Team for Gillingham

[Mackenzie]

1. Kuipers

2. Hoyte
5. Virgo
6. Tunnicliffe
3. McNulty

8. Bennett
4. Crofts
10. Dicker
11. Davies

7. Forster
9. Murray

 

[BensGrandad]

1. Kuipers

2. Hoyte
5. Virgo
6. Tunnicliffe
3. McNulty

8. Bennett
4. Crofts
10. Dicker
11. Davies

7. Forster
9. Murray

I agree with that team

 

[GT49er]

Is McNulty fit and ready to go at last then? Good, if he is - put him in as automatic choice LB. RS has to work out the best combination of Tunny, Virgs and Tommy at CB (Wright was just bought as cover at LB, wasn't he?

And why are so many keen to replace the FDM with a Scottish goalkeeper (10 goals conceded in two point five matches)? In fact, I neveer quite understood why we spent some of our scarce resources buying a Scottish GK (a rare species, generally considered to be extinct since the days of Alan Rough in the 1970's) when we had a good young benchwarmer already on the books for nothing who had already proved an excellent stand in for the FDM, and potentially a rival for the no.1 jersey in the next year or two as well.

Still, RS can play who the hell he likes as long as we beat Gillingham!

 

[Don Quixote]

I want a 4 2 4 with DAVIES being recalled to spearhead the attack.

 

[Husty]

Is McNulty fit and ready to go at last then? Good, if he is - put him in as automatic choice LB. RS has to work out the best combination of Tunny, Virgs and Tommy at CB (Wright was just bought as cover at LB, wasn't he?

And why are so many keen to replace the FDM with a Scottish goalkeeper (10 goals conceded in two point five matches)? In fact, I neveer quite understood why we spent some of our scarce resources buying a Scottish GK (a rare species, generally considered to be extinct since the days of Alan Rough in the 1970's) when we had a good young benchwarmer already on the books for nothing who had already proved an excellent stand in for the FDM, and potentially a rival for the no.1 jersey in the next year or two as well.

Still, RS can play who the hell he likes as long as we beat Gillingham!

You clearly dont see many games and have formed your opinons off some of the forums more extreme posters. Wright was brought as a cover at left back yes but he played previously as a center back, that is his preferred position and he had an absolute stormer on tuesday night.

The nationailty of our keeper has nothing to do with it, he is a very good keeper (he has seen european football at aberdeen hasn't he?), our shoddy defense has much to do with the goals conceded ratio (your not seriously suggesting he is entirely at fault for the 7-1 are you) plus kuipers is not in brilliant form, we also all know that kuipers plays best when he i under pressure, we needed a keeper to challenge kuipers for his spot and that is what we have

 

[shwoody1]

1. Kuipers

2. Hoyte
5. Virgo
6. Tunnicliffe
3. McNulty

8. Bennett
4. Crofts
10. Dicker
11. Davies

7. Forster
9. Murray

i would go along with that apart from maybe wright instead of virgo (or elphick) had enough of them 2 just hoofing the ball anywhere.

 

[GT49er]

You clearly dont see many games ]

No, but I saw Sullivan deputise for the FDM very capably last season

and have formed your opinons off some of the forums more extreme posters]

The ones who disagree with you?

Wright was brought as a cover at left back yes but he played previously as a center back, that is his preferred position and he had an absolute stormer on tuesday night ]

Wasn't there on Tuesday, so can't comment on that; have never seen him play - don't watch Crawley(?) so not familiar with his history).

[The nationailty of our keeper has nothing to do with it, he is a very good keeper (he has seen european football at aberdeen hasn't he?)]

No, nationality doesn't have much to do with it (but if you'd lived in Scotland for as long as I did you'd know far more about dodgy Scottish keepers, of whom there are many!) and with Aberdeen he wouldn't have seen much European football (2 matches per season at most!) - and anyway, one of the loanee GKs we had a couple of years ago was an international GK in the final stages of a major competition - and he still wasn't much good

[our shoddy defense has much to do with the goals conceded ratio (your not seriously suggesting he is entirely at fault for the 7-1 are you)]

No, he only let in five of them. The shoddy defence is a problem, but Kuipers plays behind the same defence, and even out of form his goals conceded ratio is a whole lot better.

[plus kuipers is not in brilliant form, we also all know that kuipers plays best when he i under pressure, we needed a keeper to challenge kuipers for his spot]

Well, we did once we'd got rid of Sully, and we had to pay money to get him

[and that is what we have[/I]

....that is what we have. Maybe....or maybe not.

 

[Silent Bob]

The thing with Smith is that he was obviously brought in to be the number one keeper, but he wasn't necessarily a target of the manager.

I think the Sullivan thing is a bit silly, he was ok last season at times, he showed signs of promise and I would rather we hadn't let him go but he wasn't looking like real competition for Kuipers so much as a decent prospect for the future. He's a long way from being the finished article.