451 v 442

balltofeet · **Posted:** Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:02 am

In all honesty we were given a chasing on Saturday by a side who did everything simple - little 10 yard passes to feet, bit of width for the second goal and some no nonsense defending.

Ok I would have preferred 4,5,1 formation, but Jones injury forced Turner into giving Boydy a start and boy was he poor.

If Jones is not fit I would start with young Rowell and for 65 mins tell Behan, who was star man on saturday, and McSweeney to run hard and replace them with Boyd, Brown and Larkin maybe for Monky. Staurday demonstrated the quality in this league and to compete we need 3 not 2 in the middle of the park. This will allow McSweeney to stay wide because we lacked width on teh right hand side especially first half.

tREE_wiTH_hAMStER · **Joined:** Sat May 19, 2007 11:00 am **Posts:** 20758

I think when Sweens plays that 4-5-1 is better, in my opinion in a 4-4-2 he is very little use. We get overran far too easily.

Compo · **Posted:** Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:59 pm

just a thought I wasnt at the match on saturday so cant comment on that but I was at mk dons and though we looked solid as a 4-5-1, but that doesnt help with the goals.

anyway my point is why dont we play 4-5-1 with Brown/boyd when fit behind Behan.

behan
boyd/brown

freddy
sweeney
jones
mcsweeny

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:59 pm

Tree_With_Hamster wrote:

I think when Sweens plays that 4-5-1 is better, in my opinion in a 4-4-2 he is very little use. We get overran far too easily.

and that ladies and gentlemen is the correct answer!!

Our current team seems to be suited to some sort of 4-5-1 formation. Maybe in the mourinho style with brown and monkey providing support to the main striker behan. Sweeney can be frank lampard. All we need is a makalele!!!

Mr Ripper · **Posted:** Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:28 pm

misterb2001 wrote:

Tree_With_Hamster wrote:

I think when Sweens plays that 4-5-1 is better, in my opinion in a 4-4-2 he is very little use. We get overran far too easily.

and that ladies and gentlemen is the correct answer!!

Our current team seems to be suited to some sort of 4-5-1 formation. Maybe in the mourinho style with brown and monkey providing support to the main striker behan. Sweeney can be frank lampard. All we need is a makalele!!!

Are you pretending to be playing Chumpionship Manager again?

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:32 pm

Mr Ripper wrote:

misterb2001 wrote:

Tree_With_Hamster wrote:

I think when Sweens plays that 4-5-1 is better, in my opinion in a 4-4-2 he is very little use. We get overran far too easily.

and that ladies and gentlemen is the correct answer!!

Our current team seems to be suited to some sort of 4-5-1 formation. Maybe in the mourinho style with brown and monkey providing support to the main striker behan. Sweeney can be frank lampard. All we need is a makalele!!!

Are you pretending to be playing Chumpionship Manager again?

how ease you, you cheeky bounder..... Football manager actually!

TalbotAvenger · **Posted:** Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:39 pm

MadJohn wrote:

Question: what did we call a holding midfielder in a 4-5-1 formation before SkySports, MOTD & Associated Dullards Inc decided that it was to be known as "The Makelele Role"?

Dean Emerson?

Fensy · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:15 pm **Posts:** 6476

misterb2001 wrote:

Mr Ripper wrote:

misterb2001 wrote:

Our current team seems to be suited to some sort of 4-5-1 formation. Maybe in the mourinho style with brown and monkey providing support to the main striker behan. Sweeney can be frank lampard. All we need is a makalele!!!

Are you pretending to be playing Chumpionship Manager again?

how ease you, you cheeky bounder..... Football manager actually!

Yeah Ripper how EASE you

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:05 pm

predictive text on my bloody phone!

451 v 442

Gadgies online