santini
 Offline
Posts: 890
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 20:23:32 » |
|
The 4 that finished the game Friday looked handy enough.
Fingers crossed Adie and/or Jamie will make it though... Williams more likely to make it. Wise can then keep his favoured back 4. Smith Williams Nicholas CCP i wouldn't call that his favoured back 4, but that's defence will keep wrexham at bay without doubt. Favoured Back FOUR as opposed to less favoured back THREE. ie the number and pattern of play rather than the actual personnel. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 4173
|
|
« Reply #46 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 20:42:09 » |
|
Come again?! :|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 33886
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #47 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 20:52:23 » |
|
Dennis Wise perfers a back 4 as opposed to a back 3
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
santini
Offline
Posts: 890
|
|
« Reply #48 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 20:54:44 » |
|
Come again?! :| Wise likes to play 442 rather than 352 so he favours a back 4 over a back 3!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Barry Scott
Offline
Posts: 9134
|
|
« Reply #49 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 21:04:49 » |
|
Can I throw one more in here?
If (and a big if) we lose on Saturday - can we really say it was the defence?
Wrexham away would be a hard game even with the original back line and I think most people would be happy with a draw from the fully fit side. Valid comments. Also, if they do lose the team can say to themselves that it was due to the defense. I feel this would help get over the loss should that happen. Hopefully, Williams and Ifil will still be full of confidence and unaffected by the loss. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #50 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 21:08:37 » |
|
The rather intriguing scenario develops of Ince being brought in and getting the chance to trample all over Darren Ferguson.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
red macca
|
|
« Reply #51 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 21:17:20 » |
|
Nicho hasnt fucked up for a while though.... i agree dv he hasnt and i hope that continues.just hope he can do the job saturday |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sonic youth
|
|
« Reply #52 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 21:35:27 » |
|
Favoured Back FOUR as opposed to less favoured back THREE. ie the number and pattern of play rather than the actual personnel. that could easily have been interpreted either way, but fair enough. i don't see anyone suggesting us playing a 3-5-2 formation anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
reeves4england
Offline
Posts: 16121
We'll never die!
|
|
« Reply #53 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 21:37:52 » |
|
Favoured Back FOUR as opposed to less favoured back THREE. ie the number and pattern of play rather than the actual personnel. that could easily have been interpreted either way, but fair enough. i don't see anyone suggesting us playing a 3-5-2 formation anyway. The tought of three at tthe back had crossed my mind, but its probably more sensible to stick to what's worked thus far |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Amir
|
|
« Reply #54 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 21:57:35 » |
|
Favoured Back FOUR as opposed to less favoured back THREE. ie the number and pattern of play rather than the actual personnel. that could easily have been interpreted either way, but fair enough. i don't see anyone suggesting us playing a 3-5-2 formation anyway. It's also a bit nonsensical that a returning centre back would make us less likely to play a back three. I really hope Williams makes it but if he doesn't I think we can still be strong. I also like Reg's proposition... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #55 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 21:59:54 » |
|
I think an Ince debut is on the cards. See what the old legs can do.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #56 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 22:01:24 » |
|
Favoured Back FOUR as opposed to less favoured back THREE. ie the number and pattern of play rather than the actual personnel. that could easily have been interpreted either way, but fair enough. i don't see anyone suggesting us playing a 3-5-2 formation anyway. It's also a bit nonsensical that a returning centre back would make us less likely to play a back three. I really hope Williams makes it but if he doesn't I think we can still be strong. I also like Reg's proposition... *Disclaimer* I've made no proposition to Amir. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #57 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 22:04:26 » |
|
has he taken it the wrong way then Reg?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #58 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 22:07:56 » |
|
has he taken it the wrong way then Reg? Enough of thread degeneration....I didn't see Ince playing at the back, in the way that Stef did a couple of times in an emergency...but rather the Ricky to RB, Weston wide and Ince /Evans midfield axis.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #59 on: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 22:13:24 » |
|
sorry. We need that Colonel off Monty Python who comes in and says "Stop that. It's getting silly".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
