Wasn't yesterday intended to be a bit more of a 4-4-2?

I thought it was going to be but we never saw that due to the sending off and Brady dropping back leaving a narrow midfield.

A 4-4-2 doesn't really work for us as we don't have good enough wingers or sufficient strikers.

Posted By: SimonOTBC on November 20th 2016 at 09:37:44

Message Thread

Personally I can't stand 4-4-2 but for a team that insists on (NCFC) - BINMEN8R, Nov 20, 09:32:31
- Our formation can't become 4-3-3 (NCFC) - norway, Nov 20, 10:21:07
  - *I said Brady in the text but meant Jacob* (n/m) (NCFC) - norway, Nov 20, 10:22:08
- We have to win the ball back as we give it away so frequently (NCFC) - Gob on a Stick, Nov 20, 09:40:44
  - Yep that too...new manager req'd. (n/m) (NCFC) - BINMEN8R, Nov 20, 09:46:59
- Wasn't yesterday intended to be a bit more of a 4-4-2? (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Nov 20, 09:37:44
  - And full backs that can't defend for toffee (n/m) (NCFC) - BINMEN8R, Nov 20, 09:49:10
    - To be fair, most of those issues transcend the formation (n/m) (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Nov 20, 10:09:45

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.