Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: dickos1 on February 17, 2018, 05:22:49 pm
-
Bottom 3 are starting to look a bit adrift now, could just be one place up for grabs
-
On that showing, mark Fleetwood down for that last spot
-
On that showing, mark Fleetwood down for that last spot
Couldn’t make it, were they worse than Northampton?
-
Was it them that was shit or us that played good I favour the latter
-
Rochdale got a lot of games in hand but I wouldnt fancy being in their shoes!
-
They were shit. We were professional and our confidence grew after we grabbed the first goal.
-
Fleetwood were rubbish. We set up well but they were poor.
-
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!
-
Four at the back. Need I say more?
-
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
-
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.
-
Four at the back. Need I say more?
Ditto ditto ditto.and ditto. That makes four I think. :thumbsup:
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
We haven't played 3 at the back anymore this season than we did last season
-
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 .
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 !
-
Some people are a bit dense thinking we won just because we played 4-4-2.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that when we refer to a back 4 we mean 2 full backs with two centre halfs. Not 2 wingers/midfield players filling in as full backs.
-
I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that when we refer to a back 4 we mean 2 full backs with two centre halfs. Not 2 wingers/midfield players filling in as full backs.
Correct from where I am coming from. That’s as yesterday line up, although Mason was picked on the wrong side, left and not right back. As it happened he was outstanding.
-
That's the point though if we'd lost everyone would be saying why did he play mason left back!
I think we just need to praise the players for playing better than they have been doing.
-
Mason didn't get exposed at left back because they were w**k.
-
Mason didn't get exposed at left back because they were w**k.
That helped of course. If you had been at Walsall even you Dickos would have confined the 3/5 wing back system to the bin for the rest of the season. The players looked negged out in the warm up, never mind the game itself.
One point I want to make is I am NOT anti that system totally but we DO NOT have the personnel in our squad to play it.
If we had for example a Jimmy O’connor (in his prime of course) and Danny Andrew with TWO of the three centre backs with loads of pace and we had a Brian Stock and Richie Wellens type quality in the middle of the park then it would work.
Hence premier league clubs play it quite a bit because of the Quality Players at their disposal.
We do not have that luxury, hence we need to stick to basics. KISS. Keep it simple stupid.
If he does that, looking at the table we could finish as high as 8th this season.
Onwards and Upwards. :thumbsup:
-
That's the point though if we'd lost everyone would be saying why did he play mason left back!
I think we just need to praise the players for playing better than they have been doing.
No it isn't the point. The point is we played a proper defensive back four. We didn't play 2 centre halfs and a full back trying to cover each other at the back with 2 wingers/midfield players having to cover the full back positions.
In other words we had players playing in the positions they are best at. Thats why we played a lot better yesterday. Players knew what they were doing.
-
That's the point though if we'd lost everyone would be saying why did he play mason left back!
I think we just need to praise the players for playing better than they have been doing.
No it isn't the point. The point is we played a proper defensive back four. We didn't play 2 centre halfs and a full back trying to cover each other at the back with 2 wingers/midfield players having to cover the full back positions.
In other words we had players playing in the positions they are best at. Thats why we played a lot better yesterday. Players knew what they were doing.
Correct
-
That's the point though if we'd lost everyone would be saying why did he play mason left back!
I think we just need to praise the players for playing better than they have been doing.
No it isn't the point. The point is we played a proper defensive back four. We didn't play 2 centre halfs and a full back trying to cover each other at the back with 2 wingers/midfield players having to cover the full back positions.
In other words we had players playing in the positions they are best at. Thats why we played a lot better yesterday. Players knew what they were doing.
Correct
Agreed, no reason why Mason shouldn’t have played LB either, he has played there often enough.
In fact he played LB in loads of games last season, probably the easiest promotion we have ever had.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting we only won because we played as a 4-4-2.
More likely it was because the players we had available were more comfortable in that system.
Also the two new CB’s have had time to become accustomed to playing with their new colleagues whereas in the previous home game they were still relatively new to each other.
-
Mason didn't get exposed at left back because they were w**k.
