Mark Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Pressman Dabizas Keown Dublin Makin Gemmil Nalis Wilcox Scowcroft Blake Connolly Subs: Benjamin, Gudjonsson, Heath, Wright, Williams Hmm
Bluefoxtim Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 thats not the team, please say thats not the team? DUBLIN in DEFENCE ?????? why??????? why not heath??????? BIG BUM BLAKE UP FRONT????????? MOst of the time i critise stuff but then it comes good. like when Hignett came on then scored against Arsenal. Lets hope it works today
Micky Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 PressmanPressman Dabizas Keown Dublin Makin Gemmil Nalis Wilcox Scowcroft Blake Connolly Subs: Benjamin, Gudjonsson, Heath, Wright, Williams Hmm 21448[/snapback] Think its wilcox in for tiatto!
Mark Posted 25 September 2004 Author Posted 25 September 2004 What has Blake done to deserve to start today? Its pathetic, anything to make a point eh Micky
Craig Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Now now now, don't moan... remember how everyone was saying about Adams being too scared to change formations and his side... Don't make yourselves look total prats :w00t: ::
Mark Posted 25 September 2004 Author Posted 25 September 2004 Dublin and defence and Blake up front? I'd rather him change nothing. Replace them pair with Heath and Wright and i wouldnt be complaining.
Micky Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Dublin and defence and Blake up front? I'd rather him change nothing. Replace them pair with Heath and Wright and i wouldnt be complaining. 21453[/snapback] At least we've got the tough tackling tiatto in midfield!
davieG Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 So is it 442 Pressman Makin Dabizas Keown Wilcox Scowcroft Gemmil Nalis Connolly Blake Dublin or 532 Pressman Makin Dabizas Keown Dublin Wilcox Gemmil Nalis Scowcroft Blake Connolly
davieG Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Or 3-4-3, or 3-5-2 21462[/snapback] Well I dont think MA's would be so radical to go for 343 and 352 would be ostensibly the same as 532 depends whether the 2 wing backs are adventurous or not, I'd rather assumed in the 532/352 senario that Makin tends to play deep and Wilcox would be too knackered to run up and down all afternoon so would also stay deep. I'd probably put money on the 442, with Connolly at RM, I guess it doen't really matter too much as long as they start to PASS it to a fellow team member..
Babylon Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Dublin and defence and Blake up front? I'd rather him change nothing. Replace them pair with Heath and Wright and i wouldnt be complaining. 21453[/snapback] Dion played in a 3 man defence for Villa a fair few times, maybe MA thought Dion would be better due to his experience in that formation. As for Blake...?? COME ON NATHAN!!!! Lets get behind the lad (even though he's pants)
davieG Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Whats up with tiatto, anyone know? 21464[/snapback] Injured, surprise, surprise, it's what tends to happen at LCFC when they say we will work harder on the Training Ground. :w00t:
Babylon Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Anyone else got a bad feeling about this game!!!
davieG Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Anyone else got a bad feeling about this game!!! 21468[/snapback] Just lately I have a bad feeling about every game. :w00t:
davieG Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Nathan Blake, lovely. Why? 21471[/snapback] Don't know perhaps he's got cute eyes, nice teeth or pursed lips, any of those might make girls think he's lovely. Noy sure about you though Scowy, what's the answer?
Babylon Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Nathan Blake, lovely. Why? 21471[/snapback] so he could set up scowy ::
Scow Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Nathan Blake, lovely. Why? 21471[/snapback] Don't know perhaps he's got cute eyes, nice teeth or pursed lips, any of those might make girls think he's lovely. Noy sure about you though Scowy, what's the answer? 21475[/snapback] Oooo, the wit!
davieG Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Nathan Blake, lovely. Why? 21471[/snapback] Don't know perhaps he's got cute eyes, nice teeth or pursed lips, any of those might make girls think he's lovely. Noy sure about you though Scowy, what's the answer? 21475[/snapback] Oooo, the wit! 21478[/snapback] Oh he's funny, girlies like a sense of humour in a bloke?
Scow Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Nathan Blake, lovely. Why? 21471[/snapback] Don't know perhaps he's got cute eyes, nice teeth or pursed lips, any of those might make girls think he's lovely. Noy sure about you though Scowy, what's the answer? 21475[/snapback] Oooo, the wit! 21478[/snapback] Oh he's funny, girlies like a sense of humour in a bloke? 21483[/snapback] Yes he is funny - He doesn't just make the girls laugh, he makes the opposition laugh too.
davieG Posted 25 September 2004 Posted 25 September 2004 Nathan Blake, lovely. Why? 21471[/snapback] Don't know perhaps he's got cute eyes, nice teeth or pursed lips, any of those might make girls think he's lovely. Noy sure about you though Scowy, what's the answer? 21475[/snapback] Oooo, the wit! 21478[/snapback] Oh he's funny, girlies like a sense of humour in a bloke? 21483[/snapback] Yes he is funny - He doesn't just make the girls laugh, he makes the opposition laugh too. 21486[/snapback] Nice One
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.