Team for Newcastle 13 April 2010

[Royal_Delight]

------------------Feds-----------------------

Griffin-----Pearce-----Khiz------Bertrand

McAnuff-------Sig-----Tabb-------Kebe

---------------Church-----Rasiak-----------


Going to "Brendan Rogers" strike partnership. About time Church got his time in the first team after impressing for the last few matches and IMO, we play better with a 4-4-2. Winning aerial balls against Newcastle is also important so with Rasiak in the team could do us good considering they have taller players in Coloccini and Mike Williamson

Need to mark Nolan, Carroll, Løvenkrands and Routledge closely. All dangerous players


Injuries for Newcastle:

Fitz Hall ( Hamstring)
Steven Taylor ( Knee Injury)

[silas]

Church for Long. No other changes from yesterday, for me.

[Ian Royal]

Seem to be struggling with the scoring again, so I'd go with a bid to surprise Newcastle and shift back to the tactics that were successful early on. With a little variation...

Fed
Griffin, Khiz, Pearce, Bertrand
Kebe, Tabb, Howard, Sigurdsson
Rasiak, Church

Hamer, Gunnarsson, McAnuff, Long, Karacan, Robson-Kanu + 1

[07RFC]

------------------Feds-----------------------

Griffin-----Pearce-----Khiz------Bertrand

McAnuff-------Sig-----Tabb-------Kebe

---------------Church-----Rasiak-----------

This. Or Long for Church.

[Royal Lady]

Seem to be struggling with the scoring again, so I'd go with a bid to surprise Newcastle and shift back to the tactics that were successful early on. With a little variation...

Fed
Griffin, Khiz, Pearce, Bertrand
Kebe, Tabb, Howard, Sigurdsson
Rasiak, Church

Hamer, Gunnarsson, McAnuff, Long, Karacan, Robson-Kanu + 1

Eh? We didn't score yesterday - but I'd hardly say we are struggling with scoring.

[Seal]

Seem to be struggling with the scoring again, so I'd go with a bid to surprise Newcastle and shift back to the tactics that were successful early on. With a little variation...

Fed
Griffin, Khiz, Pearce, Bertrand
Kebe, Tabb, Howard, Sigurdsson
Rasiak, Church

Hamer, Gunnarsson, McAnuff, Long, Karacan, Robson-Kanu + 1

One 0-0 away to one of the best sides in the league and we're struggling for goals again?

[1871 Royal]

442 with Church replacing Howard (and obviously moving upfront)

[Ian Royal]

Seem to be struggling with the scoring again, so I'd go with a bid to surprise Newcastle and shift back to the tactics that were successful early on. With a little variation...

Fed
Griffin, Khiz, Pearce, Bertrand
Kebe, Tabb, Howard, Sigurdsson
Rasiak, Church

Hamer, Gunnarsson, McAnuff, Long, Karacan, Robson-Kanu + 1

One 0-0 away to one of the best sides in the league and we're struggling for goals again?

1-0, 1-1, 2-1, 1-1, 1-2, 3-0, 0-0.

Having had quite a few chances in a lot of those games.

[The Positive One!]

Same as yesterday with Church replacing McAnuff.

[Basingstoke Royal]

Same starting line up as Cardiff. Rasiak and church aren't good enough.

[1871 Royal]

Same as yesterday with Church replacing McAnuff.

[winchester_royal]

No changes from the XI that started yesterday.

[Royal Lady]

Seem to be struggling with the scoring again, so I'd go with a bid to surprise Newcastle and shift back to the tactics that were successful early on. With a little variation...

Fed
Griffin, Khiz, Pearce, Bertrand
Kebe, Tabb, Howard, Sigurdsson
Rasiak, Church

Hamer, Gunnarsson, McAnuff, Long, Karacan, Robson-Kanu + 1

One 0-0 away to one of the best sides in the league and we're struggling for goals again?

1-0, 1-1, 2-1, 1-1, 1-2, 3-0, 0-0.

Having had quite a few chances in a lot of those games.

LOL - yep, really struggling for goals lately.

[Ian Royal]

certainly struggling for enough...

We've scored at least one in most games throughout the season, doesn't mean we've been scoring at a good rate though. Putting away our chances was a major issue earlier in the season.

You don't have to agree, but I'm not the only one that thinks it and it's not a ridiculous point, even if you disagree with it.

[Royal Lady]

struggling to score means, to me, that we're not scoring. We have been scoring, whether we've put all our chances away or not. Except for yesterday. And I'd have taken a point before yesterday's game, goals or no goals.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Er, how many games have we failed to score since McDermott took charge.

[Sun Tzu]

Er, how many games have we failed to score since McDermott took charge.

I think it's a bit rich to claim that we're even struggling to score 'enough' goals recently.

We may not have scored 'enough' to win at Boro, West Brom or Cardiff but a point at each was plenty.

We didn;t score 'enough' at Ipswich but not even Newcastle score 'enough' every week.

We could always score more, but i think it's going looking for things to criticise to say we have a 'problem' ....

[Ian Royal]

struggling to score means, to me, that we're not scoring. We have been scoring, whether we've put all our chances away or not. Except for yesterday. And I'd have taken a point before yesterday's game, goals or no goals.

Well, that's not what I said/meant. And I'm not saying a point wasn't a very good result against Cardiff.

Under Rodgers we failed to score in 7 out of 23 game. Not a huge deal. But we also only scored 2 or more on 7 occasions. The problem was we weren't scoring enough. We weren't taking enough of our chances.

We still don't seem to be taking enough of our chances and converting draws and loses into wins where we have the play to do so.

11 games - 26 goals - previously under McD
7 games - 9 goals - recently under McD

The point being, to have a chance of the play offs, we'll need to score more goals than we currently are. Which is why I've suggested two upfront, in a system we've seen work already.