|
3-5-2
Dec 9, 2003 18:57:50 GMT 1
Post by 1979andallthat on Dec 9, 2003 18:57:50 GMT 1
howie, street(right wing back), aiston (left wing back), moss, ridler and tinson ( centre), tolley, o'connor (cent mid), cramb ( behind front 2) , darby , rodgers up front.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Dec 10, 2003 1:11:38 GMT 1
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 10, 2003 1:11:38 GMT 1
It was 3-4-3, but what was that all about?
We have the best home record in the Conference yet Quinn feels the need for ridiculous experimentation, I assume for reasons based on the way the opposition lineup?
We should be playing to our strengths, particularly at home, not tampering with the formation to this extent
It's no wonder the Town put in such a disjointed performance!
|
|
|
3-5-2
Dec 10, 2003 1:18:51 GMT 1
Post by ShrewsAde on Dec 10, 2003 1:18:51 GMT 1
But the Oddball family never really troubled us.
The back three gave us an attacking option with Street and Aiston. Which worked - just wait for the attempts on goal stats, we were far better and were denied by their manof the match - the goalkeeper
|
|
|
3-5-2
Dec 10, 2003 1:23:29 GMT 1
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 10, 2003 1:23:29 GMT 1
We almost completely lacked any fluency and only really played anything like half decent football for maybe 20 minutes in the 2nd half
I put much of the blame for that down to the players being asked to play an unfamiliar system, and unnecessarily so in my opinion
|
|
|
3-5-2
Dec 10, 2003 2:04:11 GMT 1
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Dec 10, 2003 2:04:11 GMT 1
I do agree that to change the system wasn't a great idea
Aiston was wasted that deep although Street had a very good game
3 strikers did nothing really, no link up play and poor service, while three defenders looked a lot more in control than they do when they are having to compensate for Rioch, so that was positive
|
|
|
3-5-2
Dec 10, 2003 2:12:23 GMT 1
Post by Pilch on Dec 10, 2003 2:12:23 GMT 1
3-4-3
i've always wanted 3-4-3 and there it was and we didn't win
i could say that as telford never had an attempt on goal then 4 at the back would have been a waste of a player and we really did enough to win but didnt'
|
|
|
3-5-2
Dec 10, 2003 2:13:45 GMT 1
Post by ShrewsAde on Dec 10, 2003 2:13:45 GMT 1
Throb the back three were great, the street, aiston combo on the wings worked, each did well and got up, the front 3 was the probem -
cramb and Darby were too half hearted, hence the change
the tictacswere ok we just didn't score!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
3-5-2
Dec 10, 2003 2:14:32 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2003 2:14:32 GMT 1
I was pleased with Quinn's starting line-up. I thought it looked good and I'd like to see him try it away from home too.
All in all a decent display tonight which deserved more than just the one point. I'm satisfied.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Dec 10, 2003 2:20:47 GMT 1
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Dec 10, 2003 2:20:47 GMT 1
i will take the point though, far far better than losing!
|
|
|
3-5-2
Dec 10, 2003 2:23:19 GMT 1
Post by Ali on Dec 10, 2003 2:23:19 GMT 1
We have the best home record in the Conference yet Quinn feels the need for ridiculous experimentation, I assume for reasons based on the way the opposition line up. You might want to take you facts there young man???
|
|
|
3-5-2
Dec 10, 2003 2:24:09 GMT 1
Post by Ali on Dec 10, 2003 2:24:09 GMT 1
You might want to take you facts there young man??? That should be check, doh!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
3-5-2
Dec 10, 2003 2:52:59 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2003 2:52:59 GMT 1
I expect us to play with a similar system on Sunday.
Defence were solid as a rock and although it wasn't great flowing football we still worked out some good chances.
I expect Banim in from the start against Margate, let the boy play ;D
|
|