the calls for 4-4-2 come from the negative way we play a 4-5-1

Posted By: phrankin on February 2nd 2014 at 12:02:38

Message Thread

Tony Gale annoyed me yesterday (NCFC) - duke of york, Feb 2, 12:00:42
- RvW is not shit hasn't impressed sure... (NCFC) - loz, Feb 2, 13:10:42
  - We don't need a scapegoat (NCFC) - Winged Eel Creosote, Feb 2, 13:16:45
    - There's a difference between (NCFC) - LeicesterYellow, Feb 2, 15:12:58
    - yes, scapegoats (n/m) (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Feb 2, 13:17:45
- And me when he said (NCFC) - Old Splat, Feb 2, 12:46:55
- I'd prefer 451 / 433 (NCFC) - Arnhem ball boy, Feb 2, 12:21:21
  - You've hit the nail on the head (NCFC) - Winged Eel Creosote, Feb 2, 12:25:05
    - any formation that doesnt include rvw please. (NCFC) - Cheltenham_Canary, Feb 2, 12:32:06
- the calls for 4-4-2 come from the negative way we play a 4-5-1 (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Feb 2, 12:02:38
  - No the calls for 4-4-2 are generally from people who have no understanding of the game (n/m) (NCFC) - BINMEN8R, Feb 2, 18:49:18
  - It worked fine when we had Tettey, Fer and Howson (NCFC) - duke of york, Feb 2, 12:05:42
    - hoolahan played behind the striker the vast majority of last season (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Feb 2, 12:56:14
    - 4-4-2 is less creative. (NCFC) - Jono, Feb 2, 12:11:28
    - The wrong thought process (NCFC) - Winged Eel Creosote, Feb 2, 12:09:19
      - Yep, Elmander doesn't score, but he does so much more than RvW (NCFC) - duke of york, Feb 2, 12:11:57
        
        On the subject of scoring and non scoring (NCFC) - Winged Eel Creosote, Feb 2, 12:15:02
        
        I ask the same question regarding (NCFC) - LowestoftBoy, Feb 2, 12:22:23
        
        I think the answer is (NCFC) - Winged Eel Creosote, Feb 2, 12:27:14

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.