lookwhaticando Posted 24 December 2006 Posted 24 December 2006 Calderwood & 3-4-3. That'd certainly stop some people complaining about RK's bog-standard 4-4-2 - we could deploy a 3-4-3 instead! Logan McAuley McCarthy Kisnorbo Hughes Williams Wesolowski Porter Hume Fryatt Hammond
Webbo Posted 24 December 2006 Posted 24 December 2006 Calderwood & 3-4-3. That'd certainly stop some people complaining about RK's bog-standard 4-4-2 - we could deploy a 3-4-3 instead! Logan McAuley McCarthy Kisnorbo Hughes Williams Wesolowski Porter Hume Fryatt Hammond that has severly thrashed written all over it.
lcfc_jme Posted 24 December 2006 Posted 24 December 2006 I must say that playing 3-4-3 would be a welcome change from 4-4-2. It'd give teams a different problem to consider when playing us. We'd be a bit more solid going forward and wouldn't have to defend as much, meaning we could well win more games. I would, however, go like this (more of a 3-1-3-3 but oh well!): Henderson Kisnorbo McAuley Nils Weso Hughes Williams Porter Huuuuuume Fryatt Hammond
bigneville Posted 26 December 2006 Posted 26 December 2006 I think that side would get destroyed by any team playing with wingers. No natural defending width without people playing full-backs. I'm a firm believer in 4 at the back. Whether you then go 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 is then the choice. I hate 3 at the back without wing backs....
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 28 December 2006 Posted 28 December 2006 We would be promptly raped with 3 in defence...
lookwhaticando Posted 28 December 2006 Author Posted 28 December 2006 We would be promptly raped with 3 in defence... Norwich 3 - 1 Leicester City Leicester City 1 - 4 Sheffield United Or worse?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.