mindjuicer Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 We set out to play a 4-4-2 on saturday that I can assure you OK, what's your evidence? I know for a fact you're wrong but let's at least go through the evidence. I point you at Sno lining up on the half-way line for kick off, Elliott lining up deep and Haynes' 2 runs down the right wing to the byline within the first 10 mins... Next time you load FM up try playing your ball winning central midfielder as a RW and play your skillful AM as a LW, I bet you a £100 taht your AM will have a better game than your CM. Can merely try it. Let's rewind a bit. GJ has been quoted recently as saying we shift formations 6+ times a game (I paraphrase). So for you to say that we looked like 4-4-2 at times is fine. We did, especially as Haynes 'got stuck' in the middle. But Sno also stayed in an advanced position and on the left, almost never tracking back. Elliott rarely got forward in comparison. Assuming GJ is telling the truth, there is plenty of scope for Elliott to not play on the wing and indeed he mostly didn't. There is no excusing his performance. Sno has never been played as a target man, If you want to talk in FM terms he would be a advanced playmaker, Eliott would have been a defensive winger I suspect. An advanced playmaker is a CM role? I haven't played much FM either. If so, why is Sno consistently on the left? By target man I mean that defenders boot the ball to him and as long as it's within about 5 metres, he'll control it, and either draw in defenders or take on the left back. It seems obvious what I'm talking about and everyone else is being obtuse. If you really want to talk in FM terms I will rip your 'tactics' apart based on FM. Thanks, it's actually easier for me. I haven't actually tried 4-3-3 on FM - I signed Skacel and play 4-4-2. I play Sno alongside Hartley at CM but he's got stamina on FM. Then again he isn't doing brilliantly. I'm going to try him in the slot come to think of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freezer Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 OK, what's your evidence? I know for a fact you're wrong but let's at least go through the evidence. I point you at Sno lining up on the half-way line for kick off, Elliott lining up deep and Haynes' 2 runs down the right wing to the byline within the first 10 mins... Can merely try it. Let's rewind a bit. GJ has been quoted recently as saying we shift formations 6+ times a game (I paraphrase). So for you to say that we looked like 4-4-2 at times is fine. We did, especially as Haynes 'got stuck' in the middle. But Sno also stayed in an advanced position and on the left, almost never tracking back. Elliott rarely got forward in comparison. Assuming GJ is telling the truth, there is plenty of scope for Elliott to not play on the wing and indeed he mostly didn't. There is no excusing his performance. An advanced playmaker is a CM role? I haven't played much FM either. If so, why is Sno consistently on the left? By target man I mean that defenders boot the ball to him and as long as it's within about 5 metres, he'll control it, and either draw in defenders or take on the left back. It seems obvious what I'm talking about and everyone else is being obtuse. Thanks, it's actually easier for me. I haven't actually tried 4-3-3 on FM - I signed Skacel and play 4-4-2. I play Sno alongside Hartley at CM but he's got stamina on FM. Then again he isn't doing brilliantly. I'm going to try him in the slot come to think of it. So how many City games have you actually watched live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Dan C, dont bother mate its not worth trying to put him right. It must be 4-3-3 because Sno lines up on the halfway line , perhaps its actually subbuteo and the back 4 line up on the 18 yard line as well Anyway heres a post from Mindjuicer on another thread where he FINALLY admits how much he understands about football. Yes and used to follow Man U as a kid. Stopped watching football and most sports for over a decade. Only watched American football and martial arts (including boxing) during that time. American football is dissimilar in many ways and probably biases me in terms of thinking about momentary tactics rather than flow. Compared to my contacts, I know sweet **** all about the game. I have no illusions about that. They are pleasantly surprised about how much I do spot though. I am genuinely here to learn more but it's slim pickings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindjuicer Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think this is fairly conclusive proof that we weren't playing 4-4-2: http://livesportsreviews.blogspot.com/2009...watch-live.html From about 1m20. So I make that about 4 of you looking like pink-faced fools right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tales From The Front Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think this is fairly conclusive proof that we weren't playing 4-4-2: http://livesportsreviews.blogspot.com/2009...watch-live.html From about 1m20. So I make that about 4 of you look like utter tossers right now. Nice touch the "tossers" comment I wont stoop so low but your man for all seasons is absent plus we are playing with genuine pace and attacking threat. More than happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think this is fairly conclusive proof that we weren't playing 4-4-2: