Match Thread Derby Match Thread (4 Viewers)

Dellboy87

Member
I don’t care about it being dull. Fact is we played much better football at the start of the season but getting better results now. Don’t think it’s tactics though, just having a lucky spell
 

DannyThomas_1981

Well-Known Member
up to 27 now
Jesus Christ. You’ve previously attacked others for getting likes for some unknown reason.

You no doubt yourself have the fewest likes per post vs. anyone on here.

And now you’re basing ‘winning arguments’ on the number of likes you get?
 

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
Interesting reading the thoughts on the derby forum. They say if we were a better side we would have scored a few of the chances we had. Also they’ve only picked up 2 pts against WW and us so they feel completely deflated.
 

robbiethemole

Well-Known Member
Interesting reading the thoughts on the derby forum. They say if we were a better side we would have scored a few of the chances we had. Also they’ve only picked up 2 pts against WW and us so they feel completely deflated.
And they're up to 60 pages already !! a lot of them are talking relegation too
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Ah right OK, you mean 2 up, I'm just on about wing backs in general, we played variations of it for around 10 matches

Our problem is ultimately one up top.

Last season the box worked as an actual 5221/3421 because we could ply possession football and control the middle. We don’t have that quality so our forward midfield two in 5221/4231 get pinned back to a flat five in midfield and leave a chasm between midfield and attack.

We have to go more direct and that means two up front. We have three decent CMs and three decent WBs and three decent CBs. In no way did the formation cost us those goals, injuries and adapting to the league did.
 

lifeskyblue

Well-Known Member
Interesting reading the thoughts on the derby forum. They say if we were a better side we would have scored a few of the chances we had. Also they’ve only picked up 2 pts against WW and us so they feel completely deflated.

I think they are realistic. Can’t disagree with their comments. They looked neat and tidy, right back was quality. But they looked really brittle every time we threatened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Jesus Christ. You’ve previously attacked others for getting likes for some unknown reason.

You no doubt yourself have the fewest likes per post vs. anyone on here.

And now you’re basing ‘winning arguments’ on the number of likes you get?

Did the nerdy totting up, G's posts per like is 3.8, mine is 3.2. Two can play this online dick measuring
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
I think they are realistic. Can’t disagree with their comments. They looked neat and tidy, right back was quality. But they looked really brittle every time we threatened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quite liked both of their wingers, time and again put in quality crosses from both sides
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
I'm talking about the 3 games where we clearly played with a flat central 3 (Reading/Forest/Watford). We went back to the box first half against Norwich then ended up again with a flat 3 in the later stages.
Ok, I mean yea like I said we are nice to watch and look much more threatening going forward... But we lost 2 of those
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Ok, I mean yea like I said we are nice to watch and loool much more threatening going forward... But we lost 2 of those

Yes and for the umpteenth time I'm saying those losses weren't caused by the formation. We missed bags of sitters at Forest, Max chucks it right at the end. We miss sitters at Watford, go ahead and concede from a corner and O'Hare inexplicably handballing in the box.

How are either of those caused by us playing 5 at the back?
 

Martin180

Well-Known Member
We seem to be playing players who aren’t fit , both McCallum and Dabo looked to be carrying knocks tonight
And we need to find a system that fits Sheaf into the side and allows Hamer to play further forward
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
Yes and for the umpteenth time I'm saying those losses weren't caused by the formation. We missed bags of sitters at Forest, Max chucks it right at the end. We miss sitters at Watford, go ahead and concede from a corner and O'Hare inexplicably handballing in the box.

How are either of those caused by us playing 5 at the back?

We missed sitters tonight to be fair... The evidence suggests that the formation in question still leaked lots of goals... We conceded 7 in them 3 matches didn't we
 

speedie87

Well-Known Member
Bit concerning hoe many times this season we’ve made subs to try and win a game away and then conceded couple of mins later
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
We missed sitters tonight to be fair... The evidence suggests that the formation in question still leaked lots of goals... We conceded 7 in them 3 matches didn't we

Look at each of those 7 goals and tell me how many were caused by the formation. You could perhaps argue Watford's 1st goal but let's be honest we had McCallum playing at RWB that game.

This is what happens when you just solely look at the results and not the performances or anything else.
 

Tartan Specials

Well-Known Member
My partner/girlfriend/burrd lives beyond the countyline -I'm all alone in Jockoland staring at the walls relying on Greg Downes and Radio Derby to keep me sane! - give me a big Sky Blue -hug!! 😀
We missed sitters tonight to be fair... The evidence suggests that the formation in question still leaked lots of goals... We conceded 7 in them 3 matches didn't we
Just popped in to say that Wilson was again very solid tonight. The last two games must has have been hard for him, so well played to him.
 

Blind-Faith

Well-Known Member
All set for tomorrow evening lads and lasses....


  • Nottingham Forest v Watford
  • Sheffield Wednesday v Reading
  • Wycombe Wanderers v Stoke City

Three away wins please !!!!

I’ve had a Godiva on it tomorrow night, just to make it even sweeter 😂
 

Attachments

  • D7B98F24-CD0A-4871-A7C1-1F391A0A87F0.png
    D7B98F24-CD0A-4871-A7C1-1F391A0A87F0.png
    195.9 KB · Views: 13

Users who are viewing this thread

Top