Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Match Thread: Cambridge United v Charlton Athletic | Tuesday 19 April
Comments
-
Bring on Harness.0
-
Mmm..How's Liverpool V Manure doing...
0 -
30' - Despite MacGillivray spilling the following corner, the visitors are able to eventually clear.0
-
Well we started very sharp on Friday and ended up losing. So this is extremely encouragingJamesSeed said:We seem to be half asleep.4 -
Honestly .............. no I must not telleastterrace6168 said:How's Liverpool V Manure doing...1 -
So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man.golfaddick said:
I was making the point that posters on here are wanting to go back to 442 but it being pointed out that going back to the "old" system wouldn't work as the midfield would be over run.....but it seems that we are being overrun playing with wingbacks.Chunes said:
What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfieldersgolfaddick said:
I thought we keep being told we can't play 442 as the midfield will be ripped to shreds. So wingbacks aren't the answer either then.RonnieMoore said:4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid
Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying.
I can see why I was confused.1 -
If he got closer he might've done.Todds_right_hook said:Pearce scared me then. I thought he was going to take the guy out and give away a penalty0 -
This will be a shock to many but the Liverpool match just about shades this one in terms of quality. Although saying that, Man U wouldn't look out of place in our game3
-
- 32'
Post update
Hand ball by Sean Clare (Charlton Athletic).
- 32'
Post update
Jack Lankester (Cambridge United) wins a free kick in the defensive half.
0 -
No. Try againChunes said:
So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man.golfaddick said:
I was making the point that posters on here are wanting to go back to 442 but it being pointed out that going back to the "old" system wouldn't work as the midfield would be over run.....but it seems that we are being overrun playing with wingbacks.Chunes said:
What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfieldersgolfaddick said:
I thought we keep being told we can't play 442 as the midfield will be ripped to shreds. So wingbacks aren't the answer either then.RonnieMoore said:4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid
Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying.
I can see why I was confused.
I was saying that we were told that we can't go to 442 as we would be over run in midfield. But playing 3 in midfield isnt working either.
Maybe try 4 or 5......1 -
Sponsored links:
-
- 33'
Post update
Alex Gilbey (Charlton Athletic) wins a free kick in the defensive half.
- 33'
Post update
Foul by Liam O'Neil (Cambridge United).
0 -
- 34'
Post update
Jayden Stockley (Charlton Athletic) wins a free kick on the left wing.
- 34'
Post update
Foul by Jubril Okedina (Cambridge United).
0 -
Also 442 means 4 in midfield. Or arent wingers/wide players allowed to move. Perhaps in netball or subuteo they dont.Chunes said:
So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man.golfaddick said:
I was making the point that posters on here are wanting to go back to 442 but it being pointed out that going back to the "old" system wouldn't work as the midfield would be over run.....but it seems that we are being overrun playing with wingbacks.Chunes said:
What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfieldersgolfaddick said:
I thought we keep being told we can't play 442 as the midfield will be ripped to shreds. So wingbacks aren't the answer either then.RonnieMoore said:4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid
Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying.
I can see why I was confused.0 -
0
-
What formation do you suggest?golfaddick said:
No. Try againChunes said:
So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man.golfaddick said:
I was making the point that posters on here are wanting to go back to 442 but it being pointed out that going back to the "old" system wouldn't work as the midfield would be over run.....but it seems that we are being overrun playing with wingbacks.Chunes said:
What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfieldersgolfaddick said:
I thought we keep being told we can't play 442 as the midfield will be ripped to shreds. So wingbacks aren't the answer either then.RonnieMoore said:4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid
Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying.
I can see why I was confused.
I was saying that we were told that we can't go to 442 as we would be over run in midfield. But playing 3 in midfield isnt working either.
Maybe try 4 or 5......0 -
We definitely have a subuteo goalkeeper!!golfaddick said:
Also 442 means 4 in midfield. Or arent wingers/wide players allowed to move. Perhaps in netball or subuteo they dont.Chunes said:
So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man.golfaddick said:
I was making the point that posters on here are wanting to go back to 442 but it being pointed out that going back to the "old" system wouldn't work as the midfield would be over run.....but it seems that we are being overrun playing with wingbacks.Chunes said:
What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfieldersgolfaddick said:
I thought we keep being told we can't play 442 as the midfield will be ripped to shreds. So wingbacks aren't the answer either then.RonnieMoore said:4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid
Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying.
I can see why I was confused.1 -
11.0.0 in front of the goalCafc43v3r said:
What formation do you suggest?golfaddick said:
No. Try againChunes said:
So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man.golfaddick said:
I was making the point that posters on here are wanting to go back to 442 but it being pointed out that going back to the "old" system wouldn't work as the midfield would be over run.....but it seems that we are being overrun playing with wingbacks.Chunes said:
What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfieldersgolfaddick said:
I thought we keep being told we can't play 442 as the midfield will be ripped to shreds. So wingbacks aren't the answer either then.RonnieMoore said:4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid
Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying.
I can see why I was confused.
I was saying that we were told that we can't go to 442 as we would be over run in midfield. But playing 3 in midfield isnt working either.
Maybe try 4 or 5......0 -
- 36'
Post update
Corner, Cambridge United. Conceded by Jayden Stockley.
0 -
Would love to be reading GolfRedDevil’s posts on ManUre Life tonight :-)moutuakilla said:This will be a shock to many but the Liverpool match just about shades this one in terms of quality. Although saying that, Man U wouldn't look out of place in our game2 -
A Subbuteo goalkeeper is more likely to come off his line.paulfox said:
We definitely have a subuteo goalkeeper!!golfaddick said:
Also 442 means 4 in midfield. Or arent wingers/wide players allowed to move. Perhaps in netball or subuteo they dont.Chunes said:
So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man.golfaddick said:
I was making the point that posters on here are wanting to go back to 442 but it being pointed out that going back to the "old" system wouldn't work as the midfield would be over run.....but it seems that we are being overrun playing with wingbacks.Chunes said:
What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfieldersgolfaddick said:
I thought we keep being told we can't play 442 as the midfield will be ripped to shreds. So wingbacks aren't the answer either then.RonnieMoore said:4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid
Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying.
I can see why I was confused.
And his throwing would be better, too.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
I am listening to Clinton Morrison on SSN on this game. