fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You sure? We change personnel a lot it's the system that doesn't change. Keeping a settled team has some benefits though, especially if you've got quality players.
Our form qith these 3 was short lived, due to injury granted, however I think teams would work out how to stop that just as they have worked out how to stop
Murphy-- Maddison--Cole
------Armstrong------
The problem has come in not changing the formation and personnel enough, when was the last time you were genuinely shocked by a team selection? Well thats how the opposing managers must feel, they will have their scouts at our previous 2/3 games and will set up a team to do a job accordingly
They must be rubbing their hands together when theyve seen a blueprint to stopping us in the previous games they have scouted and we havent changed our setup at all for the next match.
You sure? We change personnel a lot it's the system that doesn't change. Keeping a settled team has some benefits though, especially if you've got quality players.
Yes! Very good call. Now Martin is back could we end Cargill's loan and go for a wide right player instead?sounds like mowbray also misses kent
makes me wonder why he didnt go for pace in window though? no money i iamgine, would have needed a loan and we have too many already
maybe if cargil goes back we can still bring in a x factor pacy loan?
It's time to play Henderson upfront and some old fashioned footy. The tika taca doesn't work anymore.
We tried it second half at Barnsley, it didn't work at all.
We tried it second half at Barnsley, it didn't work at all.
I really think that could work and Armstrong would get loads of opportunities. He is bloody quick, you have to remember that and flick ons and knock downs could be like bread and butter to him.You cant judge a system on 30 mins in Barnsley, Id like to see how the big man little man combination works at the Ricoh on a nice big pitch, Hendo flicking on to Arma playing on the shoulder of the last defender.
I really think that could work and Armstrong would get loads of opportunities. He is bloody quick, you have to remember that and flick ons and knock downs could be like bread and butter to him.
I'd much prefer their mindset to be that they want to hammer every team, rather than nick a win. If in their mind they need to be lucky to win a game then it isn't the best.
It is like boxers, they have to think they are going to go into the ring and knock the other bloke out. If they are going in worrying they might get knocked out themselves it will make a difference.
Ha ha ha. You're all over the place. JHB has provided a strong argument against what you have said, please limit your next essay to a maximum of 100 words though.
The only person who is all over the place is you, and I'm guessing that's down to the insecurities you have.
Someone else had made a good counter argument and you're trying to ride on the back of it, presumably because you have none of your own.
You can talk all you want about how I should limit the characters of my posts, but you might as well not write anything at all if they're going to be as meaningless as that.
Yep we did Otis, 2 for AA and the other one was MAF wasn't it?We beat Shrewsbury 3-0.
But you're building a house of sand and fog to suggest that those three games were the default for the rest of the season (they include a pretty sketchy home win against Crewe by the way) and that the introduction of our second top scorer and (iirc) our top assist maker ruined the balance of the team.
At least you didn't breach the word count.
Yeah agree with that, Rochdale did control the game largely. We only really had 3 decent chances - Cole chance, and the 2 offsides. Armstrong did have his thunderbolt but that was a very good hit from 25 yards rather than a decent created chance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The only person who is all over the place is you, and I'm guessing that's down to the insecurities you have.
Someone else had made a good counter argument and you're trying to ride on the back of it, presumably because you have none of your own.
You can talk all you want about how I should limit the characters of my posts, but you might as well not write anything at all if they're going to be as meaningless as that.
At least you didn't breach the word count.
Here's just one word you should be able to digest:
Virgin.
Rochdale didn't have many chances either, 2 set pieces and we gifted them a penalty was all. Maddison also had a decent opportunity first half, a few balls flashed across the box where our lack of men in the box cost us. Murphy had a decent chance second half but shot straight at the keeper when he should have done better.
We didn't play well but Rochdale weren't really in control either, wouldn't say Rochdale deserved there win, whereas the previous week I thought Fleetwood deserved the 3 points. A draw would have been fair, on the balance of the game we probably just edged it
If we go all gung ho from the beginning we will be picked off on the counter, confidence isn't a tap you can turn on it has to be built back up gradually.I'd much prefer their mindset to be that they want to hammer every team, rather than nick a win. If in their mind they need to be lucky to win a game then it isn't the best.
It is like boxers, they have to think they are going to go into the ring and knock the other bloke out. If they are going in worrying they might get knocked out themselves it will make a difference.
?Well on CWR six o'clock show they played a short segment of different chances.
Three to be precise, all supplied through balls from Lameiras.
Was that just a lucky fluke.
No one in particular Otis.?
Who's that aimed at, Wingy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?