I think it can work so long as we dont attack by hoofing it at holt

That was the issue v fulham I thought. Constantly bypassing midfield and no-one collecting the rare holt knock downs. We would have to pass out of defence and hit teams on the break with a bit of pace and all 5 midfielders would have to work extremely hard. Most importantly we'd have to be good at retaining the ball.

Against qpr, I thought the main things that were better than fulham were our ball retention and not defending too deep - they go together to a degree. No reason this can be the case in a 4-2-3-1.

Posted By: SimonOTBC on August 30th 2012 at 14:22:43

Message Thread

So, 4-2-3-1? (NCFC) - Martin Peters, Aug 30, 14:11:51
- I think it can work so long as we dont attack by hoofing it at holt (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Aug 30, 14:22:43
- Think it will depend on the '3' (NCFC) - wesley, Aug 30, 14:16:01
- I would go with (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Aug 30, 14:14:47
- or (NCFC) - duke of york, Aug 30, 14:14:05
- Aside from the major problen that Holt has been poor for us as a lone frontman. (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Aug 30, 14:14:02
  - If you play Holt as a lone frontman, then I think you have to play Hoolahan (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Aug 30, 14:16:05
    - completely agree with 1 up top Wes HAS to play... (NCFC) - walksie, Aug 30, 14:18:27
    - Hoolahan and Fox Should Be Pivotal Players (NCFC) - Martin Peters, Aug 30, 14:17:51
      - Fox is limited though you need more from deep lying CM IMO (n/m) (NCFC) - walksie, Aug 30, 14:19:53
  - Yep and we all know what would have happened if we took his goals away from us last season (n/m) (NCFC) - RootunTootunHootun, Aug 30, 14:15:56

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.