Bottom 3

[dickos1]

Bottom 3 are starting to look a bit adrift now,  could just be one place up for grabs

[Filo]

On that showing, mark Fleetwood down for that last spot

[mushRTID]

On that showing, mark Fleetwood down for that last spot

Couldn’t make it, were they worse than Northampton?

[the vicar]

Was it them that was shit or us that played good I favour the latter

[besty]

Rochdale got a lot of games in hand but I wouldnt fancy being in their shoes!

[DonnyOsmond]

They were shit. We were professional and our confidence grew after we grabbed the first goal.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Fleetwood were rubbish. We set up well but they were poor.

[Herbert Anchovy]

As they say, you can only beat what’s in front of you and they were really bad. But, I’ve seen us struggle to put teams like this away loads of times over the years!

[Cantley Rover]

Four at the back. Need I say more?

[Colemans Left Hook]

WEDNESDAY 21ST FEBRUARY
Rochdale 19:45 Milton Keynes Dons
draw please

rochdale at wigan on saturday

mk dons at fleetwood

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/league-one/scores-fixtures/2018-02?filter=fixtures

[Campsall rover]

On that showing, mark Fleetwood down for that last spot

Couldn’t make it, were they worse than Northampton?

Almost no quite. But Northampton have improved and Fleetwood have now lost 5 on the bounce.
So I think they are looking relegation fodder to me.

[Campsall rover]

Four at the back. Need I say more?

Ditto ditto ditto.and ditto. That makes four I think.

[BigH]

Bottom 3 are starting to look a bit adrift now,  could just be one place up for grabs

Have to agree. And our result/performance today will have been brilliant psychologically in affecting Fleetwood; they're in freefall.

[dickos1]

Four at the back. Need I say more?

We've had 4 at the back plenty of times this year including last Saturday, and been poor. Give credit to the players for playing well 

[Campsall rover]

Four at the back. Need I say more?

We've had 4 at the back plenty of times this year including last Saturday, and been poor. Give credit to the players for playing well

Yes credit to the players of course but they are much more comfortable playing in 4 at the back.
We win more games with that system than we do with a 3/5 FACT not FICTION.
3/5 at the back got us relegated in 2016 FACT not FICTION. 4 at the back got us promoted in 2017 FACT not FICTION. So my question is which is the best one to play. It is not rocket science is it.

[dickos1]

We haven't played 3 at the back anymore this season than we did last season

[eastender]

Four at the back. Need I say more?

We've had 4 at the back plenty of times this year including last Saturday, and been poor.   

 Not surprising though, last week we had 4 at the back and were poor because Blair was in it . (not his fault ) He's an out and out winger being played at full back .... but don't blame Fergie .

[Campsall rover]

We haven't played 3 at the back anymore this season than we did last season

Believe that if you wish but it isn’t true.
I am not going to get into another argument with you ok.
Your opinion against mine let’s leave it at that and be happy at today’s performance and result.

[RoversAlias]

Four at the back. Need I say more?

We've had 4 at the back plenty of times this year including last Saturday, and been poor. Give credit to the players for playing well

Yes credit to the players of course but they are much more comfortable playing in 4 at the back.
We win more games with that system than we do with a 3/5 FACT not FICTION.
3/5 at the back got us relegated in 2016 FACT not FICTION. 4 at the back got us promoted in 2017 FACT not FICTION. So my question is which is the best one to play. It is not rocket science is it.

Not necessarily disagreeing with which is the better formation but you haven't stated any facts in that post at all.

[Campsall rover]

Four at the back. Need I say more?

We've had 4 at the back plenty of times this year including last Saturday, and been poor.   

 Not surprising though, last week we had 4 at the back and were poor because Blair was in it . (not his fault ) He's an out and out winger being played at full back .... but don't blame Fergie .

Correct and Tommy Rowe at left back. Strange that we played 2 proper full backs today and Rowe in midfield. Oh what was the score. Ah 3-0 Brilliant.

