Team for Gateshead

Quoted from speedy

Stick to fifa, You genuinly expect a conferance team to pull off that formation?? Also, i dislike East on the left, he hates his left foot and often gets him in trouble.

Well we're doing fookin great playing 4-4-2 like all on here want.
All I'm saying is try 5 in midfield.
FFS we are behind Lincoln so can't get much worse.
They are pro footballers so should cope with any system.

I cannot see him dropping Pittman as he is scoring each game and nearly scored before he did on Saturday. I hope he brings Ammond in (I have him as top scorer this season) or Bogle in as didnt think Tomlinson did a lot on Saturday. Whichever he does then I would like to see him bring in the other earlier, at half time, if its not working. I would also like to see Arnold start, I appreciate why he was left out but thought he looked dangerous on saturday when he came on. I have the feeling we will get a load of goals tonight.

I think we are splitting hairs here, if we are serious title contenders then we should be winning tonight with any combination of strikers at our disposal.

Quoted from TAGG

Well we're doing fookin great playing 4-4-2 like all on here want.
All I'm saying is try 5 in midfield.
FFS we are behind Lincoln so can't get much worse.
They are pro footballers so should cope with any system.

Fair enough, didn't mean to come across as harsh. Just my opinion, Teams alot better than us struggle with 3 at the back and get it wrong. I'd quite like a 4-3-3 but every time i seem to recall us trying it (with different players to be fair) we end up losing our shape so often.  

Whoever mentioned about Robertson not having played well is spot on. A significant number of our goals conceded has come from crosses in from his side.

His lack of pace means that he struggles against a quick winger and Robertson really struggles to stop the crosses.

In some games he's got up the field to overlap Monkhouse, but he struggles to get a decent cross in a lot of the time. Most of the time, he's not able to get forward. Some would argue that it isn't a left back's priority to get up the field to attack but when you're playing Monkhouse (whose game is not to take on the opposing full back and whip a cross in) you have to have a left back that will run behind and whip a ball in.

Don't get me wrong, Monkhouse offers a lot but Hurst's tactic of lumping it to Monkhouse has become quite predictable and teams have dealt with our 'attacking' threat quite easily.

When this has happened, Hurst will er on the side of caution and leave it too late to make a change and doesn't allow enough time for subs to make an impact.

Whacking it long towards Monkhouse isn't a bad tactic - providing it isn't our only one! He'll challenge well and win as many headers as he loses but if we play that ball every time it is all too predictable and gives the opposition too much time to organise themselves.

If Monkhouse is playing, we need to use the aerial ball to him more sparingly so it's either up to the midfield and forwards to show more for a pass to feet or start mixing it up by playing a ball over the top towards the corners for our forwards/wingers to run on to once in a while.

Quoted from davmariner

Whoever mentioned about Robertson not having played well is spot on. A significant number of our goals conceded has come from crosses in from his side.

His lack of pace means that he struggles against a quick winger and Robertson really struggles to stop the crosses.

In some games he's got up the field to overlap Monkhouse, but he struggles to get a decent cross in a lot of the time. Most of the time, he's not able to get forward. Some would argue that it isn't a left back's priority to get up the field to attack but when you're playing Monkhouse (whose game is not to take on the opposing full back and whip a cross in) you have to have a left back that will run behind and whip a ball in.

Don't get me wrong, Monkhouse offers a lot but Hurst's tactic of lumping it to Monkhouse has become quite predictable and teams have dealt with our 'attacking' threat quite easily.

When this has happened, Hurst will er on the side of caution and leave it too late to make a change and doesn't allow enough time for subs to make an impact.

Spot on.

Quoted from davmariner

Whoever mentioned about Robertson not having played well is spot on. A significant number of our goals conceded has come from crosses in from his side.

His lack of pace means that he struggles against a quick winger and Robertson really struggles to stop the crosses.

In some games he's got up the field to overlap Monkhouse, but he struggles to get a decent cross in a lot of the time. Most of the time, he's not able to get forward. Some would argue that it isn't a left back's priority to get up the field to attack but when you're playing Monkhouse (whose game is not to take on the opposing full back and whip a cross in) you have to have a left back that will run behind and whip a ball in.

Don't get me wrong, Monkhouse offers a lot but Hurst's tactic of lumping it to Monkhouse has become quite predictable and teams have dealt with our 'attacking' threat quite easily.

When this has happened, Hurst will er on the side of caution and leave it too late to make a change and doesn't allow enough time for subs to make an impact.

Monkhouse looked alot better with East playing behind him and Tait at rb, East loved the overlaps and still got back to cover

I don't know where people get the idea from that lumping it up to Monkhouse is a tactic of ours?

I've not seen us doing this in open play. Only from goal kicks, when you've got to kick it up to someone, so why not Monkhouse (our strongest player in the air). I'd rather us play short from goal kicks and I think we do seem to try too quite often, but it's not always possible.

Tommy it was done alot on saturday in open play mainly by the full backs.

Imo it was a tactic and creeping in more frequently lately.