That’s true and I would have kept long but his injury problems keep popping back to haunt him who would you put mags
He was clearly head and shoulders above most players at this level in terms of technical ability, he just never seemed to get given a run of games in a consistent role that suited him best. Because he was good enough to play several roles in a competent manner he suffered, and so did we. He was a good example of the false economies that football can often be riddled with in recent years. An obsession with ‘adaptable players’ who can play three different roles and give you six or maybe seven out of ten on a good day, rather than letting them play in their best position and smashing out eights and nines.
Maurice Kyle a shocking omission Sir
It’s saying if you could have kept hold of any (permanent) players we’ve had over the past few years, what would be the best possible team Oxford could field today. I don’t think anyone would argue that Henry would, today, get in a midfield containing Lundstram, Ledson, Baptiste, Brannigan or Rothwell.
Henry's as good as most of those but a different sort of player. Have to go on the wing, or play 4-5-1.
4-3-3 is essentially a 4-5-1 anyway with wingers pushed up. Who would you take out for Henry?
Hmm, well you're going to want some goals from your midfield and lots of assists, so he should get in. Maybe Ledson would drop out as we have Cam and Lundstram, or if it's based on their time with us Henry would edge it over Rothwell.
If it's not based on their time with us it gets less fun, I think, and you'd include people like Matt le Tissier and Mark Wright who we never saw playing for us.
When did we own Matt Le Tissier? Also would he be very good today? He’s a bit old.
Er, hello, Ricardinho,
Doesn’t count for three reasons then.
