A couple of tricky decisions.
When Long is back, would you bring him in for Broom? Or move Broom into midfield?
When Mullins is back, would you drop Forster or Tozer?
Maddox obviously straight back in the side for Clements.
But what about Dawson when he is back?
We are going to have a very strong bench!
Selection dilemma...nice questions to have
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
-
- Posts: 3927
- Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 11:02
Mullins is a great battler but Forster wins more in the air. Mullins was on the bench Saturday .
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: 05 Aug 2017, 14:39
I think Broom's been our best player for the last few games. Definitely wouldn't drop.
-
- Posts: 29809
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
May well have been seven if Maddox, Long and Mullins were not injured/returning from injury but yes take your point.Nesty wrote:I dont want to fuel any GJ debates but only 4 of the 11 that started Saturday were GJ summer signings.
Except Flinders, Forster, Boyle and Atangana were also signed by GJ. In fact, I make it that only Clements, Varney and Barnett weren't signed by GJ.Nesty wrote:I dont want to fuel any GJ debates but only 4 of the 11 that started Saturday were GJ summer signings.
If Maddox replaces Clements, then its only the two strikers that werent. And we all knew - as did GJ - we were light up top.
So I'm not sure what the point being made is.
-
- Posts: 3927
- Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 11:02
One point might be that Gary Johnson did not motivate or play the players in the right combination.
-
- Posts: 29809
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Yes I think everyone knows Duff is getting more out of the players than GJ did.horlickfanclub wrote:One point might be that Gary Johnson did not motivate or play the players in the right combination.
- Lord Elpuz
- Posts: 696
- Joined: 20 Jul 2011, 19:35
My player of the season so far, Ryan Broom, deserves to nail down a position to call his own. I hope he doesn’t get turned into some ‘super utility player’ because that kind of player rarely get the plaudits they deserve - and it may even be the reason we ended up losing Winchester.
I think Ryan Broom would be very effective in midfield.
I think Ryan Broom would be very effective in midfield.
Broom might become somewhat of a problem in that he's not quite good enough defensively, imo, to be a permanent wing-back, but his best performances, again imo, are out wide where he's able to beat players with speed and get good crosses in, yet this formation, which is best for the team, might not allow him to do that. So then you look at putting him in the middle and the only place you could really play him of the midfield 3 is behind the strikers, but would he keep Maddox out of the team...and would you want to sacrifice one or the other anyway?
Having signed a lot of players on two year deals it's a shame that Ryan wasn't.drgm wrote:Ryan Broom is the stand-out player for me this season. His contract is up next summer. We need to get
him on a longer deal asap
That's easy to say in hindsight of course.
It would be a surprise if we haven't offered him an extended contract,but he now holds all the aces.
Nesty wrote:I dont want to fuel any GJ debates but only 4 of the 11 that started Saturday were GJ summer signings.
They were all GJ signings apart from Barnett (Milton), Varney (Duff) and Clements (Milton) I thought? Clements wouldnt have played had Maddox been fit either.
You see I feel Broom is the perfect utility player that every club needs, he can play in any number of positions and rarely lets you down.Lord Elpuz wrote:My player of the season so far, Ryan Broom, deserves to nail down a position to call his own. I hope he doesn’t get turned into some ‘super utility player’ because that kind of player rarely get the plaudits they deserve - and it may even be the reason we ended up losing Winchester.
I think Ryan Broom would be very effective in midfield.
It is interesting looking back to the starting line-up for our first game back in AugustRobin wrote:Nesty wrote:I dont want to fuel any GJ debates but only 4 of the 11 that started Saturday were GJ summer signings.
They were all GJ signings apart from Barnett (Milton), Varney (Duff) and Clements (Milton) I thought? Clements wouldnt have played had Maddox been fit either.
-
- Posts: 29809
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Some of it enforced due to injury (eg Hussey, Long).Nesty wrote:It is interesting looking back to the starting line-up for our first game back in AugustRobin wrote:Nesty wrote:I dont want to fuel any GJ debates but only 4 of the 11 that started Saturday were GJ summer signings.
They were all GJ signings apart from Barnett (Milton), Varney (Duff) and Clements (Milton) I thought? Clements wouldnt have played had Maddox been fit either.
Other than that, only change is up front. Our first choice back five and midfield three were all at the club before the start of the season.
That can't be the point. If it was, then surely better to point out how many were GJ signings?horlickfanclub wrote:One point might be that Gary Johnson did not motivate or play the players in the right combination.
My view? The team played well against Carlisle first half and has played well against Newport first half.
The difference is that we now have two experienced strikers, and we're scoring goals. It's a kind of no s#!t Sherlock moment
-
- Posts: 29809
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Yes please!Del Boy wrote:Can we move on?? They're all Duff players now thankfully and he'll be signing more in January and next summer.