- This topic has 22 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
How the hell do you expect to win a game with no fecking strikers
This guy is starting to worry me and he has only been here 5 minutes!! Head scratching to the max here ! Got my 4-1 on us to go down the other week though, to soften the blow!
Both Chelsea and City played 4-4-2 formations today! Just saying! Arsenal are currently playing it as well as Newcastle! No fucker plays 4-4-2 anymore! They have strikers in their respective lineups though!
Just checked and 8 out of 14 Prem sides that played today started with 4-4-2 !
Nobody bothers with it anymore though do they! 6 out of the top 7 ( The other side didn’t play ) all played 4-4-2 but nobody bothers with it anymore!Just checked and 8 out of 14 Prem sides that played today started with 4-4-2 !
Nobody bothers with it anymore though do they! 6 out of the top 7 ( The other side didn’t play ) all played 4-4-2 but nobody bothers with it anymore!Just because they play with 2 ‘recognised’ strikers doesn’t make it 442. It’s not table football with three rigid banks of players. Far too simplistic to say they play 442. It depends whether they have the ball or don’t have the ball how they position themselves.
Out of interest, how do you know that 6 prem teams played 442 today? Are you going off the Sky Sports captions on their website or something because you clearly haven’t watched all those teams play today>.
Saved me writing exactly the same.
Teams don’t now play 4-4-2 or whatever rigidly throughout the game, despite what press lineups show.
There is far more fluidity, with players dropping in and out of roles. If there was such rigidity then managers could just sit quietly on the bench, instead of hopping round doing all sorts of finger contortions.
Just checked and 8 out of 14 Prem sides that played today started with 4-4-2 !
Nobody bothers with it anymore though do they! 6 out of the top 7 ( The other side didn’t play ) all played 4-4-2 but nobody bothers with it anymore!Just because they play with 2 ‘recognised’ strikers doesn’t make it 442. It’s not table football with three rigid banks of players. Far too simplistic to say they play 442. It depends whether they have the ball or don’t have the ball how they position themselves.
Out of interest, how do you know that 6 prem teams played 442 today? Are you going off the Sky Sports captions on their website or something because you clearly haven’t watched all those teams play today>.[/quote]
Sporting Life ‘Match Centre’. I am not getting into the whole ambiguity of formations but that is what the site said and so why should I think otherwise? Sunderland played with 2 strikers but their formation was down as 4-1-4-1 as opposed to West Ham’s rigid 4-4-2 with 2 strikers, the formation that no fucker bothers with anymore! ;)
We played 4-4-2 today but with no strikers which is baffling !”False 9″Played with a false number 9 all season – He’s called Fortune ;)
Managers making football too complicated again. Put your best players out in there best positions and you never know. To play that none goalscoring left winger with no final product as the centre forward beggars belief.
But what do I know?
First thing Malky has spotted is that we probably have the worst group of strikers in this league so he’s doing his best polishing the turd.He does have a mammoth task but until he can do business then he will keep shuffling things around.I just hope we can pick up some points over the christmas slog cos I fear if we don’t then the window could come too late.
”False 9″
Banging your head against the wall garswood mon :)[/quote]
Isn’t it just? None so blind, and all that… I’m giving up now. Had my last sensible “formation” discussion on this forum, now. I’ll just slip back to insulting everybody. They don’t like that, but at least they understand it. ;)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
