|
Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: Ralphy on Thursday, December 16, 2004, 04:16:26 The bloke hasn't got a clue!
His he bumming David Duke?? I think he must be cos Andy Nicholas never gets a look in. Tactically he hasn't a fucking clue. Why not play 442 last night? Garrard at right back and Nicholas at left back with Heywood and Sean O in the middle. Howard and Igoe could then play out wide with Turbo and fairy Hewlett in the midfield. King hasn't a clue. Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: Ben Wah Balls on Thursday, December 16, 2004, 04:27:07 Quote from: "ralphy" His he bumming David Duke?? I think he must be cos Andy Nicholas never gets a look in. He did drop Duke and played Nicholas on saturday. People complained anyway. http://thetownend.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142 Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR on Thursday, December 16, 2004, 09:15:17 Duke in fairness was one of the few players not to play like a complete prick last night.
Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: janaage on Thursday, December 16, 2004, 09:37:27 Why do people automatically single out Duke all the time. Yeah he didn't play brilliant but no one did. Nicho had his chance on Saturday and played like a cock. Don't get me wrong I'd much rather have last seasons Andy Nicholas playing instead of Dukey but at the moment Nicho's not himself. And Duke isn't playing that badly.
Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 16, 2004, 09:58:30 Have to say the formation surprised me though. 4-3-3 with Igoe upfront?How does that work, Igoe was marked out the game. It would be alright if Igoe was Zidane and could create for 90 minutes, but he's not, and never will be.
Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: Ralphy on Thursday, December 16, 2004, 13:18:01 The formation was 3 4 3 actually, back three of Sean O, Heywood and Reeves with Duke and Garrard on right and left midfield and Hewlett and Howard in the middle.
Igoe joined Robbo and SSP up front. Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: sonicyouth on Thursday, December 16, 2004, 14:35:23 The formation's got fuck all to do with it though, we could have played any formation and we'd have been cunted severely.
Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: Titch on Thursday, December 16, 2004, 14:48:34 Quote from: "sonicyouth" The formation's got fuck all to do with it though, we could have played any formation and we'd have been cunted severely. Disagree with that.....part of the problem was that we were overrun in midfield (again!!) and the defence as a result of having the extra forward. An extra body in the midfield would undoubtely have helped! Saying that, we probably would have been shit anyway!!!! Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: Piemonte on Thursday, December 16, 2004, 14:57:29 Quote from: "Titch" Quote from: "sonicyouth" The formation's got fuck all to do with it though, we could have played any formation and we'd have been cunted severely. Disagree with that.....part of the problem was that we were overrun in midfield (again!!) and the defence as a result of having the extra forward. An extra body in the midfield would undoubtely have helped! Saying that, we probably would have been shit anyway!!!! I'd agree with that. the formation didnt help at all, (made me think of the Sabin/Invincible days) but we may well have lost anyway Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: sonicyouth on Thursday, December 16, 2004, 14:58:53 Fair point admittedly, but regardless of the formation we've played in the past few months our midfield has been totally overrun anyway. I can't see it being any different if we played 3-6-1.
Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: McLovin on Thursday, December 16, 2004, 15:35:47 4 - 4 - 2
Title: KING HAS TO GO Post by: Simon Pieman on Friday, December 17, 2004, 02:31:28 Quote from: "sonicyouth" Fair point admittedly, but regardless of the formation we've played in the past few months our midfield has been totally overrun anyway. I can't see it being any different if we played 3-6-1. ooh 3-6-1? I wonder.... :idea: :roll: |