http://livesportsreviews.blogspot.com/2009...watch-live.html From about 1m20. So I make that about 4 of you look like utter tossers right now. Like I said in another thread mate, systems are all well and good but players who can produce individual skill will do it in whatever system you play them in if you give them a bit of freedom to do so. What you need to do is get these players in your side and using your "system" work openings in WIDE areas. Football is a simple game that often gets over complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freezer Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think this is fairly conclusive proof that we weren't playing 4-4-2: http://livesportsreviews.blogspot.com/2009...watch-live.html From about 1m20. So I make that about 4 of you look like utter tossers right now. Aren't you rude! By the way, how many City games have you watched? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindjuicer Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Nice touch the "tossers" comment I wount stoop so low Ahem, I did try to edit it out, but I guess I showed a little bit of resentment on that one. GJ has a habit of pulling rabbits out of the hat. I did say if we scored an early one, we might score 3 - and that all the doom & gloom was excessive. We've still got the exact same problems mentioned on the thread where we actually talk about what our wide players should be doing. Very very pleased though, especially for Sproule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DanC Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think this is fairly conclusive proof that we weren't playing 4-4-2: http://livesportsreviews.blogspot.com/2009...watch-live.html From about 1m20. So I make that about 4 of you looking like pink-faced fools right now. And what did he say that makes you think we wernt playing 4-4-2? 4-4-2 is a formation where there is many many different ways of playing it. A 100 teams can all play it yet I doubt there will be any 2 that will play the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Ciderhead Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 2-0 up away from home, playing well and all some people care about is point scoring against other forum members. Grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economou Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think this is fairly conclusive proof that we weren't playing 4-4-2: http://livesportsreviews.blogspot.com/2009...watch-live.html From about 1m20. So I make that about 4 of you looking like pink-faced fools right now. I think what he said at 2.40 is equally important. Very diplomatic in his 'disappointed' comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tales From The Front Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Ahem, I did try to edit it out, but I guess I showed a little bit of resentment on that one. GJ has a habit of pulling rabbits out of the hat. I did say if we scored an early one, we might score 3 - and that all the doom & gloom was excessive. We've still got the exact same problems mentioned on the thread where we actually talk about what our wide players should be doing. Very very pleased though, especially for Sproule. Fair enough mate....I'm sure we all share the sentiment about Sproule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindjuicer Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 And what did he say that makes you think we wernt playing 4-4-2? He basically says that people suggest 4-4-2 in order to get width but a lot of teams playing 4-4-2 play narrow and we try and get people wide from our (unnamed) formation. It's 4-3-3 tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think this is fairly conclusive proof that we weren't playing 4-4-2: http://livesportsreviews.blogspot.com/2009...watch-live.html From about 1m20. So I make that about 4 of you looking like pink-faced fools right now. WHAT :noexpression:Millen doesnt say ANYTHING about us not playing 4-4-2,Perhaps you would like to LISTEN TO IT AGAIN. Please leave it now, you are making a complete fool of yourself.I am actually starting to feel sorry for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindjuicer Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Please leave it now, you are making a complete fool of yourself.I am actually starting to feel sorry for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 He basically says that people suggest 4-4-2 in order to get width but a lot of teams playing 4-4-2 play narrow and we try and get people wide from our (unnamed) formation. It's 4-3-3 tho. Your doing it again. "We try to get people wide from our formation" does not mean " tell everybody that we play 4-3-3" You are wrong, accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindjuicer Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Your doing it again. "We try to get people wide from our formation" does not mean " tell everybody that we play 4-3-3" You are wrong, accept it. I'm amused by how long you think you can deny it. You said 4-4-2 right? 3 nil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I'm amused by how long you think you can deny it. You said 4-4-2 right? 3 nil! Tonight its 4 at the back, 2 holding midfield players,2 wide men, one man in the hole and Maynard on his own up front. Your point is ? Still havent played 4-3-3 all season. Your very sad arent you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.