Best Starting Eleven 2018/19 Season

[roversfan99]

6 minutes ago, J*B said:

One thing is for sure, TM will go back to his "2 and a half" strikers.

Dack will be back. DG will start. So we only have one left. Palmer or Armstrong? Bennett I assume on the other wing. 

For me it would be Arma - it must have been the TV viewing, because I finished the game on the same wave length as Chaddy (!!!), Palmer seemed to do more bad than good on my screen. Saying that, people at the game said he played well, so would be interested to hear from people at the game as to whether they'd start Palmer over Arma.

To be fair, you could say that about anyone on Sunday.

That said, the one thing you know about the Graham, Dack and Armstrong axis is that it works well in tandem. I hope that Armstrong as a 10 isnt something we do again as it didnt work. We have more than enough natural number 10s to play that role.

[ben_the_beast]

Big question is where does Rothwell fit in. He's looked our best player recently. I'd play him for Smallwood personally as long as Bennet on the right. He can drop as Rothwell pushes forwards adding a bit more balance. Unfortunately I think Mowbray may be too conservative for this.

Edited September 3, 2018 by ben_the_beast

[tomphil]

Going in at 1-1 away at a good side with a big crowd you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd say at half time let's tighten up, protect what we have and just see if we can nick another. God knows he's done that before enough but Sunday i'm not sure what he's said they seemed caught in two minds whether to go for it or sit off and his subs were pretty standard in terms of taking off the main flair player and DG but yet he lobbed attackers on.

Maybe we'll turn out to be a team with a more open style who can paste someone one week then get hammered the next ?  Championship usually throws a few teams up like that early on.

Might be more exciting than trying to grind a point every week ?

[Stuart]

1 hour ago, J*B said:

One thing is for sure, TM will go back to his "2 and a half" strikers.

Dack will be back. DG will start. So we only have one left. Palmer or Armstrong? Bennett I assume on the other wing. 

For me it would be Arma - it must have been the TV viewing, because I finished the game on the same wave length as Chaddy (!!!), Palmer seemed to do more bad than good on my screen. Saying that, people at the game said he played well, so would be interested to hear from people at the game as to whether they'd start Palmer over Arma.

By the end of the season we’ve surely expect Brereton to replace Graham as the starting number 9.

Palmer needs to concentrate on his footwork. He looks really clumsy with the ball at his feet and it kind of gets caught under him when he sets off running. Invariably he loses momentum and has to play a short ball. Arma needs game time to get back to what we know he is capable of.

Going forward we have lots of options. At the back we seem to have very little to change things if it isn’t working. I’m dreading an injury at rb or cb.

[AAK]

A lot of the time we are far too one dimensional. We don't have a single out and out winger at the club, that's pretty poor, nobody can argue it isn't. Bennett isn't a winger, I'm sorry but he isn't. Therefore if that's the case you need your full backs bombing up the flanks, but they aren't doing so, bell is the most capable, but whether he's being told not to or not, I'm unsure, but his forward play at fleetwood tells me he's good at it and likes it, therefore he's being told not to. Nyambe for all his plaudits, isn't all that great at going forward, he will run with his head down for 20 yards or so and then turnaround. 

Therefore because of this, we put the majority of play through the man who plays behind graham, or long balls to graham himself, especially away from home. 

Only way around that is playing 3 cbs and two really forward playing wing backs, but we don't have 3 centre backs good enough to play thay system at this level. Lenihan and mulgrew aren't top half championship centre halves, simple as. After them there are no other proper centre halves bar a downing. 

The sqaud isnt strong enough to challenge the top teams. We need another couple of windows and need to hope Tony doesn't stick to his favourites and knows when to drop some when they aren't all that good. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by AAK

[skous18]

   Raya

Nyambe Mulgrew Rodwell Bell

Rothwell Reed Evans Armstrong

Dack

Graham

I’d give this team a chance.