[Campsall rover]

Four at the back. Need I say more?

We've had 4 at the back plenty of times this year including last Saturday, and been poor. Give credit to the players for playing well

Yes credit to the players of course but they are much more comfortable playing in 4 at the back.
We win more games with that system than we do with a 3/5 FACT not FICTION.
3/5 at the back got us relegated in 2016 FACT not FICTION. 4 at the back got us promoted in 2017 FACT not FICTION. So my question is which is the best one to play. It is not rocket science is it.

Not necessarily disagreeing with which is the better formation but you haven't stated any facts in that post at all.

Do you want me to go through each individual match since Oct 2015 when DF took over.
If you don’t believe me you do the research to prove me wrong RoversAlias.

[RoversAlias]

We were not relegated or promoted due to a formation, I don't need to research each match to know that. Fergie has alternated between these different set ups for his entire tenure here, often even during games nevermind from match to match. Many factors went into our success last season just as they did the year before in our demotion.

[dickos1]

Four at the back. Need I say more?

We've had 4 at the back plenty of times this year including last Saturday, and been poor.   

 Not surprising though, last week we had 4 at the back and were poor because Blair was in it . (not his fault ) He's an out and out winger being played at full back .... but don't blame Fergie .

Correct and Tommy Rowe at left back. Strange that we played 2 proper full backs today and Rowe in midfield. Oh what was the score. Ah 3-0 Brilliant.

I've already said elsewhere it was more to do with players playing in their more preferred positions rather than the change in formation.
We've played the diamond formation more than any other in fergusons time here

[Donnywolf]

Superb performance made Fleetwood look extremely poor (maybe poorer than they really are) but thats what the cliche says - you can only play as well as the opposition let you 

We looked like a team that knew its formation , was comfortable with it AND a Team that was full of confidence because it had been unchanged for 6 or so games ! There were outstanding performances from several (most) Players and in the end i was a convincing win - in fact 3-0 really flattered Fleetwood

My man of the match was the Groundsman who filled in the whole hole and "saved" the Game as otherwise we may have been deprived of a really good performance with great entertainment and NO I was not at the beer beforehand !

[DonnyOsmond]

Some people are a bit dense thinking we won just because we played 4-4-2.

[The Red Baron]

The formation suited the players available. I don't think we can really play a back 3 unless Baudry is one of them. The biggest difference for me was Tommy Rowe who was actually able to influence the game because he wasn't playing LWB.

[DonnyOsmond]

I think Whiteman and Houghton have been off form recently. They've not been wanting the ball, McCullough has come in and constantly linking up brilliantly. To say however that 3-5-2 never works is daft.

[Campsall rover]

Four at the back. Need I say more?

We've had 4 at the back plenty of times this year including last Saturday, and been poor.   

 Not surprising though, last week we had 4 at the back and were poor because Blair was in it . (not his fault ) He's an out and out winger being played at full back .... but don't blame Fergie .

Correct and Tommy Rowe at left back. Strange that we played 2 proper full backs today and Rowe in midfield. Oh what was the score. Ah 3-0 Brilliant.

I've already said elsewhere it was more to do with players playing in their more preferred positions rather than the change in formation.
We've played the diamond formation more than any other in fergusons time here

Which is the same thing. Because they are not in their preferred positions when playing wing back.

[dickos1]

As donny as stated it's a bit silly to think we only won because we played 4-4-2
We've played this formation many times and lost
It has a lot more to do with the players who came into the side playing well

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Tend to agree as there are times when the back three (or 5) has worked well and shouldn't be disregarded when the situation gives us the opportunity to play it.

As it stands, I think we are more comfortable with the back four given the players available and would like to see us start games with this. Leave it to DF and the state of the game to decide if switching gives us an advantage.

Some fans seem to rule out playing a back three full stop, but it can, has, and will work when the time comes. The players must be comfortable and good at it as it's not the easiest formation to keep the discipline.