Search results

IF! Who have you got, bet it's a game you won't win... You've also mistaken the definition of deluded, which is a belief of something that isn't true, but I'm stating a fact, so it can't be delusional. If you're going to call me 'deluded' at least get the context right! :facepalm:

It's not about that is it though, we would've played differently with the change of formation, we'd have a link to the striker from midfield, we'd be more dominant in possession and possibly would've created better quality chances. Your mistaking quantity for quality, today, quality won.

Murphy - 6 Christie - 5 Wood - 5 Edj - 5 Adams - 6 (just) Baker - 6 (just) but should've been subbed, clearly not over his injury Jennings - 5 Moussa - 4 how many times have I said he can't play CM in a 4-4-2!? Sheff - 5 Elliott - 6 Clarke - 5 one of those strikers who is effective...

Whilst I don't think it was the right vocabulary to use, I agree with his sentiment, you do overrate McSheffrey. His crosses weren't great at all, however, I won't single him out, Adams had a way-off game crossing wise, Christie did ok, some good, some bad, frustratingly hit and miss, Baker...

Some very generous ratings here! We did lose 3-0 at home!

Don't spill your milk, you won, fair play, and although none of us can see it really, if we end up winning this tie, you will look like a right twat, we will not live it down. If I were you, I'd wait until the smoke clears until you start your talking. We're higher than you in the league...

I never said they were better chances, I just said they were good chances, which they were, and chances I'd expect us to score had we had them chances. They had 3 clear cut chances, and scored 3, we had 5-6, scored 0. On that alone, Crewe deserved to win, that being very 'bare boned' I know...

Quite recent, we may have just changed it for 1 game and to be brutally honest, there isn't much difference between the 2, wingers are more advanced and CMs deeper in a 4-2-3-1, that's pretty much it. I suppose it's down to MR what he calls it. I think the shape is 4-4-1-1, Baker and Sheff...

It wasn't a freak result, we lost because they made the most of their chances, their 3 chances they scored were all excellent chances I'd expect to score if it was us, we got exploited in defence, we couldn't pass and move as effectively, we were whipping in aimless crosses to no one, we don't...

How long ago was that, because we did have visibly 2 CMs hanging back but, Jenno and Bailey are in line with Baker and Sheff in the line.

I mean the shape. Just quick off the Internet, don't spill your milk over it.

On the money here. Although I didn't want us to, I could understand why we played 4-4-2 on Friday given the circumstances, but, today, with Bailey back, I thought it was a poor decision, I think MR was incredibly naive here. Elliott has been best utilised as an impact sub, he hasn't, in my...

No it isn't, if you wanna get technical, it's 4-5-1... We play 2 banks of 4 with a CAM behind a striker. Look at the shapes, we don't play 2 defensive midfielders as both CMs do get forward.

To tell you the truth, it was a consolation, I'm not one who'd rather us lose because we played 4-4-2, the only thing I can take from this humiliating defeat (I will get stick tomorrow at school and work) is that we played 4-4-2. In retaliation the sentence I've bolded: You're right, I...

Funny you ask this, because, our largest wins have come from playing 4-4-1-1, we scored for fun playing 4-4-1-1, and, whilst playing 4-4-2, we haven't won by more than a 1 goal margin, not 1, the fact is, it just isn't a more attacking formation. Short-term memory loss. I'm not 100% sure...

Which we scored the 2nd playing 4-4-1-1... :facepalm:

How many times have we conceded 3 playing 4-4-1-1 :thinking about: As I've pointed out, we've lost more at home playing 4-4-2 anyway, I think some are being somewhat ignorant to this fact, much to my frustration. Some have said it doesn't matter about the formation, I beg to differ, this...

He looked like he was injured from about the 60th minute, I don't know why we risked him, isn't worth it in the 1st and with hindsight, even more so.

A question is, were we giving them more chances because we had less men in midfield!? I'd say yes. As much as I like Moussa, I rate him highly as a CAM/LM, he can't play CM in a 4-4-2, he is restricted and isn't great at tackling, whereas Bailey is a solid tackler and good on the ball.

Had we have played the 4-4-1-1 with the exact outcome, the same 4-4-2 advocates would be out saying we need 2 upfront, blah, blah, blah. Fact, the only one fact that actually matters, we lost, not only lost, but lost by the biggest margin this season. As I said, the writing is on the wall!