This team v That team

[B-ru 0]

Crooky is talking about e squad that he used to play in back in  the day and the system played back then. Got me thinking about the similarities between our squad and that squad

Gunn - Forster

Culverhouse - R Martin

Bowen - Drury

Prior - Askou

Butterworth - Doherty

Newman - Russell

Robins - C Martin

Fox - McNamee

Sutton - Holt

Goss - Smith

Crook - Lappin

Power - Dawkin

Ekoku - Oli Johnson

John Polston - Spillane

Megson - Hughes

Eadie - Dawkin

Newman - Nelson

Akinbyi - McDonald

Woodthorpe - Whitbread

Ullathorne - Whiggins

Marshall - Rudd

[superpaddyncfc 0]

Wes Holahan?????

[B-ru 0]

For anyone not read the article by the way, here is the reference

"City''s diamond midfield formation has been a constant feature in their successful run - a tactic sometimes used in Crook''s time as a player under Dave Stringer and Mike Walker.

“Under Mike, we played a bit like a diamond formation, though it was not as tight, with me sitting and Jeremy Goss and Gary Megson able to get forward,” said Crook.

He believes City have hit on a system that plays to the strengths of regular quartet Darel Russell, Korey Smith, Simon Lappin and Wes Hoolahan. "

[B-ru 0]

[quote user="superpaddyncfc"]

Wes Holahan?????

[/quote]

I know, I couldn''t think of anyone that he is most like though... help?

[DOGGER 0]

David Smith?[:P]

[Yella7 0]

Eadie - Hoolahan

 

[dpit 1]

Every one of that squad (with the possible exception of Prior) is superior to his stated modern counterpart - this is not meant as a dig at the current players - just an indication of how good we were back then

[Hucka Hucka Huckerby 0]

Hoolahan is clearly more like Crook than anyone else! He is skillful & can pass a ball, Crook was just a better version!

 He hasn''t got Eadie''s pace & is a completely different kind of player to him.

[Norwich or die tryin! 0]

Power-Dawkin [:O] lolololololololol

[chicken 0]

Unless I am being crazily stupid - Newman is apparently as good as both Nelson AND Russell put together . . . . . . not sure if I could agree with that.