Green, Kenton, MacKay, Fleming, Drury, Rivers, Holt, Mulrynne, Easton, McVeigh, Nielson

[BigFish 2,330]

Yep, our 2002 play offs 11. Now for those on the board who say we are shrinking (in a football sense) how many of this players set the pulse running when signed or would be better than what we have now?

Serious question now, so I don''t want any whining about us having prem millions since than and it has been wasted. This is a football thread [:P]

[Splendid Rush 8]

Wow, that''s really interesting.

Out of that 11, I''d probably take Green, Drury, and possibly Holt (in his best days) for our squad now... (and probably 2002 Malky just because he was a rock and a legend... would play him over Doc)

 

[dickyst220 0]

Thank you, a very positive post. However, I think the difference is that in 2002 no one had very great expectations!

For me the jury is still out on Grant and therein lies the problem. For clubs in our situation it is the manager (& his backroom team) that will make the difference....................... I do think that he has a bit of time to get it right, as the Championship will be very tight this season. So, maybe the time to judge will be Christmas?

[James Kent 0]

Well it''s an excellent point and the true answer lies in the fact that it wasn''t about the indivdual talent of those players, but how we played as a team.  I won''t get hang up on who we sign because it is all about how we perform as a team. 

[blahblahblah 2]

For me, Mackay and Fleming were the key to our success in that season and in our promotion season.  We haven''t had as good a central defensive partnership since then.  Kind of makes you wish we''d bought a central defender this summer.

[RobertMack 0]

he two main pros i can see of this very valid post are that the centre back and centre midfield pairing were consistent and much more balanced. They are the two areas we have since failed to replicate.

[gissing canary 2]

Good post.

Green - better than Marshall on current showing, but give the lad time.

Kenton - Semmy - about the same.

Mackay + Fleming - better than current.

Drury was better then.

Croft over Rivers

Holt - Brellier too early to judge (spot the hilarious play on words!)

Mulryne could be compared to Fozzy, but Russell is different, and here is the lack of balance

Hucks over Easton a million times!!

Jamie, and Brown or Dave get it over McVeigh, and Nielson.  Though with McVeigh and Mulryne in the side we had real passing flair!

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

Football has moved on and the side was more like

Worthington:  Green, Kenton, MacKay, Fleming, Drury, Rivers, Holt, Mulryne, McVeigh, Roberts, Nielson

as oppose to:

Grant: Marshall, Otsemobor, Doherty, Shackell, Drury, Croft, Russell, Brellier, Hucks, Brown, Cureton

 

The 2002 side snuck the play-offs by a single goal scored, and I would say was the 2007 side looks a little less in quality.  Having said that Strihavka, Smith and co could change what the ''main'' first XI for this season looks like.

Out of the above two I prefer the first.  It has a solid goalie and backline, a mix in midfield and a decent threat up front.  The current lineup looks unbalanced in midfield and I don''t have confidence in the backline - at the moment anyway.  Also Worthington was doing a great job at that time, whereas I have yet to be convinced Grant will ever make a decent manager.

[BigFish 2,330]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

 Also Worthington was doing a great job at that time, whereas I have yet to be convinced Grant will ever make a decent manager.

[/quote]

Now Worthy (2002) vintage over Grant. That is contentious...........

[ricky knight 0]

We felt we were going places at that time, where as now i feel we are going backwards and i too am not convinced by Grant or his signings.

[Buncey 1]

Well thats very easy to see why we did well then. The back 5 rock, our back 5 well.... less said the better.We got into those play offs like CJF said, by a single goal on the goal difference and we did that by not conceding very many, albeit we didn''t score so many either.

[BigFish 2,330]

[quote user="Fellas"]Well thats very easy to see why we did well then. The back 5 rock, our back 5 well.... less said the better.

We got into those play offs like CJF said, by a single goal on the goal difference and we did that by not conceding very many, albeit we didn''t score so many either.
[/quote]

..............and we would all take getting back to the Prem by one goal.

Thing is I don''t see much difference between the two sides, certainly I could see the current XI beating the 2002 vintage as often as not.

[ricky knight 0]

[quote user="BigFish"]

[quote user="Fellas"]Well thats very easy to see why we did well then. The back 5 rock, our back 5 well.... less said the better.

We got into those play offs like CJF said, by a single goal on the goal difference and we did that by not conceding very many, albeit we didn''t score so many either.
[/quote]

..............and we would all take getting back to the Prem by one goal.

