- This topic has 19 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just watching Leicester v Forest – commentator just said Leicester have been playing 4-3-3 since Sven days but Nigel Pearson has changed it tonight to 4-4-2 and it looks like the way forward.
Curently 4-0 up – Just a thought !!
You should be watching QPR v M K Dons seeing as we play QPR on Sat !! It is quite funny because M K Dons have a similar mindset to us with the possession thing and the passing their way out of their own half. The thing is they seem to be doing it better than we do because they are mixing it with big punts forward !!
But it didn’t get um anywhere apart from no goals and out of FA cup. ;)
From Matlock to ManU
What a journey!But it didn’t get um anywhere apart from no goals and out of FA cup. ;)We are fucked for sat then !! ;)
Just watching Leicester v Forest – commentator just said Leicester have been playing 4-3-3 since Sven days but Nigel Pearson has changed it tonight to 4-4-2 and it looks like the way forward.Curently 4-0 up – Just a thought !!
Please don’t rake the old 4-4-2 debate up!
Just watching Leicester v Forest – commentator just said Leicester have been playing 4-3-3 since Sven days but Nigel Pearson has changed it tonight to 4-4-2 and it looks like the way forward.
Curently 4-0 up – Just a thought !!
Please don’t rake the old 4-4-2 debate up![/quote]
But Standish it may just work ;)
Just watching Leicester v Forest – commentator just said Leicester have been playing 4-3-3 since Sven days but Nigel Pearson has changed it tonight to 4-4-2 and it looks like the way forward.
Curently 4-0 up – Just a thought !!
Please don’t rake the old 4-4-2 debate up![/quote]
But Standish it may just work ;)[/quote]
I refuse to be drawn into it.…because no team playing 4-4-2 has ever been relegated from the Premiership.
jimmy the point for me is that our current formation does not work we are bottom of the league because were shite. So wether its 4-4-2 or 3-5-2 or 5-4-1 it doesn’t really matter lets try something different FFS.
I’ve said it before but no-one system/formation is inherently better than the other no matter what some people on either side of the dark/light side might argue.
The best formation to play is the one that suits the playing personnel that you have at the club. For me the 4-5-1 historically used by Bobby or the 3-4-2-1 (possibly a 5-4-1 system depending on how you look at it) used recently doesn’t make the best use of the playing personnel at the club, primarily in my opinion, because none of the strikers are suited to the lone striker role
Again only my opinion but I think that all of them (& Boselli) would look better in a traditional 2 up front
Then again I don’t have my FA coaching badges like our Bob so what the feck do I know??
I’ve said it before but no-one system/formation is inherently better than the other no matter what some people on either side of the dark/light side might argue.The best formation to play is the one that suits the playing personnel that you have at the club. For me the 4-5-1 historically used by Bobby or the 3-4-2-1 (possibly a 5-4-1 system depending on how you look at it) used recently doesn’t make the best use of the playing personnel at the club, primarily in my opinion, because none of the strikers are suited to the lone striker role
Again only my opinion but I think that all of them (& Boselli) would look better in a traditional 2 up front
Then again I don’t have my FA coaching badges like our Bob so what the feck do I know?? He has said many times Hugo cannot play the loan strikers role so what did he do Monday
I also think it would be good to have 2 upfront….but shouldn’t Crusat or Moses be supporting Rodders…thus making it 2 up front? it would be nice if Moses passed the ball rather than shooting all the time when he has better options.
I agree, Rodders isn’t a lone striker…but in those positions, he shouldn’t be a lone striker, he should be supported by Crusat or Moses when our wing backs are further up the pitch. The problem is like I have pointed out before, nobody takes responsibility of what happens next when we are near their goal.
Not sure it’s a confidence thing or what….I am not a FA Accredited Manager or Coach.
I also think it would be good to have 2 upfront….but shouldn’t Crusat or Moses be supporting Rodders…thus making it 2 up front? it would be nice if Moses passed the ball rather than shooting all the time when he has better options.I agree, Rodders isn’t a lone striker…but in those positions, he shouldn’t be a lone striker, he should be supported by Crusat or Moses when our wing backs are further up the pitch. The problem is like I have pointed out before, nobody takes responsibility of what happens next when we are near their goal.
Not sure it’s a confidence thing or what….I am not a FA Accredited Manager or Coach.
Jimmy, supporting the front man is exactly what Moses is supposed to do, otherwise you’ve got three at the back, one up front and six in midfield. I think the idea is for Moses to drop back when they’re not in possession, and then link up with Rodallega when they’re in attack.
The problem is you can’t link up with someone who won’t pass the ball to you!
anybody thats watched us over the last few games knows playing 5 at the back works for us.
I’ve said it before but no-one system/formation is inherently better than the other no matter what some people on either side of the dark/light side might argue.
The best formation to play is the one that suits the playing personnel that you have at the club. For me the 4-5-1 historically used by Bobby or the 3-4-2-1 (possibly a 5-4-1 system depending on how you look at it) used recently doesn’t make the best use of the playing personnel at the club, primarily in my opinion, because none of the strikers are suited to the lone striker role
Again only my opinion but I think that all of them (& Boselli) would look better in a traditional 2 up front
Then again I don’t have my FA coaching badges like our Bob so what the feck do I know?? He has said many times Hugo cannot play the loan strikers role so what did he do Monday :unsure:[/quote]
40 lashes for you hindley,Please someone remove the above post before any children read it……hugo and striker in the same sentance :woohoo: ;)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