Obviously its hard to leave Lenihan and Benno out of the starting 11, but they both can do with some rest. Palmers for Armstrong for the last 30mins

 

 

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 minute ago, skous18 said:

   Raya

Nyambe Mulgrew Rodwell Bell

Rothwell Reed Evans Armstrong

Dack

Graham

I’d give this team a chance.

Obviously its hard to leave Lenihan and Benno out of the starting 11, but they both can do with some rest. Palmers for Armstrong for the last 30mins

 

 

 

You may not have noticed but Nyambe is injured.

[G Somerset Rover]

Too many square pegs in round holes. TM hasn’t a clue on his best 11 either. Quite worrying. 

[skous18]

I have noticed, yep. I have also noticed that the title says : “Best Starting Eleven 2018/19 Season” not - best starting eleven against Bolton.

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

11 hours ago, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

Too many square pegs in round holes. TM hasn’t a clue on his best 11 either. Quite worrying. 

Yeah we're back to where we were a while back. No obvious first 11 and no real pattern of play that suits the skill set of whoever we put out there.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[Bigdoggsteel]

49 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Yeah we're back to where we were a while back. No obvious first 11 and no real pattern of play that suits the skill set of whoever we put out there.

We are a game or two out from our best performance under Mowbray against Stoke 

[blueboy3333]

8 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

We are a game or two out from our best performance under Mowbray against Stoke 

I think we are good away from home as our style of play suits not being the team with the onus on them to attack. We aren't very good at attacking, 4 goals from open play in 6 home games suggests that. Win on Saturday and we'll have the 3rd best away record in the league. 

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

3 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

I think we are good away from home as our style of play suits not being the team with the onus on them to attack. We aren't very good at attacking, 4 goals from open play in 6 home games suggests that. Win on Saturday and we'll have the 3rd best away record in the league. 

 

I agree. I fancy us more away from home than at home. It was the same last season. If Mowbray can just get us attacking more at home, we would be in with a shout of the play offs. I think it means definitely different personnel and possibly even two formations 

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I agree. I fancy us more away from home than at home. It was the same last season. If Mowbray can just get us attacking more at home, we would be in with a shout of the play offs. I think it means definitely different personnel and possibly even two formations 

Was it? We picked up the most home points last season with 51 from 23 games, scoring the most goals. We picked up 6 less points away.

At home in particular we need to try and inflict our style on teams from the off. We have yet to score a home goal in the first half (I think). Against Millwall, Reading, Sheff Utd and Forest we were particularly poor in the first half. We are showing our opponents far too much respect in winnable games. I think we are best suited to high intensity football, Sheff United had an obvious identity yesterday and that was the difference, there wasnt an individual quality chasm, they just knew what they were doing.

Mowbray has been given funds to build a much deeper squad, therefore that gives us more scope for potentially using up more energy.

[Bigdoggsteel]

6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Was it? We picked up the most home points last season with 51 from 23 games, scoring the most goals. We picked up 6 less points away.

At home in particular we need to try and inflict our style on teams from the off. We have yet to score a home goal in the first half (I think). Against Millwall, Reading, Sheff Utd and Forest we were particularly poor in the first half. We are showing our opponents far too much respect in winnable games. I think we are best suited to high intensity football, Sheff United had an obvious identity yesterday and that was the difference, there wasnt an individual quality chasm, they just knew what they were doing.

Mowbray has been given funds to build a much deeper squad, therefore that gives us more scope for potentially using up more energy.

Ya, we were poor in many home games last season, particularly in the 1st half. The gulf in quality meant we went on to win so many games. The difference is this season we won't get away with it 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[blueboy3333]

32 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

there wasnt an individual quality chasm, they just knew what they were doing.

They were better all over the pitch, especially at the back. They were also more mobile in midfield and had more guile and goalscoring instinct up front. 

 

 

[DaveyB]

52 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Was it? We picked up the most home points last season with 51 from 23 games, scoring the most goals. We picked up 6 less points away.

