Johnson and Tettey to start Tuesday

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="splutcho"]I''m pretty sure that''s par for the course for loans, can''t play against your parent club. Even if your parent club are okay with it.[/quote]

Remember watching David Nielsen score on loan to us against his parent club, Wimbledon. Don''t think it can happen now though, my mistake.

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]In other words Tom, you''d pick the same side and setup as I already suggested but with Olsson instead of Garrido...Not sure why we needed that much text to explain it, but hey-ho [:D][/quote]

Not the same team Indy .... I believe he hs chosen whittaker over martin !!!

[Lavanche 0]

Ah true. Always forget that is impossible in England. Thanks

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Barclay seats 48 49 the 3rd"][quote user="Indy_Bones"]In other words Tom, you''d pick the same side and setup as I already suggested but with Olsson instead of Garrido...Not sure why we needed that much text to explain it, but hey-ho [:D][/quote]Not the same team Indy .... I believe he hs chosen whittaker over martin !!![/quote]Well spotted!So Tom prefers different fullbacks, otherwise the same.Looks like the board has a fairly strong consensus in most positions - apart from fullback anyway [;)]

[Ray 111]

Given that we won against Hull and there seemed to be a bit more team spirit, passion and dare I say it cohesion, I suspect that CH will not want to tinker too much but build on the aforementioned by naming the same starting 11, with the obvious exception of Jonas, who I suspect will be replaced by Pilks.

[4th floor 4]

If Tettey plays then we ought to play an advanced form of 4-1-4-1 with the fullbacks pushing up to lessen the space in front of them. Whittaker and Garrido get the nod over Martin and Olsson because they''re better passers. This formation should give more passing options for the full backs. Should be strong in midfield and defence, but capable of attacking from all directions.                          Ruddy                   Bennett  BassongWhittaker                                     Garrido                          TetteySnodgrass   Johnson  Fer     Pilkington                      Hooper/RVW

Subs: Bunn, Martin, Olsson, Hooper/RVW, Redmond, Becchio, Murphy

If Tettey doesn''t play then we ought to play a more compact 4-4-1-1 with Hooper or Elmander playing in between the lines. Martin and Olsson play in this formation because they link with their respective wingers a bit better and seem more comfortable in a two banks of four. This is a more defensive set up, but with greater scope to get down the wings.                          Ruddy                 Martin      Bennett  Bassong      OlssonSnodgrass   Johnson  Fer    Pilkington                 Hooper/Elmander                          RVWSubs: Bunn, Whittaker, Garrido, Hooper/Elmander, Redmond, Becchio, Hoolahan

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Dubai Mark"]

On Hooper and RVW, earlier in the season I was adament that we wouldnt see them in the same side very often....but, I think I was wrong and agree now that we probably will and if it happens Tuesday, the first time most of the squad have been available then we will at last see very close to the side the management see as the strongest. I now have everything crossed that its a very decent performance and a win so that we can all live happily together on this board for a few more weeks........OK then..days.......OTBC

As for Snodgrass....why would anyone leave him out when he is now clearly back on form and a real threat??? 

[/quote]

 

Well done, Mark, for being big enough to say it, regardless of whether it happens or not.

[SeattleCanary 0]

For me RVW doesn''t offer enough to merit starting tomorrow. At the risk of sounding crazy, I''d love to see what a side like this could do

Ruddy

Martin Bennett Bassong Olsson

Snodgrass Fer Tettey Redmond

Pilkington

Hooper

Or switch Redmond to RM, Pilkington to LM, and Snodgrass behind Hooper. I know this won''t happen and we''ll probably see a similar team to the one that played Hull, but I just wanted to be different, and as someone said a few posts back, it''d be great to see a side with Snodgrass, Pilks and Redmond going forward.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="JonnyH"]Whittaker and Garrido get the nod over Martin and Olsson because they''re better passers. [/quote]Apart from the stats which show that overall Martin is the better passer than Whittaker unless you want to adovate endless long balls and no crossing?Martin - SPA/LPA/CA = 80%/46%/29%Whittaker - SPA/LPA/CA = 74%/67%/17%[quote]This formation should give more passing options for the full backs. Should be strong in midfield and defence, but capable of attacking from all directions.                          Ruddy                   Bennett  BassongWhittaker                                     Garrido                          TetteySnodgrass   Johnson  Fer     Pilkington                      Hooper/RVW[/quote]Apart from the point that Johnson is our worst midfielder overall, and when we''ve already got Tettey on defensive duties and Fer who can help out, why would you want yet another defensive player (especially one who can''t pass for toffee)?[quote]If Tettey doesn''t play then we ought to play a more compact 4-4-1-1 with Hooper or Elmander playing in between the lines.[/quote]So on top of picking two defensive central players alongside Fer, you''d also rather play the completely ineffective Elmander than you would Hoolahan???You ARE Chris Hughton and I claim my £5...

[4th floor 4]

[quote][quote user="JonnyH"]Whittaker and Garrido get the nod over Martin and Olsson because they''re better passers.[/quote][quote user="Indy_Bones"]Apart from the stats which show that overall Martin is the better passer

than Whittaker unless you want to adovate endless long balls and no

crossing?Martin - SPA/LPA/CA = 80%/46%/29%Whittaker - SPA/LPA/CA = 74%/67%/17%[/quote][/quote]You''re selectively quoting what I wrote, I also said "this formation should give more passing options for the full backs." Going on what I''ve seen rather than relying purely on stats, I think the extra space from playing a bit higher and the extra man in midfield would suit Whittaker''s game better than Martin''s.The 5 man midfield playing in front of Whittaker would make it less likely that we''d resort to long balls than if we played a 4 man midfield, and would allow us a bit more variety in attack. It''s not all about crosses, which incidentally wouldn''t suit either Hooper or RVW up front on their own anyway.[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Apart from the point that Johnson is our worst midfielder overall, and when we''ve already got Tettey on defensive duties and Fer who can help out, why would you want yet another defensive player (especially one who can''t pass for toffee)?[/quote]I''m not the biggest fan of Johnson, but he''s a man on form and Fer is better offensively. Newcastle are a strong team and I think we need to boss the midfield to win this one.[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="JonnyH"]If Tettey doesn''t play then we ought to play a more compact 4-4-1-1 with Hooper or Elmander playing in between the lines.[/quote]So on top of picking two defensive central players alongside Fer, you''d also rather play the completely ineffective Elmander than you would Hoolahan???[/quote]Elmander could be useful in dropping back into a 4 man midfield, going into the box for crosses and holding the ball up for the striker. I would look to boss the game first of all and perhaps bring Hoolahan on later as fresh legs.