we didn't even have him for 2 seasons and we did ok.
As impressive as he has been, he has also been completely anonymous in quite a few games.
I think the sidelining of Wes played a bit part, he has always been a decent option in the no 10 slot.
Posted By: phrankin on March 29th 2014 at 23:37:53
Message Thread
- "Hughton's half time subs were defensive". Sorry, no they weren't (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:26:25
- Hughton didn't change the formation... (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:29:42
- I know - that's why I said he partly changed it. Frankly, I think there is no case at all (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:31:38
- Did you watch it? (NCFC) - Huge Small, Mar 29, 23:49:13
- ? (n/m) (NCFC) - Huge Small, Mar 30, 00:01:15
- They were defensive (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 29, 23:41:48
- So it wasn't a 4-4-2 then? (n/m) (NCFC) - Huge Small, Mar 29, 23:51:09
- I agree with your suggestions 100% - but the mindset behind his changes wasn't defensive (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:44:56
- The problem is, we fail to keep possession (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:48:00
- I think we could have played five in central midfield (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:49:57
- yes true... but BJ giving the ball away half the time didn't help. (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:52:29
- I think we could have played five in central midfield (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:49:57
- The problem is, we fail to keep possession (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:48:00
- didn't RvW set up our best chance of the game just after half time? (n/m) (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:43:16
- yep, a very poor return given the amount of game time he was given (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:44:48
- Just give it a rest. He is sh*t. (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 29, 23:44:08
- yep, why let facts get in the way? (n/m) (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:46:49
- he's been bloody awful... I mean, I hope he comes good, but lets not cloud reality (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:49:27
- of course he has been poor in general, but why pick on him today? (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:50:58
- he completely failed to get involved, him and Elmander don't even link up (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:54:07
- of course he has been poor in general, but why pick on him today? (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:50:58
- he's been bloody awful... I mean, I hope he comes good, but lets not cloud reality (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:49:27
- yep, why let facts get in the way? (n/m) (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:46:49
- we have got quite a few wins with 4-4-2 (or a variant of) this season (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:35:18
- Depends on the opponents too though. Saints and Swansea are good, bright passing sides (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:38:04
- problem is that with Fer out (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:32:59
- Heh. Three's still better than two, even with Bradders around. I agree that we're missing (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:34:13
- we didn't even have him for 2 seasons and we did ok. (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:37:53
- Heh. Three's still better than two, even with Bradders around. I agree that we're missing (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:34:13
- Did you watch it? (NCFC) - Huge Small, Mar 29, 23:49:13
- I know - that's why I said he partly changed it. Frankly, I think there is no case at all (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:31:38
- Hughton didn't change the formation... (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:29:42
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.