Craig Stanley

[Southampton Gull]

The problems occur when we go forward, lose possession and are quickly outnumbered in midfield. Without Stanley or indeed Mansell, it's a very risky formation. I'm a fan of 4-3-3 with the right players in the side to carry it out but with neither of the warhorses in the middle it would be a recipe for disaster, that's why I'm sure we'll go 4-4-2.

[ferrarilover]

I think what Shane's saying here isn't flat 4-5-1. It's 4-3-3 when we're in possession, but once Bradford get the ball, it's 4-5-1. After all, not much point in having 3 attackers if we're under pressure, is there?

For what it's worth, I'm expecting the same 4-4-2 line up, only with Stanley out and probably Oastler slotting in. Whether Lathrope is in alongside him, I don't know.

I keep saying it, but this is a big game as we do need the 3 points before our tough looking run-in. Should we come out of this game with the 3 points, I'd also expect a 3,500+ gate for the Port Vale game, at the very least.

We've only lost 3 times since the Crawley game, and we're 7 unbeaten at home (winning 4 in a row at the minute) so surely the crowds have to rise soon?!?

I blame the match day thread on here, if it was of a higher standard, more people would be tempted to attend. =D

Generally, I think it's a shame that the loss of one player (a loanee, no less) is causing so many problems among the fans in selecting a formation, or a starting XI. I do understand the other complicating factors, but I do certainly hope that the manager (for his money) has a much clearer idea in his mind of a solution than we seem to have on here.
For my choice, I feel 4-3-3, away from home regardless of Stanners' availability is unlikely and for good reason.
A nice solid 4-4-2 (I've always been an advocate of this at all levels of the English game) will see us just right. Two solid banks of four at the back with Ellis back in the middle and Robbo at right back. This, combined with the consequential central midfield paring of Mansell and Eunan was a formation which proved absolutely devastating to a number to teams earlier in the season. Mark Ellis is a more then capable centre back. It was no more than 3 months ago that we were mooting six figure fees for his services forthcoming from Championship sides and as we all know to be true, good players don't become bad ones overnight.
With the combative element of Lee in midfield, if frees up Eunan to play a more creative game. It really can't hurt to start with it and see where we are. On the off chance that we being to get overrun by a more physical team in Bradford, we have a couple of pretty tough options on the bench in JOastler and Lathrope.
It seems that Bradford's pitch is rated as one of the best two or three in the division, so it would be nice if we were to retain Robinson and Zedders out wide, with the option to introduce Danny into the sort of match he will favour. By his own admission, Robinson had a shocker against Lincoln, he never really got going, but I'm sure that was a one off and on a large, wide pitch with a good, even surface, I'm sure he'll cause problems on either wing. Same goes for Zedders (except he had yet another brilliant game on Saturday).

Anyway, this isn't a match day thread and I don't want to take it any further off topic, so I shall end with the following: As good as Stanners is, we are a good enough squad to cope with his absence, provided we do the right things in terms of selection and formation.

Matt.

[Fletch]

Mark Ellis is a more then capable centre back. It was no more than 3 months ago that we were mooting six figure fees for his services forthcoming from Championship sides and as we all know to be true, good players don't become bad ones overnight. Matt.

Not everyone was "mooting" 6 figure fees, though I would have been well impressed had he moved for that sort of figure. Some of us have had the opinion (right back to match reports on the old board for last season) that he is inconsistent and seems incapable of correcting his main flaws of positioning (always trying to get ball side of the attacker he's covering, great when it works but when he doesn t get the ball, the attacker has a free run on goal) and lapses of concentration (ball watching). If he could cut out these problems, he would have been playing at a Championship club at least. There s a reason (oft said) why players are plying their trade at L2 level, its not that they lack the requisite skills to play higher, it s usually the consistency of performance that lets them down.

[Fonda]

I think what Shane's saying here isn't flat 4-5-1. It's 4-3-3 when we're in possession, but once Bradford get the ball, it's 4-5-1. After all, not much point in having 3 attackers if we're under pressure, is there?

For what it's worth, I'm expecting the same 4-4-2 line up, only with Stanley out and probably Oastler slotting in. Whether Lathrope is in alongside him, I don't know.

I keep saying it, but this is a big game as we do need the 3 points before our tough looking run-in. Should we come out of this game with the 3 points, I'd also expect a 3,500+ gate for the Port Vale game, at the very least.

We've only lost 3 times since the Crawley game, and we're 7 unbeaten at home (winning 4 in a row at the minute) so surely the crowds have to rise soon?!?

Cheers Nick, yes, that was exactly what i was suggesting.

What formation did we play at Northampton, when Eunan came into the side for the absent Murray? Did Eunan play wide in a 4-4-2, or was he added to the numbers in the central areas?

[ferrarilover]

Not EVERYONE voted Tory, yet here they are.

Matt.

[Southampton Gull]

We were 4-4-2 at Northampton although with the natural movement of Zebs and Robinson it did vary from time to time.

[bixieupnorth]

has anything been sorted for craig to stay on if we make the playoffs?? i think i'm right in saying that his loan is only until first weekend on may?? has PB sorted out and provisional arrangement to extend for hopefully another three games??

i think he'd be crucial in getting us to old trafford and just imagine how our style of football could be suited to that huge lush pitch!!

[Enzo]

I don't think there is any deal that can be done to enable him to play in the play offs. Something about the maximum number of days that a player can play on loan.

[bixieupnorth]

booger!!

[gullsflyinghigh]

I'm not sure about that. Jake Robinson said on his Twitter yesterday that his loan is until Torquay's season ends, which can include the playoffs if necessary. I would like to think that Stanley's was the same or is he on something different (3 month contract or whatever?)

[bixieupnorth]

his write up on OS says end of the season? no more info there then!!

http://www.torquayunited.com/page/Profi ... 43,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TUFC92]

I believe it is because Jake was signed on an end of season loan, but Stanley was signed on an 'emergency' one month loan which could be extended, and they can only be extented up to 93 days (I think thats the right number!)

[bixieupnorth]

tracked down the article on OS, its may 3rd, hopefully there'll be some way around it by then?

http://www.torquayunited.com/page/News/ ... 21,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tommyg]

Almost 100% sure Stanley's last game will be at home to Chesterfield. He can't play in the play-offs should we get there, or even the final game at Rotherham. There's no way around it. If we want promotion, we will have to do it without him.

Unsure on Robinson, but I assume he would be able to stay on. Can you imagine if he went back to the Shrews, we got them in the play-offs, and he ended up playing (even scoring) against us?!

[Fletch]

100% sure Tommy

Robinsons was till end of season. Stanleys was a fixed period in days. No way round it.