Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I can actually see where Malky is coming from with this. McLean gives his all every game, has power, pace and does generally give 100% … he just cant cross a ball. If he were to play in the middle up front, he can certainly cause some hassle to the centre backs, would chase the keeper down and hopefully do what our other strikers (when played) cant at the moment and score a goal. Im certainly not against trying this out, playing him as a centre forward – lets face it what have we to lose ?
The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, he clearly doesn’t fancy Delort to play there. Therefore, I agree with you, it’s as good an option as any. He may as well run blindly into the penalty area before losing the ball than run blindly down the line and in to touch.
Plus, he will run around all day, which is all that lots of our fans want to see.[/quote]
I like your use of the word ‘Blindly’ as I have nicknamed him ‘The Blind Alley Kid’Ha ha ha ! Every time he picks the ball up I comment ” There he goes, off down a blind alley” To me he comes across as being like the kid who can’t get into the school team on a regular basis, but when he does get a run out he comes across as trying too hard![/quote]
I was being a lttle tongue-in-cheek. At this moment in time, I’d take MacLean ahead of McManaman and Maloney, any day of he week.[/quote]
Well you should have taken into consideration the ambiguity of social media! Just goes to show how shit we really are if he is our best option!
I can actually see where Malky is coming from with this. McLean gives his all every game, has power, pace and does generally give 100% … he just cant cross a ball. If he were to play in the middle up front, he can certainly cause some hassle to the centre backs, would chase the keeper down and hopefully do what our other strikers (when played) cant at the moment and score a goal. Im certainly not against trying this out, playing him as a centre forward – lets face it what have we to lose ?
The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, he clearly doesn’t fancy Delort to play there. Therefore, I agree with you, it’s as good an option as any. He may as well run blindly into the penalty area before losing the ball than run blindly down the line and in to touch.
Plus, he will run around all day, which is all that lots of our fans want to see.[/quote]
I like your use of the word ‘Blindly’ as I have nicknamed him ‘The Blind Alley Kid’Ha ha ha ! Every time he picks the ball up I comment ” There he goes, off down a blind alley” To me he comes across as being like the kid who can’t get into the school team on a regular basis, but when he does get a run out he comes across as trying too hard!
If we get beat we are in the proverbial big time, I say this because of who we are playing! Home against the likes Rotherham in their current form should be 3 pts minimum. They haven’t won since 17th October, even Reading beat them!
Blackpool have started to get points thats what.
We played 442 at home the other week, drew 0-0, didn’t have a shot on target.
I can make ridculous generalisations like you all day, if you want?[/quote]
At least we didn’t get beat! :)
I’ve no idea if anyone used it today as I didn’t watch every game in the League, wouldn’t trust reporters to get the date correct, and certainly (even if I did trust them) have no intention of wasting my time looking through every lineup for every game trying to identify every player in every team to see if he is a striker.All I am saying is that playing without a named striker is not totally unknown in modern football. Whether it was done elsewhere today I haven’t got the foggiest, and to be honest, if it had worked would have been innovative and bold.
If it had worked, it would have been lucky! Roberts and Ellington seem a very distant memory right now! Have a good night, I am off to watch a punk band, laters! :)
There is no fundamental problem with starting without a known striker – it’s called a “false 9” formation where the midfielders take it in turns through the game to act as striker, which provides the advantage of the defenders not knowing who to mark at any given play.Our problem is that we don’t appear to have the quality of midfielders to take on that role.
I can’t think of many sides who adopt this ‘false 9’ tactic! Can you name any sides that used it today? If a side has injury problems to the point where they would be forced into it then I can understand that but otherwise no!
You can pick from all 4 divisions if you like, I will check back later to see how popular this enigmatic formation is! ;)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 !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!Absolutely right, clueless.
He’s had 4 games now, and it’s still shite. Let’s get shut now, cut our losses and get Horc in asap
You and Horc would be better ! ;)[/quote]
Don’t be stupid…
Horc would just get in the way. Mind you, he could put the cones out for me ;)[/quote]
Can I take the football card round?
Absolutely right, clueless.He’s had 4 games now, and it’s still shite. Let’s get shut now, cut our losses and get Horc in asap
You and Horc would be better ! ;)
When you play a 4-4-2 formation you should consider strikers in the starting lineup !! :silly:
Perhaps he thinks they’re not worth putting in and he’s have more chance of goals with the midfielders he played there. Don’t know, just saying.[/quote]
Let’s hope he learns from this mistake then because most managers prefer to start games with at least one striker on the pitch ! The very fact that this has happened twice now, albeit momentarily last week, is a bit of a concern to me!
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!
