Cobbo Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 So we dont play wingers just to allow Stearman to go forward??? Hume and Fryatt do alot of the donkey work and is why there knackered by the 70th minute, if you had natural wingers theyd be scoring more goals then they are, they wouldnt have to keep chasing back - as much and would give them better opportunites in the box. Yes i do go to the games, most of them and away when possible. Read what I put again, I believe I mentioned being definsively solid playing the way we are. Which is part of the game as well as scoring goals you know. I didn't question whether you went to games or not We have subs to bring on for Hume and Fryatt if they're that knackered and it's effective doing what they're doing now. They don't need to be scoring goals really ay? As long as the team's winning it doesn't matter where they come from.
LCFC UK Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Read what I put again, I believe I mentioned being definsively solid playing the way we are. Which is part of the game as well as scoring goals you know. I didn't question whether you went to games or not We have subs to bring on for Hume and Fryatt if they're that knackered and it's effective doing what they're doing now. They don't need to be scoring goals really ay? As long as the team's winning it doesn't matter where they come from. COBBO - If you watch the games, you'll notice that they are always running into the left and right wing positions, leaving it to our narrow midfield to bomb on forward. I may have read into that wrong, so i appologise. I did read it mate, you said not to play a right winger to allow Stearman to get forward. This didnt rearly need to drag out this long to be fair, i only originally stated we need two natural wingers.
Phube Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Hume and Fryatt do alot of the donkey work and is why there knackered by the 70th minute, if you had natural wingers theyd be scoring more goals then they are, they wouldnt have to keep chasing back - as much and would give them better opportunites in the box. I agree whole heartedly with this, it is because H & F are always in the channels they don't score as many goals. Nearly all night Hume was where a good right winger should be. And with Joey in the middle the support from midfield isn't as good as it should be so even when Hume is on the right/left wing he is isolated. Fryatt seems to allways attract 2 defendersso if he had some proper support he could lay it off and turn to run in on goal!!!
Cobbo Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 I agree whole heartedly with this, it is because H & F are always in the channels they don't score as many goals. Nearly all night Hume was where a good right winger should be. And with Joey in the middle the support from midfield isn't as good as it should be so even when Hume is on the right/left wing he is isolated. Fryatt seems to allways attract 2 defendersso if he had some proper support he could lay it off and turn to run in on goal!!! We won 2-0
Anish Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 I'm with Cobbo on this one - we've won enough games in this division without wingers recently. Why won't that continue into next season? Yes wingers may stretch the game and open things up, and probably mean Fryatt and Hume having to run the channels less than they currently are. But I'd rather be winning games with Hughes and Maybury playing in wide midfield roles than the hypothetical winger who may or may not make us win as many games. Yes Fryatt and Hume would possibly get more goals if we played wingers, but I'd sacrifice the strikers scoring for the team winning. Also, out midfielders have contributed with goals recently - Williams, Hughes, Maybury, Gudjonsson, Welsh have all scored since Kelly took over. Keep a winning team and stick with the winning tactics until they prove not to work.
Cobbo Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 COBBO - If you watch the games, you'll notice that they are always running into the left and right wing positions, leaving it to our narrow midfield to bomb on forward. I may have read into that wrong, so i appologise. I did read it mate, you said not to play a right winger to allow Stearman to get forward. This didnt rearly need to drag out this long to be fair, i only originally stated we need two natural wingers. I just meant that in a tongue in cheek 'if you bother to watch the games' as in when you're there I said not to play a right winger allows Stearman to bomb formward and playing someone like Maybury there makes us a much more solid unit.
