Bullet
Colin Calderwood
I wish we had must-won against Burnley and Villa (and the other crud clams we drew against/lost against).
COYS!!!!!
Pool just lost to Hull, I'm sure they feel the same way.
I wish we had must-won against Burnley and Villa (and the other crud clams we drew against/lost against).
COYS!!!!!
Pool just lost to Hull, I'm sure they feel the same way.
That's because of the well known conspiracy agaisnt Liverpool Football Club that exists at the highest levels of the game from people who have it in for Liverpool Football Club.They failed to get home wins against all of Villa, Hull, Leicester and Sunderland as well.
That's because of the well known conspiracy agaisnt Liverpool Football Club that exists at the highest levels of the game from people who have it in for Liverpool Football Club.
Would like to win, as always. Not must win though.
Would like to see Dembele for this one. Would even give Paulie a run out. He owes us big time, especially after last week. Assuming, Rose, Walker and Davies are injured, I would like to try a different formation - and go three at the back.
................Lloris............
...Dyer.........Fazio..........Verts
Yedlin......Bebtelab..Paulie.....Townsend
.............Dembele....Eriksen..........
...................Kane.....................
Harsh on Lamela and Chadli, our scorers last week, but their overall game hasn't been good enough recently. Mason looks cream crackered and could hardly stand up against Soton. Eriksen and Kane need to find some form and sharpness.
3-2 if we play this team and formation.
Totallt agree we should have won both those games and the things would look a bit different for us now, but we never seem to take advantage when teams around us have a bad day.I wish we had must-won against Burnley and Villa (and the other crud clams we drew against/lost against). Even though in my mind Poch's first season was always going to be a transition and voyage of discovery, as always it's 'if only' for us. Still, I wouldn't swap the agony and ecstasy of following this Glorious Club for the 'success' of any other team in the world.
COYS!!!!!
I want us to finish 5th, so a win is a priority not trying out wishful formations.
Why wishful? If Rose does not make the game, 3 - 5 - 2 - 1 is the best formation we can use to retain some degree of solidity.
Are our players and coach so tactically inept that they can only play one type of formation?
Why wishful? If Rose does not make the game, 3 - 5 - 2 - 1 is the best formation we can use to retain some degree of solidity.
Are our players and coach so tactically inept that they can only play one type of formation?
Really? Townsend and Yedlin as wing backs in a for us completely new system is the best formation we can use to retain some degree of solidity? Some claim to make.
The arguments against switching to a back 3 before have not been based on the tactical ineptitude of our coach or players... Why that would be the case now I don't know...
Because we saw against the Saints that we were woefully narrow. We were lucky to get a point thanks to two brilliant passes from Dier. But other than that we did SFA and should have been spanked.
If Rose is unable to play (which was the original premise) are you really advocating a back four of Dier - Fazio - Chiriches - Vertonghen? And with no wingers?
Successful teams can play 3 different formations, sometimes even in the same game yet we will apparently break apart at the seams if we play three at the back?
When was the last time we played three at the back?
When was the last time the other option was to play 4 centre backs?
Why wishful? If Rose does not make the game, 3 - 5 - 2 - 1 is the best formation we can use to retain some degree of solidity.
Are our players and coach so tactically inept that they can only play one type of formation?
I do know we've done it before and it is not as radical a departure as playing a back three.