Bryn Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Sensed that they'd scored before they did, dunno why but you could just tell.
MC Prussian Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 When some people were saying that we'd have to expect a lot of 1-0 results to come, was that meant for or against us?
Thracian Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Carroll goal from Fryatt foul which gave away a free kick. So much for Matty in midfield. It's hardly surprising. Get King on and Matty up front where he belongs in a 4-3-3.
Koke Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Carroll goal from Fryatt foul which gave away a free kick. So much for Matty in midfield. It's hardly surprising. Get King on and Matty up front where he belongs in a 4-3-3. Exactly. I think Fryatt is trying to fill in the position Hume would usually play but he's quite miserable at it. Hume is far far more mobile and creative than Fryatt. I suppose King would play if he was 110% fit. We may see him in the 2nd half depending on the score.
Thracian Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Sod off Gibson. The team's been decimated, the manager's options are limited and lots of the players are knackered to start with. All all he can suggest is increasing the workrate. He should have a dose of being a manager.
Wasyls Pec Deck Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 I thought Fryatt was one of our best performers against Colchester tbf...Gibson does half talk some shit dont he!
Lillehamring Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 gibson suggested fryatt is playing on the left.... left mid???? whats the point of having three forwards if there is no one who can get the ball to them????????
Koke Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 I thought Fryatt was one of our best performers against Colchester tbf...Gibson does half talk some shit dont he! Fryatt is a fox in the box. His position is not behind the two front men. Too easy Preston at the moment by the sound of it.
Thracian Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Preston are exposing the three slow centre-backs we use. Gibson's right in saying we should change the system.
Clogger Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Sounds like the full backs have started weakly defensively
Koke Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Sounds like the full backs have started weakly defensively They weren't even all that to begin with.
MC Prussian Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 *Yawn* You can't just only blame it on fatigue...
Thracian Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Sounds like the full backs have started weakly defensively Sounds like we have a tired, disjointed, team which is struggling to make the pace. Our managers should have changed things by now.
Glen_lcfc Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Its true what Gibson is saying though - Stearman and Sheehan must be knackered playing wing backs for 4 games in 11 days
Koke Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Sounds like we have a tired, disjointed, team which is struggling to make the pace. Our managers should have changed things by now. Not like they are spoilt for choices on the bench!! Going in 0-1 down only at half-time is vital. And I think we should go 4-4-2 (if we can) in the second half. EDIT: They just done it.. 4-4-2. McAuley is sacrificed.
MC Prussian Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 King for McAuley. Finally. Although I would've dropped Stearman instead.
Thracian Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 King for McAuley sounds sensible if they rearrange sensibly...which doesn't sound like the case. Doesn't seem logical to put Kenton in the back line but McAuley might be struggling after the week's activities.
jonw88 Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 They've put Kenton into defence... if anything, take him off and keep McAuley on! What's Burrows doing?!
Koke Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 They've put Kenton into defence... if anything, take him off and keep McAuley on! What's Burrows doing?! Whichever formation we are changing to, Kenton is more versatile than McAuley. And Kenton is half decent, he isn't that bad.
jonw88 Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Whichever formation we are changing to, Kenton is more versatile than McAuley. And Kenton is half decent, he isn't that bad. Worse than McAuley in defending though. Who's captain now? Kisnorbo i'd have thought?
davieG Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 So we are still 5-3-2 then Kenton is a terrible CB
Blue Bob Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 Great 5-2-3. We are losing 1-0 and we are still playing a very defensive formation against what is at best a crap side. Attack you fools!!!!
MC Prussian Posted 6 November 2007 Posted 6 November 2007 There are days when all you can do is shake your head in disbelief... And oh yeah... F*ç%t have equalized.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.