Well well well,we are in talks to sign him on a free.
Brilliant deal if this happens.
Printable View
Well well well,we are in talks to sign him on a free.
Brilliant deal if this happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robinrover
Good player this lad. But has fallen off the radar slightly. Would be a decent player to add to the squad.
He would actually be our 536th midfield player this season alone.
Reading away on Sat we are playing a 3-17-2 formation to fit all these lads in :)
Nah ....a good player is always welcome.
I think that formation could work, Champs, except that Dack would still drop back to help out.Quote:
Originally Posted by champs95
Robin - let's hope he is a Downing and not a Murphy!Quote:
Originally Posted by robinrover
More seriously, I agree. He's only 28 and is the play-maker type of midfielder we're a bit short of. On the other hand, would this push Rothwell even further down the pecking-order? If so, we might lose him in January.
To be absolutely honest, with Samuel, Brereton, Butterworth and Vale waiting in the wings (behind Gallagher, Graham and Dack), I'd rather see Armstrong go than Rothwell. Armstrong is exciting to watch at times, but there is not enough end-product, and he is actually a bit of a liability in games where we're under pressure. Until Chapman is fully fit and trusted, I think we should give up the idea of the "wide forward", anyway. It has worked at times, but in games we expect to dominate, I'd prefer to see Downing and Bennett as wing-backs or Conway-style wide midfielders, with one of the holding central midfielders replaced by Rothwell (or Holtby?) in a 4-4-2.
TM tried Buckley in that more attacking role on Saturday, but I thought he looked a bit raw. I'd rather see him, Rankin-Costello and Chapman used as 20-minute subs for the time being.
One thing where I disagree with lots of posters on the Telegraph-site is in this demand for a settled team. We have a big squad, with lots of cover now, and I don't think the concept of a fixed "best XI" makes much sense, anyway, in the modern game.
We all have personal preferences, of course, but I am perfectly happy for Gallagher and Graham to be rotated.
On a different topic, I wonder if Bell is another whose days are numbered. He is one of the most inconsistent players I've ever seen, and Mowbray seems to rate Hart. This lad Thompson, who scored for N. Ireland's U-21s last week, is also supposed to be pretty useful. Of course, Bell wouldn't go if we can't make Cunningham's signing permanent.
The one thing Armstrong isn't, is a Centre forward. He may think he is, but not in the Champ. And we know that now.Quote:
Originally Posted by AucklandRover
In 12 months time, we will see the massive benefit of blooding the likes of Buckley in such a tough physical game. While he wasn't great, I maintain, he did nothing wrong. And held his own. Gallagher made all the difference on Sat when he came on. While he can do a job slightly out wide, he surley is the CF moving forward. Not Armstrong. With DG around as back-up. Or to step in when experience is required.
But we MUST keep playing these lads like Buckley, JRC etc from the start in games. Its the only way they will get better, and improve. We benefit from that down the line.
I think Bell has been harshly treated. I don't believe Cunningham is a LWB. He is a LB. I do feel Bell is LWB, and not a good enough LB. He would benefit from 3-5-1-1 like most of our squad.
I like the idea (vrs teams like Luton at home coming up) with Dack, slightly behind Rothwell, SG and Armstrong.
Also, I felt Armstrong up front did not work. Neither did Dack. Experimenting now, at this stage of the season, freshening up the squad, playing the likes of Buckley, that's all fine with me. Good management.