tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33779660.post2360309602601545895..comments2023-12-22T01:47:49.178-05:00Comments on oh you beauty: Good Against Good, Bad Against Badnatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10043601945557998732noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33779660.post-75353802555704679572011-11-16T09:57:06.790-05:002011-11-16T09:57:06.790-05:00You're welcome
Not well known this blog - sus...You're welcome<br /><br />Not well known this blog - suspect that you'd get a fair amount of interest if you were better known<br /><br />And I'll always highlight cogent analysis if I can<br /><br />cheersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33779660.post-4509878062296273802011-11-16T06:12:20.622-05:002011-11-16T06:12:20.622-05:00If we play 442 against Chelsea and City's 3 ma...If we play 442 against Chelsea and City's 3 man central midfields then we'll most likely be in line for a repeat of the 3-0 defeat when we made the same mistake against City last year.<br /><br />Until we get a more physically dominant central midfield pairing we should stick with 3 in there every game.Jay Wrightnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33779660.post-79349359763557227722011-11-15T10:45:40.516-05:002011-11-15T10:45:40.516-05:00oh, hey, I've seen you link a few pieces you l...oh, hey, I've seen you link a few pieces you liked in relevant RAWK threads in the past. I appreciate that very much. Thanks, Matt.natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10043601945557998732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33779660.post-6952252288477513952011-11-15T09:50:03.644-05:002011-11-15T09:50:03.644-05:00Ah, damn the facts!
Keep going on the blog - requ...Ah, damn the facts!<br /><br />Keep going on the blog - required reading<br /><br />And I'm Matt- roy of the rovers on RAWK...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33779660.post-24628926791224640702011-11-15T09:10:45.091-05:002011-11-15T09:10:45.091-05:00Cheers, thanks for the kind words.
This season, t...Cheers, thanks for the kind words.<br /><br />This season, that's basically true, although I'd argue it was more 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 than 4-1-3-2 against Arsenal, Spurs, and United. Last season there was a greater variety of formations against the big clubs: 3-5-1-1 against Chelsea, 4-4-1-1 against United, and 4-2-2-2 against Arsenal, City, and Spurs.<br /><br />Similar goes for games against the 'bad' teams. A variety last season: 3-5-2 in West Ham loss, 4-3-3 in Blackpool loss, 4-2-2-2 in WBA loss and Newcastle win, 4-4-2 diamond in Birmingham romp. But yeah, 4-2-2-2 against both Norwich and Swansea this season.<br /><br />Yeah, I'd rather see the 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 more often, although I'm mostly willing to give this new 4-2-2-2/4-4-2 more time to gel. And I reckon we will against Chelsea.natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10043601945557998732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33779660.post-7062994678090183202011-11-15T03:20:20.441-05:002011-11-15T03:20:20.441-05:00This is a great site - thanks Nate
One comment on...This is a great site - thanks Nate<br /><br />One comment on this - on TTT, there's an argument that we play 4-4-2 against bad and 4-1-3-2 against good sides<br /><br />In your view, are we seeing the relative merits of these systems, or something else?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com