Search results

I'd just say our CBs are found out, in particular, Edj. Adams is good, Christie was decent (ish) today and is a good player (as is Clarke), focus needs to be on getting 2 CBs ASAP, our CBs are wank!

Found out what O2 and CO2 mean yet, to make it more interesting, H2O. No just stated the populations, you had facts, but no opinion of them or no point. Is your point we're supposed to be a bigger team? Well, we are. Is it, we should have higher attendances home & away? Well, we do. Am...

Interesting how you say, you question your GK, the defence is more fundamental unless you score 3 ridiculous 40 yarders which the goalie spilt into his own net, we got mugged off by their players who scored! Embarrassing. Interesting also you didn't think to put about questioning the tactics...

What's your point? You're a waste of O2 because you contribute too much CO2 with all the shit you talk (learned what that stands for at school yet?)

I also find it humerous how you called our fans shit, A) you didn't sell out your away allocation, we sold out in 2 hours B) you haven't sold out at one yet in a 10k stadium and we've helped you fill 1/4 of it. JUST SAYING. Our average attendances is more than your ground holds altogether...

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...