Bolton v Baggies - Match thread

[Wandering Willy]

We can score with a 4-5-1.

[boltonboris]

We can (and will) concede with one. We've won 3 games this season. Each time we've played 4-4-2

I'd stick with it...

[Wandering Willy]

You may be right BB. I suspect playing Muamba and NRC together is more important than the 4-5-1/4-4-2 debate, and whether we start KD or not for that matter.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

don,t think we've turned the corner by any means
Pratley in for Davies (K) only change for me
got to play with same high tempo- won't - get beat
3-1

Oh aye, I'd definitely change a team that's just won 5-0.

Not necessarily a bad thing to do. We know that Stoke don't have/use a midfield so the set up is different to that vs West Brom. I'd not be surprised or disappointed to see us start 4-5-1 away from home with a view to a change as the game progressed. It's important not not to go a goal behind early on.

This. Horses for Courses and that.... and if you take the view that maybe, just maybe, the Stoke game was a bit of a freak
and we have lost more than we've won with a 4-4-2
and Davies has been generally shite
then making the change seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[boltonboris]

For me, in the last outing the players deserved their place for this week too. Rocking the boat may alienate and piss off a few people.

I can most definitely see the argument for a 4-5-1, but on this occasion I think the same line up and shape should be on the menu.

[The Axman]

For me, in the last outing the players deserved their place for this week too. Rocking the boat may alienate and piss off a few people.

I can most definitely see the argument for a 4-5-1, but on this occasion I think the same line up and shape should be on the menu.

Agree 100%.

[Eloy]

I'm having a huge fry up, a few drinks on the train, watching the Superwhites win 7-0, a few more drinks on the train home, out for a curry, slip the missus a crippler and then pass out. I'm not entertaining any other outcome than that.

This is most reasonable.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I see the point about consistency and players earning the right to remain in situ. I also see that we've been crucified on very many occasions playing 4-4-2 away. Either way, Coyle will be damned if we lose: either he's a tinkerer or he's overly loyal. And you can bet the loudest voices will be the ones saying they disagreed with him before the fact, even if they don't do so here. Might add a poll....

For me, as pointed out above, the most important point is that NRC and Muamba are again paired in the centre - and that this pairing isn't disrupted with absurd early substitutions. The difference between a 4-4-2 and a 4-2-3-1 can be fairly minimal, especially if Klas is dropping deep to link play. I still worry slightly that we could do with an extra body in the middle but it would be difficult to justify dropping Klas and difficult to imagine Coyle dropping the captain. Maybe, just maybe, if we need to hold a slender lead, the manager might make an entirely correct substitution by sacrificing a striker for an extra midfielder... at which point the ghost of his predecessor looms large.

The physical aspect of Pratley's game is also something Bolton may need to call upon. The Swansea City blogger Abigail Davies feels that the Swans will miss Pratley as the season wears on, despite fine showings so far from the midfielders Leon Britton and Allen.

"Time and time again during his time with Swansea, Pratley's defensive capabilities proved just as prolific as his offensive displays," says Davies. "He offered a great physical presence when required, as well as scoring many important goals. His absence has been more noticeable away from home, as we have no similar, physical midfielder to fill the void he left. Pratley's great vision and off the ball movement saw him constantly trouble defenders as well as create openings for other players – two more reasons why he received mass accolades and was so well respected whilst at Swansea."

[Eloy]

We can score with a 4-5-1.

With whom solely up front??

[Wandering Willy]

See Villa away.

[Jokers in White]

It was a excellent team performance against stoke so why change it, no one deserves to be dropped so lets keep the same team and if its not going well we can always make changes. Don't understand why we should change the formation to 4-5-1 sat its only west brom if we were playing against liverpool, arsenal, man utd, chelsea, spurs then yeah but 4-4-2 is a must sat.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

don,t think we've turned the corner by any means
Pratley in for Davies (K) only change for me
got to play with same high tempo- won't - get beat
3-1

Holy shit?! Why would you take out a goalscorer from our previous game, in which we won heavily.. Not only replace him, but replace him with an alehouse clogger who manages to 'get through' a game having only touched the ball 3 times in the centre of the midfield!!

Jeez..

many, many would argue ( not those of us who revere Davies of course) that that would at worst be replacing like for like. at best you get someone who can, you know, run about a bit.
but of course Pratley is flavour of the month for our midfield scapegoat - adequately replacing Eagles,and before him Muamba.
still think Pratley will prove his worth myself

[Eloy]

It was a excellent team performance against stoke so why change it, no one deserves to be dropped so lets keep the same team and if its not going well we can always make changes. Don't understand why we should change the formation to 4-5-1 sat its only west brom if we were playing against liverpool, arsenal, man utd, chelsea, spurs then yeah but 4-4-2 is a must sat.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Why change anything after such a superb performance. And Stoke is a better team than the Baggies...

[thebish]

It was a excellent team performance against stoke so why change it, no one deserves to be dropped so lets keep the same team and if its not going well we can always make changes. Don't understand why we should change the formation to 4-5-1 sat its only west brom if we were playing against liverpool, arsenal, man utd, chelsea, spurs then yeah but 4-4-2 is a must sat.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Why change anything after such a superb performance. And Stoke is a better team than the Baggies...

are!

[Eloy]

Wow, ever since I started posting here... I feel like such an expert!

I feel... bigger.

[Eloy]

are!

Wait... "Stoke" is singular... Hence, "is" is correct.

It's like saying "This team IS better than that team." You wouldn't say "This team ARE better..."


Eloy's right, no?

[thebish]

are!

Wait... "Stoke" is singular... Hence, "is" is correct.

It's like saying "This team IS better than that team." You wouldn't say "This team ARE better..."


Eloy's right, no?

no!

"is" would be American usage
"are" would be the British usage

[Eloy]

are!

Wait... "Stoke" is singular... Hence, "is" is correct.

It's like saying "This team IS better than that team." You wouldn't say "This team ARE better..."


Eloy's right, no?

no!

Wait... so you're saying this is correct: "This team ARE a better team?"

????

[thebish]

Stoke ARE a better team is how Brits would say it (unless they are wrong!)

Spain are the World Cup holders.... (not "is")

[Eloy]

Stoke ARE a better team is how Brits would say it (unless they are wrong!)

Spain are the World Cup holders.... (not "is")

That is SO grammatically incorrect.