So what would your starting line up be?

[welshian]

I think we'll be quite solid, but it's clear we'll struggle to score. Hopefully wrong but can't see a 15-20 goal player amongst these players. A good scattering through the team but no regular scorer.

[terrytactics]

We played a system against Lex that worked well and it'd be good to see it again sometime soon. With the current squad I think this might be the starting 11 on 5 Aug.

Dunn
Roberts Smith Pearson Jennings

Wedgebury

Rutherford Kelly Mcreth
Holroyd
Boden

[Funny_Old_Game]

Originally Posted by Foxy

He was fine at right back. My point was that limited resources shouldn't be wasted on paying a fee for yet another right back. We have bigger issues up front, at centre half where we only have 2, and possibly in midfield where there seems to be a lack of creativity.

Marx reminds me of Gareth Evans. He never looks switch on at all, everything is half arsed and he doesn't concentrate, can't understand why he is playing like that.
Posted via mobile theme

[benwilliams]

I would have the 433 that most have quoted with Holroyd and Mackreth flanking Boden though I worry that may leave Boden too isolated so would want Kelly breaking into the box regularly for support
Posted via mobile theme

[woblob04]

4-2-1-3 It seems would be the best we can hope for.

Dunn

Roberts - manny - Pearson - Jennings

Wright - Wedgbury

Kelly

Mackreth Holroyd/Smith

Boden

Would like 3-5-2 but would mean signing a centre back and striker and losing Mackreth

[dixienormous]

Originally Posted by woblob04

4-2-1-3 It seems would be the best we can hope for.

Dunn

Roberts - manny - Pearson - Jennings

Wright - Wedgbury

Kelly

Mackreth Holroyd/Smith

Boden

Would like 3-5-2 but would mean signing a centre back and striker and losing Mackreth

I like this a lot.

[standingroomonly2]

Not sure why people think there is much of a difference between the 4-4-2 that we will set up with and a 4-3-3. Both basically the same with mackreth pushing on from midfield to make a 3 if the situation requires
Posted via mobile theme

[sionwxm]

Originally Posted by standingroomonly2

Not sure why people think there is much of a difference between the 4-4-2 that we will set up with and a 4-3-3. Both basically the same with mackreth pushing on from midfield to make a 3 if the situation requires
Posted via mobile theme

The difference between 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 is that 4-3-3 can effectively become a 4-5-1 when we're without the ball making us harder to break down and gives our defenders more protection. 4-4-2 can leave us exposed, especially if the 2 wide players become passengers. 4-3-3also gives us more bodies in the middle of the park so we are likely to win more second balls in that area and gain more possession. Note that in a 4-3-3, the 3 midfielders play narrow and it's up to the 2 wide attackers to give us our width, thus giving us more bodies across the middle of the pitch.

Anyway, trust in Keates and Darlo to work out the best system for us. They know what they are doing and we're in very capable hands.

[Socrates]

Having watched Kelly on Saturday to play 442 with him on the left would be a waste of his ability