We're not good, but are we lucky?

[John Byrne's Underpants]

Alfie to come on as sub for me.

I'd rather start him and try to get an early goal before he becomes tired. If we let Stevenage press us back, with their firepower scoring is a &quotwhen&quot not an &quotif.&quot A goal courtesy of an attacking start might force them onto the back foot a bit although our record of defending leads is frankly crap, they would be trying hard for a win and create more opportunities to nick a second.

Having Alfie on the bench and being 3-0 down at half time does us no good at all.

All-out attack gives us a chance. All-out defense gives us none.

Agreed. I'm very much an 'attack is the best form of defence' type. How often have we sat back to try and protect a lead and it's cost or nearly cost us?

[GodalmingYellow]

You do realise that Wright is the centre back don't you?

Yes. He's the one who was widely perceived to be man of the match last match isn't he? I think he even won the prestigious rageonline poll!

Your obviously ridiculous midfield line up has no creativity whatsoever. And your obviously ridiculous use of Green wide means effctively you are asking Beano to win the inevitable aerial bombardment he will get from Wright, and then hold on to it. That is how to avoid losing, rather than how to win a game.

As Boris points out, with Murray out and Chapman needed elsewhere we don't have many options. Chalmers is decent on the ball and both he and Clist are more than capable of picking a pass. It's a hell of a lot more creative than Bulman and Hargreaves, surely you've got to admit that?

I'm putting Green wide, where he has filled in for periods on numerous occasions this season, as I think we need his pace and Potter isn't fit. It's not ideal but he provides an outlet and at the very least it may encourage Day et al to hoof it into the corners for him to chase rather than straight onto the heads of their biggest central defenders. It may be that in that system we switch between 2 up top (with Clist moving left and Deering right) depending on how its working.

Widely perceived? You mean in your head and the opinion of half a dozen forumites and a radio presenter? I needed a laugh this morning so thanks.

Yes I agree Chalmers and Clist are more creative than Bulman and Hargreaves. That means absolutely nothing. See my alternative line up above.

Green wide is fine when we have 2 strikers, not when we have only 1, otherwise they end up too far apart.

[deanwindass]

Widely perceived? You mean in your head and the opinion of half a dozen forumites and a radio presenter? I needed a laugh this morning so thanks.

Basically yeah... and the guys I go to the games with. How wide a survey do you want? Other than yourself, I think everyone that I have come across thinks that Wright is a quality player who played well on Saturday (at least in comparison with the shower that was the rest of the team). AO may be right that you are bonkers, or it could well be that you're the only sane one amongst us.

Yes I agree Chalmers and Clist are more creative than Bulman and Hargreaves. That means absolutely nothing. See my alternative line up above.

It does mean something if we have a pool of available centre midfielders comprising Bulman, Clist, Chalmers, Hargreaves. We need to play either 2 or three of them. I am suggesting we play Bulman-Clist-Chalmers as it is considerably more creative than one of our other main options (and the one that started our last away game), of Bulman-Hargreaves. If you think playing four dwarfs across the midfield in Deering-Bulman-Clist-Potter against a big physical team like Stevenage is the answer then fair enough. I don't though, and I would be astonished if CW does not play either Hargreaves or Chalmers to give us at least a chance of winning a header. Out of the two, Chalmers is, in my opinion, infinitely preferable.

Green wide is fine when we have 2 strikers, not when we have only 1, otherwise they end up too far apart.

Maybe, but considering that it's highly unlikely that CW's going to play two forwards as well as Matt Green out wide away against the team at the top of the league, we have to discount that one don't we? As I said, it's not ideal, but it's what I'd pick in the circumstances.

[Boogie]

Going back to the title of this thread.

We'll be lucky when the heavens open on Tuesday making the pitch very difficult without getting the match postponed.

We'll be lucky when that stops Stevenage playing the way they have been
playing.

We'll be even luckier when the Stevenage back pass in the last 5 minutes gets stuck in mud allowing Constable to score the winner.

The weather will hopefully be a leveller.

Off to do my rain dance.

[Geoff]

Here's am option to consider.

Clarke
Bulman, Day/Creighton, Wright, Tonkin
Deering, Chapman, Chalmers, Clist
Constable, M.Green

That way we get the best out of Chapman and a bit more creativity in midfield. Up front the formation could easily be altered between 4-4-2 or 4-3-3, with Deering moving forward. If we're desperate for more attacking options in the later stages Potter could replace Clist.

Any good?

[A-Ro]

Yep I like that one.

[GodalmingYellow]

Here's am option to consider.

Clarke
Bulman, Day/Creighton, Wright, Tonkin
Deering, Chapman, Chalmers, Clist
Constable, M.Green

That way we get the best out of Chapman and a bit more creativity in midfield. Up front the formation could easily be altered between 4-4-2 or 4-3-3, with Deering moving forward. If we're desperate for more attacking options in the later stages Potter could replace Clist.

Any good?

My main concern with that would be Bulman at right back. We've tried him there before and it didn't work because of his lack of pace. Which is why I put Chapman in at right back (even though I agree with you that he makes a bigger contribution in the middle) as he is the only option in the absence of Batt, and I put Potter wide left to give us width and creativity.

[deanwindass]

If you think playing four dwarfs across the midfield in Deering-Bulman-Clist-Potter against a big physical team like Stevenage is the answer then fair enough. I don't though, and I would be astonished if CW does not play either Hargreaves or Chalmers to give us at least a chance of winning a header. Out of the two, Chalmers is, in my opinion, infinitely preferable.

Hargreaves it is...

http&#58//www&#46oufc&#46co&#46uk/page/ ... 0&#46html?

[Hog]

Why on earth would the manager reveal to his opposite number that Hargreaves will start? Why not keep him guessing until the last possible moment?

[Mally]

Why on earth would the manager reveal to his opposite number that Hargreaves will start? Why not keep him guessing until the last possible moment?

Double bluff? Treble bluff? Quadruple bluff?

[theox]

Why on earth would the manager reveal to his opposite number that Hargreaves will start? Why not keep him guessing until the last possible moment?

Double bluff? Treble bluff? Quadruple bluff?

He's also got a good record against Stevenage and we know that footballers are a superstitious bunch...........sowing the seeds of doubt maybe??

[SmileyMan]

Wright probably not in GY's best books now