That helped of course. If you had been at Walsall even you Dickos would have confined the 3/5 wing back system to the bin for the rest of the season. The players looked negged out in the warm up, never mind the game itself.
One point I want to make is I am NOT anti that system totally but we DO NOT have the personnel in our squad to play it.
If we had for example a Jimmy O’connor (in his prime of course) and Danny Andrew with TWO of the three centre backs with loads of pace and we had a Brian Stock and Richie Wellens type quality in the middle of the park then it would work.
Hence premier league clubs play it quite a bit because of the Quality Players at their disposal.
We do not have that luxury, hence we need to stick to basics. KISS. Keep it simple stupid.
If he does that, looking at the table we could finish as high as 8th this season.
Onwards and Upwards. :thumbsup:
Even me?
I'm not a massive fan of 3-5-2 if you'd read my post the other day I said we should go 4-4-2 for the Fleetwood game.
But some people are acting like if we play 4-4-2 we will win every week.
And as other have said on here 3-5-2 does work in certain games. And has done and will continue to.
You don't start arguments with these other people when they say the same things as I do, just seem to jump in my posts and then accuse me of causing an arguement.
Fergie has said many times his preferred formation is the diamond, but there's been games not too long ago where we were losing and we changed to 3 at the back and got something from the game.
If you think simply playing 4-4-2 every week will automatically turn us into world beaters than you're daft
-
That's the point though if we'd lost everyone would be saying why did he play mason left back!
I think we just need to praise the players for playing better than they have been doing.
No it isn't the point. The point is we played a proper defensive back four. We didn't play 2 centre halfs and a full back trying to cover each other at the back with 2 wingers/midfield players having to cover the full back positions.
In other words we had players playing in the positions they are best at. Thats why we played a lot better yesterday. Players knew what they were doing.
Correct
Agreed, no reason why Mason shouldn’t have played LB either, he has played there often enough.
In fact he played LB in loads of games last season, probably the easiest promotion we have ever had.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting we only won because we played as a 4-4-2.
More likely it was because the players we had available were more comfortable in that system.
Also the two new CB’s have had time to become accustomed to playing with their new colleagues whereas in the previous home game they were still relatively new to each other.
He has played there lots of times and when we've lost people have been complaining.
Stating why is he playing mason there when we have a left back on the bench,
When we win he's a round peg in a round hole, when we lose fergie has lost the plot playing him out of position
-
That's the point though if we'd lost everyone would be saying why did he play mason left back!
I think we just need to praise the players for playing better than they have been doing.
No it isn't the point. The point is we played a proper defensive back four. We didn't play 2 centre halfs and a full back trying to cover each other at the back with 2 wingers/midfield players having to cover the full back positions.
In other words we had players playing in the positions they are best at. Thats why we played a lot better yesterday. Players knew what they were doing.
Correct
Agreed, no reason why Mason shouldn’t have played LB either, he has played there often enough.
In fact he played LB in loads of games last season, probably the easiest promotion we have ever had.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting we only won because we played as a 4-4-2.
More likely it was because the players we had available were more comfortable in that system.
Also the two new CB’s have had time to become accustomed to playing with their new colleagues whereas in the previous home game they were still relatively new to each other.
He has played there lots of times and when we've lost people have been complaining.
Stating why is he playing mason there when we have a left back on the bench,
When we win he's a round peg in a round hole, when we lose fergie has lost the plot playing him out of position
Who has said we will win every game if we play 4-4-2 ???
Mason isn’t a left back but is on occasions capable. Depends who is up against him doesn’t it.
There are times Fergie playing him there has made him look stupid and he isn’t. I think he will become a very competent solid Right Back. He should play there every week. Shunting him around the pitch is doing him no favours. What has Garrett done wrong that’s the question. He can only improve also if he plays consistently at left back as he did in December. 4 wins & 1 draw. Need I say more.
-
On that showing, mark Fleetwood down for that last spot
... is he Micks brother??
-
Back on topic,
I don't think any of the bottom 3 are going to get 50 points!