This is an old problem though...

Hucks requires a 4-3-3 because he is crap as a striker. You get people on here saying "the 4-3-3 is great" because of the end of the promotion season when we were on fire. BUT the 4-3-3 has always left us weak in midfield and vulnerable defensively (especially against teams that pass the ball well through midfield) and it looked good at the end of 03/04 only because we were playing all the sh*t teams. The only 3 decent teams we employed it against (Wigan, Palace, Sunderland) we won 1 and lost 2. I have said this before and I know it is boring but no-one has suggested how you feasibly fit Hucks into a 4-4-2 (easily the most sensible formation for most occasions). Until.someone can I will continue to reluctantly believe that for all the skill and excitement he (usually)brings he is currently at least as much of a negative as a positive to the club because we are b*ggering up our formation to accommodate him.

Posted By: mr carra on February 1st 2006 at 09:10:26

Message Thread

This says it all. Posted on a Reading website by one of THEIR fans. (NCFC) - insidercanary, Feb 1, 09:00:07
- This is an old problem though... (NCFC) - mr carra, Feb 1, 09:10:26
  - At least back then... (NCFC) - Dr Baker, Feb 1, 09:19:15
    - Agree with that (NCFC) - mr carra, Feb 1, 09:22:20
      - As was Harper... (NCFC) - Dr Baker, Feb 1, 09:32:28
- 4-3-3 (NCFC) - capecodcarman, Feb 1, 09:09:16
- *Sobs and bangs head on table* (n/m) (NCFC) - Old Git, Feb 1, 09:03:20
- Ha ha ha. (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Feb 1, 09:02:43

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.