Who would go 4-4-2 instead of 4-3-3 / 4-5-1

I think we've looked pretty good so far with the 4-3-3 / 4-5-1, Croft has looked very good, Hucks when the ball has been played over the top and he's been able to run at the opposition. And we've looked very compact in the middle of the park. But I can't help but think we'll be more deadly if we had two up front. But if we did, we'd probably be weaker in the middle of the park - weak enough to be dominated in that area. Hence the $64,000 question (or has inflation made it the $64 million question?!) - do we stay as we are, or risk playing the 4-4-2?!

Posted By: Poirot on August 21st 2006 at 22:53:18

Message Thread

Who would go 4-4-2 instead of 4-3-3 / 4-5-1 (NCFC) - Poirot, Aug 21, 22:53:18
- jarvis & hendo up top?? (NCFC) - phrankin, Aug 21, 23:04:26
  - been down the pub Rankin?! (NCFC) - Poirot, Aug 21, 23:08:23
- I would tomorrow (n/m) (NCFC) - LincolnshireCanary, Aug 21, 22:56:41
- Huzzah! (n/m) (NCFC) - Fierce Panda, Aug 21, 22:55:52
  - In the right place at last!!! (n/m) (NCFC) - Poirot, Aug 21, 22:57:45
- Why change something that appears to be working? (n/m) (NCFC) - Klobo04, Aug 21, 22:55:04
  - But that's the thing (NCFC) - Poirot, Aug 21, 22:57:14
    - I think we should sign another striker... (NCFC) - Klobo04, Aug 21, 23:00:14

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.