suddenly appearing rom nowhere and paying like some monstrous winger, mixing it up and crossing with pretty decent accuracy. The central four will have to play pretty compact, accurate passing football but play in the direction they face, resisting the check back and pass back tactic. WBA are the best team to experiment this on. Playing with Dids as No10 also gives far more passing and running opportunities to the front two. We have to score goals now, and stop dicking about playing 'tactical' football out wide hoping for a one-two to break down toward the goal line for the cross. All three strikers there are not without pace and we should be exploiting that rather than pissing about trying to work an opening.

pommpey

Your formation seems to suggest that you think it’s possible to compete in a game of football and have a chance of winning it without having 3 centre backs AND having a creative attack minded midfielder behind the front two .

Where on earth did you get that idea from ? You must surely be aware that in order to be successful , we must stick with the formation that’s tried and tested and got us to where we are now . Oh.....

 

[wavy-blade]

This one .......

 

[Keen Blade]

Play anyone who will not be knackered after 60 mins + promises to move themselves & the ball with some speed & purpose

 

[blackydog]

Play anyone who will not be knackered after 60 mins + promises to move themselves & the ball with some speed & purpose

You just described Burke in my opinion.

 

[ancientblade]

Your formation seems to suggest that you think it’s possible to compete in a game of football and have a chance of winning it without having 3 centre backs AND having a creative attack minded midfielder behind the front two .

Where on earth did you get that idea from ? You must surely be aware that in order to be successful , we must stick with the formation that’s tried and tested and got us to where we are now . Oh.....

i understand playing this system against the top teams but i doubt playing it against less quality teams will get us out of trouble surely chris knows this by now i just want the old no fear chris wilder back