The only person who sounds naive is you. Sadly in the world of computer technology you can play your silly little formation games and everything works fine. Reality is different.
The statistics do not back you up.
25 shots at goal should yield goals. Poor finishing and some unlucky moments cost us there. If we had scored first we would have won the game.
Defensive inferiority. If we had conceded 15 corners and let 25 shots fly in we would be hammered. They have a superior back line.
Erratic game chasing. Formation is irrelevant. No doubt your computer game doesn't factor this in but the crowd played a part. They became desperate and threw players forward. Debatable at one down suicidal at 2 and 3 down.
Goalkeeper injury - cost us for sure.
Naievaty of youth I guess.
You've been one the big advocates of 4-4-2, saying we
'need' to play 2 upfront, well, such the wise man you are, that worked well.
We had 25 shots, some golden oppurtuities but we rushed too much, especially after the first goal. We may have had 25 shots, but how many we're good quality.
In a game we needed to be patient we rushed everything, had we have played 4-5-1/4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1 (whatever you call it) we would've dominated midfield more and wouldn't have been as loose in defence, with a CM of Bailey and Jenno, I don't think you could argue against this.
Formation is only irrelevant for you because we played 4-4-2, had we played 4-4-1-1 you would've been the 1st to critique 1 striker upfront, I guarantee it! If you say otherwise, I think you are plain in denial.
Of course statistics are on my side, another loss playing 4-4-2 at home, brings it up to 6, or are you in denial over this fact? :thinking about:
The same
silly little formation that has won us most of our games this season!? Who's sounding naive now!? I've got rid of FM and FIFA, cba with them anymore, and I've based my analysis on research I have done on the formations, many people have been critics of 4-4-2, Cryuff, for years, no one plays it abroad (of the elite formations), people like myself and people abroad have moved with the times whilst England (and the rest of Britain) are backward and remain backward until we ditch this formations, and that does include getting rid of it in your lower leagues and grass roots football. You, and others, haven't moved on, and have the 'conservative' mentality that will keep England backward. We had Beckenbauer humiliate English football in front of the whole world in 2010 and when Germany beat us 4-1 it most certainly vindicated his claims.
I have a staunch dislike for 4-4-2 because I have seen it fail for England and Coventry City for as long as I have supported football, whilst I see the most successful teams in football playing other 'silly little formations'.
It works for some, but not for CCFC.
I agree with you that we chased it 'erratically', and we were terrible defensively, but I felt our tactics was the crux of the problem, that is undeniable. It was unfortunate Dunn is a joke of a GK, that debate is closed as well.
Naivety of the youth?! I think here, it is the senility of the old. 4-4-2 has had it's epoch.
The footballing elite are on my side, hence why no one who is a good outfit plays 4-4-2, accept Man City, who will throw away the PL and got humiliated in Europe, and even then, it isn't an orthodox 4-4-2 and Aguero drops deep for the large part. Man U rarely play 4-4-2 before anyone says.
Say all this 'we're in L1, that's the formation you play' nonsense, but A) it's only English (out of the best leagues) that play 4-4-2 really, and B) we don't have the players for 4-4-2.
We had to learn the hard way, but we learned!
I think you do underestimate me here
