Munchkin
Well-known member
Yep you're probably right. Just like the idea of March's pace off Hemed.
Not a bad eleven whichever way he sets up.
Not a bad eleven whichever way he sets up.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Baldock
- Thread starter Triggaaar
- Start date
BensGrandad
New member
Think that we need March wide to provide the ammunition for Hemed and Murphy from 1 side and AK from the other.
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,435
Murphy didn't convince when I've seen him play there in the past but it's probably not fair to write him off on the basis of one game and in theory he seems like he should be good. Quick and a natural finisher.
But for me the natural Baldock replacement is Towell I think. Don't mess with the system. Don't play people out of their natural position. Trust the squad.
BensGrandad
New member
I would agree if CH thinks that he is ready for a start. I would sooner start a 95% fit Baldock and then change as the game goes on.
It's not Towell's natural position either. He scored a lot of goals for Dundalk but from a deep lying midfield role so whether he can slot in as a no.10 remains to be seen.
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,435
Fair enough. Am I wrong in thinking he played in more of an attacking role against Milton Keynes though? And seemed to do OK..
Marshy
Well-known member
Of all of our wide players Murphy in my opinion is the best suited and best at the no10 role that Baldock does for us.
Murphy will make the run in behind and stretch a defence more so than our other options.
Murphy will make the run in behind and stretch a defence more so than our other options.
Towell for me. Anyone but Murphy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not sure to be honest and I haven't seen enough of Towell to say what positions he could play. In Hughton we trust.
Flatters to deceive for me, some ability with the ball, especially when cutting in but generally lacks confidence in the last third. Crossing very average and shirks tackles.
Don't get me wrong, he is an okay player, but I feel we are at a better place than okay.
As for playing off Hemed, he had a nightmare at Wolves last year when he played that role, and just would not shoot, even when through - see lack of confidence.
Edit.
BTW - video's of best moments over 18 months, mean nothing for me. Just makes it more frustrating that he can play, just not consistently.
Obviously I'd quite like him to score a hatrick tomorrow
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
sir albion
New member
Must be kayal time as he needs to get match fit 
Must be kayal time as he needs to get match fit
Would be great to see him back.
Would you play 5 across the middle?
- Thread starter
- #54
Am I missing something here? Of course we'll start with Hemed. We play 442, how can we not start with Hemed?
Yes he did and can slot in when we haven't got the ball.
Also, he pressured the ball well against MK, which Hemed is not so good at.
sir albion
New member
Yeah would actually with Stephens and kayal further forward and Norwood sat back
Nixonator
Well-known member
Yes, probably wasn't very clear. Since the thread is about Baldock, I meant he will start with Hemed.
Milano
Well-known member
How can we not even have an 'up and coming striker' in the U23 squad who can be deemed worth a place on the bench?
Are we going to have a striker on the bench tomorrow night at all?
It also pretty much forces us to play at least one of Hemed or Murray on Saturday, as we won't risk Baldock, which for a team so close to realising it's ambition is strange to say the least.
Are we going to have a striker on the bench tomorrow night at all?
It also pretty much forces us to play at least one of Hemed or Murray on Saturday, as we won't risk Baldock, which for a team so close to realising it's ambition is strange to say the least.
- Thread starter
- #60
Oh I see. I hope you're right.