At home in particular we need to try and inflict our style on teams from the off. We have yet to score a home goal in the first half (I think). Against Millwall, Reading, Sheff Utd and Forest we were particularly poor in the first half. We are showing our opponents far too much respect in winnable games. I think we are best suited to high intensity football, Sheff United had an obvious identity yesterday and that was the difference, there wasnt an individual quality chasm, they just knew what they were doing.

Mowbray has been given funds to build a much deeper squad, therefore that gives us more scope for potentially using up more energy.

I'm not sure it's fair to say we were particularly poor in the first half against Forest. We started slowly, and obviously could have been behind from the penalty, but from 20 mins onwards we were clearly the better team, and but for a couple of good saves, a wonder clearance off the line and the width of the crossbar we could have been 2 or 3 goals to the good at half-time.

Also I keep reading about how Mowbray has been given funds and how we've spent a good chunk - obviously compared with recent times we have spent a decent amount for us, but considering we're starting from a net spend in the region of -£30million over the last 5 years or so, and teams in this league have squads that cost upwards of £60million to put together, I'm not sure that spending roughly £10million over 2 years is being 'given funds to build a much deeper squad' - to put it in perspective, Forest spent more than that on 1 player this summer, as did Boro last summer.

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, blueboy3333 said:

They were better all over the pitch, especially at the back. They were also more mobile in midfield and had more guile and goalscoring instinct up front. 

 

 

They were, but its the attitude and acceptance that Sheffield United are better than us and thats final that doesnt sit right.

My point is more that individually, I dont think Sheffield Uniteds players are miles ahead of ours, it was more that the way Wilder has them playing got 100% out of every individual in a way they know down to a tee.

Look at their team. Are veterans Billy Sharp and Mark Duffy, whose career pre Sheffield United is hardly glittering, David McGoldrick, released by Ipswich and riddled with fitness issues, and journeymen Leon Clarke and Connor Washington; an attack that is on paper far superior to ours, which cost nearly 10million to assemble? I would suggest not. And aside from that, they have some good players, Norwood, Fleck, OConnell, Egan are all solid Championship players but so are Mulgrew, Evans, Bennett etc. 

1 hour ago, DaveyB said:

I'm not sure it's fair to say we were particularly poor in the first half against Forest. We started slowly, and obviously could have been behind from the penalty, but from 20 mins onwards we were clearly the better team, and but for a couple of good saves, a wonder clearance off the line and the width of the crossbar we could have been 2 or 3 goals to the good at half-time.

Also I keep reading about how Mowbray has been given funds and how we've spent a good chunk - obviously compared with recent times we have spent a decent amount for us, but considering we're starting from a net spend in the region of -£30million over the last 5 years or so, and teams in this league have squads that cost upwards of £60million to put together, I'm not sure that spending roughly £10million over 2 years is being 'given funds to build a much deeper squad' - to put it in perspective, Forest spent more than that on 1 player this summer, as did Boro last summer.

Agreed on the Forest first half to be fair. And yeah I would suggest that there are a few teams who dwarf us, but also the likes of Preston, Hull, Reading, Ipswich, QPR, Birmingham, Bolton, Rotherham, Millwall, even Wigan probably wish they had what we have to spend.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

11 hours ago, DaveyB said:

I'm not sure it's fair to say we were particularly poor in the first half against Forest. We started slowly, and obviously could have been behind from the penalty, but from 20 mins onwards we were clearly the better team, and but for a couple of good saves, a wonder clearance off the line and the width of the crossbar we could have been 2 or 3 goals to the good at half-time.

Also I keep reading about how Mowbray has been given funds and how we've spent a good chunk - obviously compared with recent times we have spent a decent amount for us, but considering we're starting from a net spend in the region of -£30million over the last 5 years or so, and teams in this league have squads that cost upwards of £60million to put together, I'm not sure that spending roughly £10million over 2 years is being 'given funds to build a much deeper squad' - to put it in perspective, Forest spent more than that on 1 player this summer, as did Boro last summer.

Which makes Rovers lumping the best part of £6 or £7 million on one unproven player pretty remarkable.