Errr, right......team for Fulham?

[Yellow Wal 314]

I agree that even though some people think it is an outdated practice that keeping a winning team is the thing to do.

Surely the players are all playing for their places and if the team is playing well and the players are playing well they deserve to keep their places in the team.

If things are not going as well as they could changes can be made during the game and the situation reviewed before the next match as the players coming on are also playing for their places!

[Jools 584]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="morty"]Respect my opinion.[/quote]Do Howson and Brady deserve to be left out?  [/quote]It''s not a question of  whether they deserve to be left out or not - they''ve picked up injuries - they''ll make the first 11 or bench depending on recuperation [:|]Hoolahan didn''t play many minutes for the Republic, so I reckon he''s ready to go - same as that for Tettey''s knees [:|]We go with the same team.

[Jools 584]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Alex Neil likes a sitter in midfield. This is not Howson or Dorrans natural game. Tettey will start.[/quote]Yeah, it was never Dorrans natural position, but he''s even better than Tettey at it thus far, so need for change there - it certainly isn''t Howson''s natural position, though he has proved effective in said role prior to the last couple of games, so good to have that double pivot covered [Y] With the added bonus of Thompson waiting in the wings [Y]

[king canary 7,606]

I do agree that the idea of simply keeping a winning team is a bit simplistic. However I do genuinely believe that the team we saw today is our best XI. It''s well balanced, gets the best out of some very talented attackers, yet keeps us reasonably covered at the back. I don''t think anyone deserves to be dropped based on what we saw today.

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

Why would we make any changes from today? We were simply unplayable at times and taking any of the starting 11 out ''for a rest'' or to ''use the depth in the squad'' is plain stupid (imo).

Yes it was only Rotherham but that''s more of a reason to stick with our best 11 for Fulham..

McGovern has done nothing wrong.

Defence is still letting in silly goals but Klose and Martin do more right than wrong.

If Tettey and Wes are fit they must play, I find it absolutely ridiculous to suggest dropping either as they are pivotal to all our best performances this season. Leaving them out because ''Howson doesn''t deserve to be dropped'' or packing the midfield for an away game at Craven Cottage, is again daft after today''s performance. The only question mark would be Jacob Murphy as he was out of sorts today (though still worked hard) however I would leave him in as it was an all round good performance today that should be rewarded with the same 11 on tues.

Jerome was class.

Barring injuries and possible tiredness, it should be the same 11.

Don''t change a winning team unless there''s a very good reason for it.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,753]

are "Tettey''s knees" still a thing ?....or we we going on something we heard a year or two ago?

Maybe whatever his situation was back then has improved and he can now play twice a week without any issues?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

Given that it''s Craven Cottage, I think that pretty much guarantees that we''ll probably get no points and pick up a lot of long-term injuries, so basically I think we should rest our key players for this one.

[westcoastcanary 173]

People saying "Don''t change a winning team" are implying there can never be good reason for doing so. That strikes me as barmy. We can probably all subscribe to "Don''t change a winning team unless there are good reasons for doing so"; then we can have a sensible debate about what might constitute good reason for changing a winning team (injuries or other fitness issues apart of course).

I suspect that those who say you shouldn''t change a winning team have a rather simplistic idea of how football matches are won or lost (and I don''t mean simplistic in the sense of "you win if you score more than the opposition"). The idea seems to be that the outcome of a match is determined by what you do irrespective of who you are playing or the circumstances in which the match is played. It might be that putting out the same team is the best option despite the opposition being different and the circumstances being different. But I don''t see any reason to think that that must always be the case. You need reasons to change a winning team, but you also need reasons to leave the team unchanged.

[morty 0]

What a load of tosh.

No one is is implying there is no circumstance whatsoever that you wouldn''t change a winning team.

And it is not simplistic in the slightest that you reward players who play well, by keeping them in the team, knowing that if performance levels drop there is someone, ready and fit, to take their place. It has been shown often, in our own history, that picking a settled 11 is far more successful than chopping and changing all the time.

And your last point regarding reasons to leave the team unchanged? Being successful and winning games, will that do?

[Gordon Bennett 783]

Depends entirely on whether anyone needs resting really.....in an ideal world the same eleven would play but with another game on Saturday and one our two players unlikely to be able to play thrice in eight days there could be a change or two if the manager sees fit. Great to be in the position of having the squad to make three or four changes without affecting the quality though.

[Red Rufus 56]

It is quite simple, don''t change a winning team, yes it may be outdated with the trend to use the squad but too much tinkering is not what we need. The team has a winning mentality and the confidence that goes with it, they will believe they are on a roll so to change the team could have a negative effect.

[lake district canary 4,531]

I think it is a sign of insecurity if you feel you have to keep the same team for two games in four days. A tiny bit of tinkering depending on the opposition is fine and to my mind changing the team slightly is showing the players you have confidence in all of them, not just one set of players.    Spreading the load is what it is all about and keeping players fresh and up for it in a long hard season.    When you have such talent vying for limited places in the team and they all do well when played, sharing is the best option.  If fit Brady should play imo - he was the difference against Wolves. Wes can easily be rested when we have Pritchard as an alternative and could come on from the bench anyway. Howson and Dorrans have done really well at the back of midfield and Tettey does have an issue with knees. Small changes should not be a problem.   

