Trees prediction
Moderators: nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin, ZENITH R, Virginia_R
- Danish Ranger
- Level 2 dot.orger
- Posts: 896
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:17 pm
- Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Trees prediction
We all know that we will need to score twice to get a get a draw, so I am affraid we will come up short under the lights tomorrow
1-2 with Eze to get a late consolation from the spot
1-2 with Eze to get a late consolation from the spot
- White Duck
- Level 3 dot.orger
- Posts: 3042
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:24 pm
- Location: Bournemouth
Re: Trees prediction
Warburton needs to field a team built from the back to at least keep their score down to one as that would be a step in the right direction: we will lose most games if we continue letting in at least two goals.
Drop Lumley: play Kelly if fit or Barnes.
Hopefully Barbet is fit: play a back four of Wallace @ LB, two of Barbet/Hall/Leistner @ CB, Rangel @ RB.
Amos & Scowen @ DM
Manning @ LM, Eze @ CM, BOS @ RM
Hugill @ CF
1-1
Drop Lumley: play Kelly if fit or Barnes.
Hopefully Barbet is fit: play a back four of Wallace @ LB, two of Barbet/Hall/Leistner @ CB, Rangel @ RB.
Amos & Scowen @ DM
Manning @ LM, Eze @ CM, BOS @ RM
Hugill @ CF
1-1
Lex Talionis........
- Esox Lucius
- dot.org vip
- Posts: 21147
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
- Location: Banbury, Oxon.
- 222gers
- Level 5 dot.orger
- Posts: 5055
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:55 pm
- Location: LONDON
Re: Trees prediction
Surely........surely, we will eventually come up against a team whose strikers are off form and in a cow's arse and banjo situation. Therefore, 2-0 to the Rangers.
- W12Allstars
- Level 4 dot.orger
- Posts: 3842
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:22 pm
- Location: Kingsridge, South Devon
Re: Trees prediction
Interesting how differently we view things. I think Hugill is vastly overrated. Needs too many chances to score and I just can't warm to him.White Duck wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:42 pmWarburton needs to field a team built from the back to at least keep their score down to one as that would be a step in the right direction: we will lose most games if we continue letting in at least two goals.
Drop Lumley: play Kelly if fit or Barnes.
Hopefully Barbet is fit: play a back four of Wallace @ LB, two of Barbet/Hall/Leistner @ CB, Rangel @ RB.
Amos & Scowen @ DM
Manning @ LM, Eze @ CM, BOS @ RM
Hugill @ CF
1-1
Amos I'd love to see do well, but so far has looked lightweight and not up to the level required.
I'd far rather start Wells up front any day.
Far better is it to dare mighty things, than to dwell in the twighlight that knows neither victory nor defeat - T Roosevelt
- White Duck
- Level 3 dot.orger
- Posts: 3042
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:24 pm
- Location: Bournemouth
Re: Trees prediction
Just basing it on Friday's game when I thought Amos and Hugill were amongst our best players. I would play Hugill and Wells ideally but that makes us too offensive and increases the chances of another two goals going in at the wrong end.W12Allstars wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:22 pmInteresting how differently we view things. I think Hugill is vastly overrated. Needs too many chances to score and I just can't warm to him.White Duck wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:42 pmWarburton needs to field a team built from the back to at least keep their score down to one as that would be a step in the right direction: we will lose most games if we continue letting in at least two goals.
Drop Lumley: play Kelly if fit or Barnes.
Hopefully Barbet is fit: play a back four of Wallace @ LB, two of Barbet/Hall/Leistner @ CB, Rangel @ RB.
Amos & Scowen @ DM
Manning @ LM, Eze @ CM, BOS @ RM
Hugill @ CF
1-1
Amos I'd love to see do well, but so far has looked lightweight and not up to the level required.
I'd far rather start Wells up front any day.
Lex Talionis........
- dm
- dot.org player kit 2007
- Posts: 13332
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:21 pm
- Location: Just over the border...
Re: Trees prediction
Whether we play one or two upfront will be determined by whether it's three or four at the back. In general, I think we play better with four. In a 4231 formation I would like to see if Wells could play in the three behind Hugill so we still get both of them in the starting 11.
No clean sheet tonight but we'll manage a Desmond.
No clean sheet tonight but we'll manage a Desmond.
- UxbridgeR
- dot.org legend
- Posts: 10078
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm
Re: Trees prediction

I hope MW sticks with his attacking approach and I think he will. Clean sheets are so 1980s.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?
- Esox Lucius
- dot.org vip
- Posts: 21147
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
- Location: Banbury, Oxon.
Re: Trees prediction
Yeah, who pays good money to see defenders play well?

It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.
- Montag
- Level 4 dot.orger
- Posts: 4624
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:26 pm
Re: Trees prediction
We are due a win. 2-1. We need a win to stay in touch.
"Go, muster men: My council is my shield ; We must be brief, when traitors brave the field."
Richard III, Act IV, W. Shakespeare
Richard III, Act IV, W. Shakespeare
-
- Level 2 dot.orger
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:50 pm
Re: Trees prediction
I agree we are due a win. I think we will get one but not a clean sheet.
- Wegerle
- Level 4 dot.orger
- Posts: 4683
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:20 am
- Location: Holland
- Southgate Hoop
- Level 3 dot.orger
- Posts: 2345
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:04 pm
Re: Trees prediction
We look awful. Disjointed, no confidence, no talent. Can’t see anything but ya shipping a couple more tonight.
This is alarming form now I must say.
This is alarming form now I must say.
-
- Level 2 dot.orger
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:18 am
- Location: langtoft,Peterborough
Re: Trees prediction
Ben Watson is destroying our midfield..... 