LCFC UK Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 I'm with Cobbo on this one - we've won enough games in this division without wingers recently. Why won't that continue into next season? Yes wingers may stretch the game and open things up, and probably mean Fryatt and Hume having to run the channels less than they currently are. But I'd rather be winning games with Hughes and Maybury playing in wide midfield roles than the hypothetical winger who may or may not make us win as many games. Yes Fryatt and Hume would possibly get more goals if we played wingers, but I'd sacrifice the strikers scoring for the team winning. Also, out midfielders have contributed with goals recently - Williams, Hughes, Maybury, Gudjonsson, Welsh have all scored since Kelly took over. Keep a winning team and stick with the winning tactics until they prove not to work. So you have optimisitic views of leicester challenging for the championship next season then aswell
LCFC UK Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 I just meant that in a tongue in cheek 'if you bother to watch the games' as in when you're there
Anish Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 So you have optimisitic views of leicester challenging for the championship next season then aswell Did I even say that?
Cobbo Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 So you have optimisitic views of leicester challenging for the championship next season then aswell What makes you think we can't? Why must you play with wingers? We're proving with this great run that you don't need wingers to do well! Why can't you accept this?
Anish Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 What makes you think we can't? Why must you play with wingers? We're proving with this great run that you don't need wingers to do well! Why can't you accept this? Precisely
LCFC UK Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Did I even say that? No, if you feel with players being played out of position is a good thing then your obviously very optomistic about next season.
LCFC UK Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 What makes you think we can't? Why must you play with wingers? We're proving with this great run that you don't need wingers to do well! Why can't you accept this? Why cant you accept 4-4-2 regardless of who you are consists of wingers??
Anish Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Thanks for your great imput there. Imput?? There's no point arguing with you - you can't accept the FACTS that we play 4-4-2 without wingers and we are winning.
Phube Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Why cant you accept 4-4-2 regardless of who you are consists of wingers?? 4-4-2 without wingers, you know what this is.... It's the famous Forest 'Diamond'. The one that got them relegated to league 1!!!
Cobbo Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Why cant you accept 4-4-2 regardless of who you are consists of wingers?? Because it doesn't! Formation's aren't set in stone, you can play different things within an apparent set formation. 4-4-2 doesn't mean 'you must play 2 wingers like Tom Finney and Stanley Matthews or you will be shit'.
LCFC UK Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Imput?? There's no point arguing with you - you can't accept the FACTS that we play 4-4-2 without wingers and we are winning. What is your problem i stated we need two wingers, yes we are winning but it wont be enough for promotion next season. You can pick at spelling all day long my freind, you are so far up Admin's arses im suprised you manage to find your way back out.
Cobbo Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 4-4-2 without wingers, you know what this is.... It's the famous Forest 'Diamond'. The one that got them relegated to league 1!!! Yeah cos we've been going backwards with our lack of wingers, especially today, the day we are relegated.
LCFC UK Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Because it doesn't! Formation's aren't set in stone, you can play different things within an apparent set formation. 4-4-2 doesn't mean 'you must play 2 wingers like Tom Finney and Stanley Matthews or you will be shit'. Roll on next season then with the flair and pace of maybury on the right and a potential star of a CM playing on the left.
Cobbo Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 What is your problem i stated we need two wingers, yes we are winning but it wont be enough for promotion next season. You can pick at spelling all day long my freind, you are so far up Admin's arses im suprised you manage to find your way back out. Why not though? Scowy on the wing was cracking when we last got promoted I must admit, we'll rearely see wing work like his again.
Cobbo Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Roll on next season then with the flair and pace of maybury on the right and a potential star of a CM playing on the left. You nit pick at individual's then, I'll just enjoy the fact that we're winning when playing those particular players there. Anish, I need a poo, be careful now won't you.
Phube Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Yeah cos we've been going backwards with our lack of wingers, especially today, the day we are relegated. Ahhh, but this is the self same diamond that worked for a short period at the end of the previous season to get them in the playoffs!!
LCFC UK Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Why not though? Scowy on the wing was cracking when we last got promoted I must admit, we'll rearely see wing work like his again. I hope that is tongue and cheek again Scowy was a centre forward and he was terrible on the wing.
Cobbo Posted 8 April 2006 Posted 8 April 2006 Ahhh, but this is the self same diamond that worked for a short period at the end of the previous season to get them in the playoffs!! Good good, although we don't play any diamond formation, and Forest stayed up the season after they were in the play offs, they went down the next season under Kinnear.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.