[king canary 7,606]

@LDC

I''d say the opposite- feeling you have to change your team to suit the opposition shows insecurity. It was one of my biggest problems with AN last season, too much worrying about what other teams were doing rather than focusing on our own strengths.

I do agree that you can change a winning team but I personally wouldn''t change this winning team. I''d be really interested to see how they do against a team with more attacking intent than Rotherham on Tuesday.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

Wes is as fit as any of the others who played on Saturday, am absolutely certain he''ll play unless Fulham use a system that doesn''t give much space away behind the centre mids (Alex Neil has said this is why Hoolahan gets ''rested'' every now and again). I have no idea how Fulham line up so not sure, but I think the answer is there.

[Yellow Wal 314]

I would agree that there are occasions when a winning team can be changed but this thread is titled ''Errr, right......team for Fulham?''.

I cannot see any reason why, with competition for places, the winning players should not be rewarded with another start against Fulham.

Surprisingly nobody has indicated that they want the defence changed week in week out. Just as they play better when they are settled so do players in other parts of the field.

Incidentally, how does ''appearance money'' work? Do players still get financial rewards for starting or for making an appearance from the bench, or for being on the bench?

If so it would be very hard on a player who has been part of a good winning team to find he is not in the next match.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

LDC talking sh1t again.

Alex Neil will put out the best team available and that will likely include Tettey and Hoolahan.

Ridiculous that you should think other players should be given a chance when all our key players are in form,

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

Brady''s goal was the difference against Wolves, very different from Brady being the difference. After yesterday''s performance and if fit, I think Pritchard and Wes have every right to feel aggrieved if Brady comes straight back in.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

I do not think anyone is saying you stick with the same team week in week out. I go back to the common sense point which says it makes sense to keep as settle side as possible with changes being made where necessary, injury, form, tiredness etc. Why would you just change a side for the sake of it. I understand that Fulham away is a different proposition to Rotherham at home, but we should be confident enough about our ability to let the opposition worry about us, it could be argued that if we just change the side it gives the opposition the psychological boost that we are worried about them......

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]LDC talking sh1t again.

Alex Neil will put out the best team available and that will likely include Tettey and Hoolahan.

Ridiculous that you should think other players should be given a chance when all our key players are in form,[/quote]Nice. However AN has changed winning teams before and will again. Josh did well for the third goal on Saturday and by all reportsmaybe Jacob wasn''t quite so effective yesterday - so that could be a change.  For goodness sakes, its a squad game these days - the players are like racehorses fitness wise, you don''t play them week in week out even if they are winning every game. Doing that is a sure fire way of leading to burn out of your those players and dis-satisfaction in those that are good enough but not getting a look in.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Whatever Col

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

I agree changes need to be made at times LDC, it''s just when you suggest dropping Wes or Tettey your argument looks ridiculous. Jacob possibly (though I would keep him in as has shown more than Josh over the season so far) but your suggestion was drop Wes, move Pritchard to the middle and put Brady straight back in as he was ''the difference against wolves''. Howson and Dorrans in the holding 2 is a bigger risk than playing tettey as neither are natural at sitting in front of the back 2. With such attacking full backs and again, if fit, Tettey must start imo.

[king canary 7,606]

Completely unnecessary Hoola Han. Nothing wrong with discussing thoughts on a game only a couple of days away...

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Apologies king canary it was out of order. Just fed up of egos trying to dominate the forum

[Ray 111]

I expect the team to look the same but not be the same, Josh in for Jacob (clever that even if I do say so myself!).

I would be surprised if Pritchard was dropped for Brady, he showed what he brings yesterday, which imo is more (or certainly potentially more) than Brady. Appears to be, and therefore probably is, a ''clever'' footballer, insomuch he reads the game well and can see more than one pass ahead. But then again, what do I know?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Apologies king canary it was out of order. Just fed up of egos trying to dominate the forum[/quote]So standing up for your opinion with reasoned argument is being an ego trying to dominate. I see.  There is an argument for both points of view of whether to change the team or not.  I can see that, but when other posters start putting "talking tosh" as someone did earlier to another poster, or when you start with "talking sh*t" then reasoned discussion ceases.  People playing the posters. As usual.

. 

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

I''d probably leave out both Murphys (shock horror) to release a bit of pressure. Jacob hasn''t had his two best games whilst Josh is fine from the bench.

Howson or Brady in. You takes yer pick and shuffle the pack accordingly.

[rock bus 851]

I was at wolves and Brady certainly wasn''t the difference. Brilliant goal but apart from that was fairly anonymous (as I understand he has been in many games).

I gather Pritchard played very well yesterday, so I think this should definitely be a case of Pritchard keeping his starting place until he loses it or Brady earns it back.

Brady''s a great player but hasn''t earned the right to just walk straight back in to the team in my opinion

[king canary 7,606]

Agree with that Rock- Pritchard looked excellent and should keep his place as long as fit.

[morty 0]

Poke it lakey.

Said poster started with implying a contrary view was " barmy and simplistic".

You obviously missed that though......

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="morty"]Poke it lakey.

Said poster started with implying a contrary view was " barmy and simplistic".

You obviously missed that though......[/quote]No he wasn''t. He was commenting on those who say "don''t change a winning team" and don''t say anything else - as you have done several times on different threads.  A simplistic message by most people''s standards.