Search results

Two observations from this 1) I still think it's a (flexible) 4-2-3-1 not a flat 4-3-3. Rudoni was higher up than Simms on average! 2) Look at the difference in the sides - we only had our two CDs with an average position in our half, and Oxford were so narrow and deep

Never thought of that - soz mate!

Yeah nobody is worried about 'praise and disappointment'. But we had people on here a year ago giving the new players really vile abuse, of the kind that was borderline hate crime. Not saying anyone is going that far now, but there is a sense that people pile in on certain players.

First time I've watched Tats live since that horrible fall from height. The few days after the injury were such an anxious time, so it's a proper delight to see him back looking in good nick, with a spring in his step and doing what he does best. Selling defenders three dummies in as many...

Nope, but looked like it had been through many similar events in its lifetime. Probably gets launched every time we score.

You've recorded two episodes of New Faces?

A mobile phone landed next to me after the winning goal. Guy came down and reclaimed it from about 15 rows higher up 😆

Just needed a tad less pace on the cross

Yeah, said it last season - Tats's little balls are delightful

Glad you've retained your youthful looks Edgy!

Was half expecting them to break out '2-4-6-8, who do we appreciate? Oxford!'

Did you have a fit of the giggles Pete?

Made some noise but it was either that dreary 'yellows yellows', or stuff from the 1974 Southern League songbook.

And is far more suited to providing that variation and flexibility from the AM position (if I can call it that) than O'Hare would have been. Not necessarily saying he's a better player, but Rudoni has more strings to his bow.

Glad I'm not going completely insane ;) As a matter of interest, where do you find these position maps? I can see it's WhoScored.com, but which part of the site do you have to go to?

These are the average positions for the Stoke match (copied from a post by Stupot the other day) Looks far more like 4-2-3-1 than 4-3-3 to me...

There seems to be an acceptance among a lot of people that we have somehow switched to 4-3-3, with a 'flat' midfield. Admittedly I haven't attended live yet, just watched on screens where it's harder to see overall patterns. But I'm still seeing 4-2-3-1, maybe a bit more flexible than last year...

Are you sure Sky Blues Talk is the forum for you?

Or three days at the pace of a substituted player when their team is in the lead

They've all been tapped up