Miles Away
Well-Known Member
I reckon The Big Lebowski is the best movie of the year.
****s sake Porkie.
I reckon The Big Lebowski is the best movie of the year.
By the way, the answer to your question is us, 2015/16.4-4-2 is dead nowadays. Teams want wingbacks and play with them. I honestly can't remember the last successful team who played with two wide wingers and full backs.
Fair enough, not quite 1998. My point is that playing two attacking wing backs is not as stupid or defensive as some are acting like, nor is it unusual.By the way, the answer to your question is us, 2015/16.
4-2-3-1? 4-1-4-1?How else would you play wingers?
I’m not saying it’s defensive. I’m saying I don’t think it suits us in games when we’re likely to dominate possession. We look more like England did against Iceland in the Euros in France, when we do it in games like this.Fair enough, not quite 1998. My point is that playing two attacking wing backs is not as stupid or defensive as some are acting like, nor is it unusual.
I don’t give a shit if I’m wrong and we win 72-0. One size doesn’t fit all and I don’t agree with the tactic on games such as today.I'm looking forward to the post match thread already!
Must be "saving him for Zorya away"No sign of Castagne again. Supposedly fit for Liverpool . . .
Supposed to be mixing it up according to whom?5-4-1 at home to Fulham is fecking idiotic.
I don't care how far forward the wing backs get. They are both inexperienced defenders, not wide attackers.
BR got a lot of credit for coming up with this formation but he is supposed to be mixing it up, not using it for every match. Fulham (like Liverpool) will be fully prepared for us playing exactly like we are going to.
I hope that Fulham are so shit it doesn't matter but I think this is a dumb line up and formation.
Surely the point is to win? If we win, particularly heavily, what's the issue?I don’t give a shit if I’m wrong and we win 72-0. One size doesn’t fit all and I don’t agree with the tactic on games such as today.
Funny how we all see things differently. I think he’s a bit of a show pony who’s easily dispossessed and doesn’t track back. Undoubtedly skilful but needs to do more dirty work.I think Under is remarkably unlucky. I want to see him start. He has thoroughly impressed me whenever I have seen him.
5 defenders against Fulham seems, well, a little like overkill. Time will tell.
One swallow etc etc.Surely the point is to win? If we win, particularly heavily, what's the issue?
Supposed to be mixing it up according to whom?
BR spoke about it before the start of this season and in the early press conferences and after the signings were announced. He said that wanted to be able to play different formations and combinations this season because not doing that last season had cost us.
I thought that made good sense and it did until he found a new formation and is doing exactly the same as he did last season (4-1-4-1) with this one (5-4-1) now.
ScoopTheir goalkeeper sounds like a bit of a tit....
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 11 | 28 |
2 | Manchester C | 11 | 23 |
3 | Chelsea | 11 | 19 |
4 | Arsenal | 11 | 19 |
5 | Nottm F | 11 | 19 |
6 | Brighton | 11 | 19 |
7 | Fulham | 11 | 18 |
8 | Newcastle | 11 | 18 |
9 | Aston Villa | 11 | 18 |
10 | Tottenham | 11 | 16 |
11 | Brentford | 11 | 16 |
12 | Bournemouth | 11 | 15 |
13 | Manchester U | 11 | 15 |
14 | West Ham | 11 | 12 |
15 | Leicester | 11 | 10 |
16 | Everton | 11 | 10 |
17 | Ipswich | 11 | 8 |
18 | Palace | 11 | 7 |
19 | Wolves | 11 | 6 |
20 | Southampton | 11 | 4 |