Thing is I don''t see much difference between the two sides, certainly I could see the current XI beating the 2002 vintage as often as not.

[/quote]

 

tell me you are joking, please

[Canary Poirot 1]

I think the team from 2002 is superior to our current team, as defensively it was much stronger. As has already been mentioned, the Mackay and Fleming partnership between 2002 - 2004 was the best in the division, and our current defenders don''t even come close to their level of ability and form shown during this period. Also Kenton was pretty much playing the best football of his career, and Drury seemed a better player back then. And the other ingredient is Gary Holt, who was superb for all of 2002, with his best performance coming in the play off final where I don''t think I''ve seen many other performance as good as his on that day by any player since. The rest of the team from 2002 is horses for courses for me, and is about as good as what we currently have, with the exception of Huckerby being significantly better than one Clint Easton.

So the conclusion? Sort out the defensive partnership, and pray Brellier finds the sort of form and level of performance Holt showed in 2002.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

Oops, forgot big Iwan who scored in the final did we? Nevermind. I would take that line-up in its entirety but swap Russell for Mulryne and Huckerby for Easton. Other than those two we are miles behind those days despite the Prem millions. Time to get real.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Look at the league table this year, last year and the year before.

Look at the 12 year trend line. Of course we''re shrinking.

It''s actually called realism, although you would shout into the wind and label it negativity.

Nil desperandum, BigFish. Grant may get lucky - and that''s the best we can hope for under the present NCFC ownership, leadership and governance structure.

We''ll see who''s right soon enough.

In the meantime - good luck Peter Grant & c''mon u yellas.

OTBC 

 

[Making Plans 957]

Whilst this is interesting, and I fully agree with the points made about our defence in 2002, it does not take into account the quality of the opposition. I think it''s fair to say that things in the Championship have moved on a lot since 2002 and in particular that (a) the number of realistic promotion contenders has is increased and (b)  the general quality of teams and standard of play has improved. Therefore the respective quality of our comparitive teams/squads is somewhat irrelevant. I suppose the acid test is whether you think that our team of 2002 would get to a play off final in 2007/8 - impossible to know but IMO, very unlikely.

[nutty nigel 7,963]

[quote user="Making Plans"]Whilst this is interesting, and I fully agree with the points made about our defence in 2002, it does not take into account the quality of the opposition. I think it''s fair to say that things in the Championship have moved on a lot since 2002 and in particular that (a) the number of realistic promotion contenders has is increased and (b)  the general quality of teams and standard of play has improved. Therefore the respective quality of our comparitive teams/squads is somewhat irrelevant. I suppose the acid test is whether you think that our team of 2002 would get to a play off final in 2007/8 - impossible to know but IMO, very unlikely.[/quote]

That''s so true MP and thats why its so hard to pick a "best" from all era''s. The bar is constantly raised. Roger Bannister ran the first 4 minute mile in the 50''s but that time would win nothing today. Yet we shouldn''t devalue what sportsmen achieve in their time just because it''s bettered later.

That team of 2002 and the run to the play offs brought so much joy to so many fans. For a young generation it was the first success they had seen. My daughter was 17 at the time and she was part of that generation. We went to Bradford when Paul McVeigh scored that late winner and started to believe, we thought we''d blown it when Grimsby got that late equaliser a few days later but then we were part of that huge convoy of coaches to Barnsley, then Stockport at home, then the two games against Wolves before that wonderful day at the Millennium where Iwans goal should have been the icing on the cake.

Disappointment in the end, but to be fair those few weeks were one of the most enjoyable periods of the last 40 years for me.

 

[BigFish 2,330]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Oops, forgot big Iwan who scored in the final did we? Nevermind. I would take that line-up in its entirety but swap Russell for Mulryne and Huckerby for Easton. Other than those two we are miles behind those days despite the Prem millions. Time to get real.[/quote]

No didn''t forget Iwan who was largely warming the subs bench in the play offs due to injury.

[arrdee 2]

[quote user="Jim Kent"]Well it''s an excellent point and the true answer lies in the fact that it wasn''t about the indivdual talent of those players, but how we played as a team.  I won''t get hang up on who we sign because it is all about how we perform as a team. [/quote]

Yep Jim you lovely old boy you have it spot on ,well done .[Y] .arrdee.