Pack your bags Roy

[kris90210]

I totally disagree with that, i think coming into yesterday's game and facing a Chelsea side without Drogba, Essien and Lampard, meant that our starting XI wasnt at all inferior to their's.

We can agree to disagree on this one then, but I think you are completely ignoring form here.

[Craig_H]

If Rafa would have taken off Masch then our fullbacks wouldn't been able to attack as much as they did. Johnson and Insua would have had to stay back more. Both of them are better attacking than defending so it suits the team better to play with two defensive midfielders.

A winger isn't always better for the system to be more attacking than a fullback.

There's always an excuse, isnt there?

Rafa cant have ever, just once perhaps, been slightly wrong about something. Ever.

It's quite amusing.

[Scratch]

If Rafa would have taken off Masch then our fullbacks wouldn't been able to attack as much as they did. Johnson and Insua would have had to stay back more. Both of them are better attacking than defending so it suits the team better to play with two defensive midfielders.

A winger isn't always better for the system to be more attacking than a fullback.

If Rafa had taken off a DM, the full backs could still have got forward...2 DM's were doing the job of 1, so 1 was wasted. Like i said, in many games that season, Mascher was unneeded, as there was no pressure for the backline to soak up.

[Craig_H]

Exactly.

Furthermore, when teams like Hull come to Anfield, their utopia result is a draw. They're not even thinking of winning.

So when you get to 70 mins, and the score is level, they're 20 mins away from achieving what they set out to achieve - therefore, at this stage of the game, they arent going to be pushing men forward, they wont be committing bodies to attack and as a consequence of this, the level of risk attached to removing a DM for a striker, is totally minimal.

[Arn]

If Rafa had taken off a DM, the full backs could still have got forward...2 DM's were doing the job of 1, so 1 was wasted. Like i said, in many games that season, Mascher was unneeded, as there was no pressure for the backline to soak up.

If you take off one DM then either the left or right side will be much less protected. It's up to the DM and the central defenders to cover when the fullbacks attack.

If we only played with one DM then our central defenders would need to concentrate much more to cover in the middle instead of the wings.

Play with two DM and the central defenders can help out the fullbacks more.

We don't exactly have that quick central defenders and that means that they won't be able to help the fullbacks that much.

You can take the example when Agger played with Insua and when another one of our central defenders did that. More or less no problem at all when Agger played because he is quick enough to cover behind the fullback. Big problems when another one of our central defenders should do the same job.

You can't only say that a winger is a better attacking option than a fullback.

You must look at the whole picture. Sometimes even a central defender can be a better attacking option than a striker depending on what the team needs. We for example didn't had a single striker on the bench that was good in the air. A central defender in the box was because of that a bigger threat than Voronin or Babel for example at the end of a game when we needed a goal.

[Scratch]

If you take off one DM then either the left or right side will be much less protected. It's up to the DM and the central defenders to cover when the fullbacks attack. No, because neither the left or right flank was under pressure...DM not utilised

If we only played with one DM then our central defenders would need to concentrate much more to cover in the middle instead of the wings. No, because the CB's were not under pressure...DM not required.

Play with two DM and the central defenders can help out the fullbacks more. Yes, but only when the opposition team has come to play football...when they're just camped in their own half, two DMs are a luxury

We don't exactly have that quick central defenders and that means that they won't be able to help the fullbacks that much. See two points above

You can take the example when Agger played with Insua and when another one of our central defenders did that. More or less no problem at all when Agger played because he is quick enough to cover behind the fullback. Big problems when another one of our central defenders should do the same job. Not really relevent??

You can't only say that a winger is a better attacking option than a fullback. I can say however, that another attack minded player is better than a DM just sitting in midfield twiddling his thumbs

You must look at the whole picture. Sometimes even a central defender can be a better attacking option than a striker depending on what the team needs. We for example didn't had a single striker on the bench that was good in the air. A central defender in the box was because of that a bigger threat than Voronin or Babel for example at the end of a game when we needed a goal.Try looking at the whole picture yourself...look at the example Craig used...a team that has come for a point, is not interested in playing footy...why do we need 2 DM's for that...yet still we played with that system??

[red g]

If you take off one DM then either the left or right side will be much less protected. It's up to the DM and the central defenders to cover when the fullbacks attack.

If we only played with one DM then our central defenders would need to concentrate much more to cover in the middle instead of the wings.

Play with two DM and the central defenders can help out the fullbacks more.

We don't exactly have that quick central defenders and that means that they won't be able to help the fullbacks that much.

You can take the example when Agger played with Insua and when another one of our central defenders did that. More or less no problem at all when Agger played because he is quick enough to cover behind the fullback. Big problems when another one of our central defenders should do the same job.

You can't only say that a winger is a better attacking option than a fullback.

You must look at the whole picture. Sometimes even a central defender can be a better attacking option than a striker depending on what the team needs. We for example didn't had a single striker on the bench that was good in the air. A central defender in the box was because of that a bigger threat than Voronin or Babel for example at the end of a game when we needed a goal.

thats only becuase both players Rafa bought and you mention are ****. If we had bought someone decent who could score.....they would have been more of a threat than the central defender.

[Kenneth]

Anyway, Stickle Bricks were ****. Try never quite lined up. Obvious design flaw.

[Reece]

Anyway, Stickle Bricks were ****. Try never quite lined up. Obvious design flaw.

A Poor man's child's Lego.

[malg]

Is Bodgson still here then thought he would have gone by now ?

[Shanks]

Chelsea will destroy us at the weekend and hopefully this geriatric retard will **** off.

Oops.

[Exiled_red]

A Poor man's child's Lego.

Lego

[Neil Young]

Lego

No, you lego.

[RedReet]

No, you lego.

Dear, oh dear, oh dear.

(actualy i did laugh a bit :invisible smiley face:.)

[SB]

So are we ready to close this thread and start a new one called " In Roy we trust " or something similar ?