Sorry mate. It will be me been a bit slow but I don’t teally get the whole child’s face thing.
So the same as we played on Saturday then?
And yet Hughes and Doyle both won player of the year at the club in the Championship when we mostly played 442! That was before the awful Bell and McIndoe though....and Hughes lost it amazingly badly after his first 18 months at the club to the point that all he would do is pass it 5 yards sideways or backwards.Coventry City playing 4-4-2 brings back horrible memories of the McIndoe - Doyle - S.Hughes - Bell midfield.
Just thinking about the awful football we played in this period sends shivers down my spine.
Ah Peter Reid and Morrell on the wing, genius.I seem to remember during the Hughes era we played a lot of 4-5-1/4-3-3 with strikers out wide which never worked.
Sorry mate. It will be me been a bit slow but I don’t teally get the whole child’s face thing.
I must have stumbled into a parallel universe. We played 4-4-2 on Saturday.
I don’t think I am explaining myself well.
Yes I like a traditional 4-4-2
With each player properly fitted for each position. Such as the wingers as natural wingers with the remit to stay wide fly down the wings and get crosses in.
Yes Saturday is probably the closest to that for a while and we dominated and got 26 shots albeit only.
Whenever we go through a rocky patch I always think that would be the solution and yes Saturday I would hope supports this thought.
As I say Shipley for a natural winger in the future would help.
We played the formation you keep saying we should play on Saturday....
Viveash will probably be back Saturday so it will be back to 4-2-3-1 no doubt
Can you post me the Euromillions numbers a few days after too?
He is saying the formation and lineup you were wondering if it would work was the one we used on Saturday...
All a bit strange.
Yes I am finding your replies a bit strange sorry.
You will find I am not the sharpest but never mind.
Might hold off on creating threads again for a bit though !!!
You have just posted up the lineup from Saturday wondering if it would do any better, after it clearly had done better? Just a bit random.
It's like posting in June wondering if we will ever get a promotion.
Oh for a team like that now, although Whelan for me was always a back-up striker and Froggatt would be LW.
Shaw should never have been more than a back-up either. Not quick, not tall or muscular, but reasonably decent positional sense to be a nuisance jockeying backwards trying to hold up play while other people got back. Had an annoying tendency to do that all the way from the halfway line and then decide to put a tackle in just inside the penalty area. Largely had the career he did here because he was a nice guy who didn't rock the boat.
Not saying it's controversial, just a bit random.....I think we will get promoted. I think it will be via the play offs again.
I was there on Saturday so I am aware of both team and formation.
I like 442 with genuine wingers a hard man and a creative midfielder a big man and a poacher.
I didn’t realise and still don’t really get why it is such a problem asking other posters if they get the impression over the years if we are better when we play 442.
As I say might just stick to posting on threads or just go back to a silent reader.
Never realised I could be so controversial sorry
Not saying it's controversial, just a bit random.....
So simple but doubt that team ever took the field.
Konjic was a major sicknote and McAllister’ injury really improved the team. Whelan was played out of position and Hadji didn’t arrive til after the 1998 World Cup by which time Chippo was also here.
The best era 442 was more like:-
Hedman
Nilsson Breen Williams Burrows
Telfer Boateng Soltvedt Whelan
Dublin Huckerby
Subs included Shaw, Moldovan, Haworth (!) and Gavin Strachan
Just spotted this post-bang on what I'd make the best XI back then! Hedman was an improvement on Oggy at the time, Boateng transformed the midfield and was a massive upgrade on McAllister (and we really missed George when he had a knock for a while) and incredibly, Trond and Telfer were present in most of our great wins and good runs-I guess that they did bring a lot of effort and workrate and in Boateng and Whelan, had more skillful midfielders alongside them. Add the young promising version of Marcus Hall filling in wherever there was a vacancy, too. CD was a bit more rotational with Willo and Shaw rivaling for the role of Weaker Centre Back, and at times Dion partnering Breen with Moldovan up front (mostly didn't quite work as well, but we still had some good results).
Ok maybe I don’t explain things very well.
I will stick to just replying to posts for a bit till I get my head round things a bit more.
His favoured set up was the diamond formation was it not?
The diamond again is another "442 in all but name"
Or just revert back to your previous username?
I think you mean "The Man U 1994 FA Cup winning side's 442"I think I need a name for the version of 442 that I like
Is their a name for the traditional version with a hard man a creative player. Two get your bums off your seats wingers who stick to the wings.
Two full backs who can cross a ball but mostly stay at the back.
One big bruiser defender. One more cultured and an imposing keeper.
A Big strong type of striker and a nippy clinic al finisher?
I think you mean "The Man U 1994 FA Cup winning side's 442"
Bang on actually
I would be that manager where people say you have no plan B.
As I honestly don’t see anything better than 442 with that type of set up.
When it’s done properly teams can’t live with it.
I am sure as already pointed out a few times here to be fair that there have been bad times with the classic 442 but my bias memory only thinks of the good times.
Problem is that you sometimes have to adapt to circumstances; if you're being overrun in midfield you may need to move to a midfield three, with a lone man left ahead. Or if you're finding the opposition attack streaming into your box, it makes sense to move to a flat back 3 with wing-backs covering the incoming runs from the flanks. Although, like you, I prefer 442 in principle, you can only play it when the match situation enables you to do so.
Oh yeah still good. After the Sheff U game it was P9, W2, D6, L1. Before the Sheff U game it had been P13, W9, D3 L1. Including an incredible run of 7 wins on the bounce!Good results? We were unbeaten for half a season!
Yes I am finding your replies a bit strange sorry.
Or just revert back to your previous username?
Not saying it's controversial, just a bit random.....
Rasputin, do your self a favour, just don't engage with these two, they're never wrong !
Life is too short.
Haha, is that the best you can come up with .You have no idea what is actually being discussed or the actual point, again.
Nothing worse than the pissed up old bloke in the pub who always pipes up talking gibberish.
Haha, is that the best you can come up with .
Your comment just proves my point.
As you ALWAYS like to say, that's a bit RANDOM.It really doesn't prove anything, you have absolutely no idea what is being discussed but try to have a pop anyway.
Just as weird as the OP.
Rasputin, do your self a favour, just don't engage with these two, they're never wrong !
Life is too short.
You haven't got a clue what's being said or the actual point though, have you?As you ALWAYS like to say, that's a bit RANDOM.
Your ALWAYS having a pop and not just at me either.
Anyway, you ALWAYS like to have the last word, so it's over to you.
To get where you were coming from you just need to read it..I am a new poster, but I read stuff on the site last year and so I saw some of Grendel’s stuff. I don’t fancy becoming embroiled in that sort of thing.
Quite a few people have been ok with my thread and seemed to get where I am coming from so I don’t think it was that random.
Cheers furcyhe advice though
To get where you were coming from you just need to read it..
Read stuff on here last year? Strange, you seemed quite the expert before.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?