|
REDBUCK
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 14:03:54 » |
|
Sorry, fat fingers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gethimout
|
|
« Reply #31 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 14:05:22 » |
|
Sorry, fat fingers.
Put the custard creams down!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Benzel
 Offline
Posts: 6158
|
|
« Reply #32 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 14:10:00 » |
|
It looked a bit 451 in the first half. But at times as mentioned Ball pushed on to support Vince. Whereas in the 2nd half it was more 433 as we were on the front foot.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Is your cat making too much noise all the time?
|
|
|
|
flammableBen
|
|
« Reply #33 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 14:11:33 » |
|
Like a 4-5-1 on one side but like a 4-3-3 on the other?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Benzel
Offline
Posts: 6158
|
|
« Reply #34 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 14:12:40 » |
|
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Is your cat making too much noise all the time?
|
|
|
|
BANGKOK RED
|
|
« Reply #35 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 14:18:29 » |
|
It was 4-4 1/2-1 1/2
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
blah blah
Offline
Posts: 454
|
|
« Reply #36 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 14:32:08 » |
|
I dont see much difference between the 2. When a team like Chelsea plays with attacking full backs, they are still part of the back 4 even if they do spend lots of time playing further up the pitch than some midfielders. So you can't always categorise every team into a set formation.
And just for the hell of it, I thought it was more of a 4-3-2-1
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 16:17:54 by blah blah »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jb
Offline
Posts: 800
|
|
« Reply #37 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 14:37:33 » |
|
All this deliberation between the two formations could mean we weren't playing either. Ball and Ritchie weren't playing up front and they weren't in the midfield. They were playing as attacking midfielders- on the wings, just behind Pericard and in front of the midfield 3. I dont see much difference between the 2. When a team like Chelsea plays with attacking full backs, they are still part of the back 4 even if they do spend lots of time playing further up the pitch than some midfielders. So you can always categorise every team into a set formation.
And just for the hell of it, I thought it was more of a 4-3-2-1
 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 14:48:05 by jb »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG
TOLD YOU SO
Offline
Posts: 8521
|
|
« Reply #38 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 14:39:18 » |
|
fair enough, he's not meant to say he'd be happy to bench warm...but he's living in clown coocoo land if he thinks his performances have been good enough to keep a fully fit Austin on the bench.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arriba
Offline
Posts: 21305
|
|
« Reply #39 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 15:59:18 » |
|
madness.people still arguing about the formation that has been confirmed by one of the players as 4,3,3.
get a fucking grip.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gethimout
|
|
« Reply #40 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 16:03:43 » |
|
We should be playing four, four, fucking two!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #41 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 16:03:56 » |
|
madness.people still arguing about the formation that has been confirmed by one of the players as 4,3,3.
get a fucking grip.
Ha, ha, yep. Maybe the discrepancy stems from the difference between what they've been told to play (ie 4-3-3) and what they actually play |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
PHIL!!!!
Our Resident Emo Kid
Offline
Posts: 1953
|
|
« Reply #42 on: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 16:26:02 » |
|
Fair play Vinny - Austin's shit anyway, so it shouldn't be too hard to keep your place in the team
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
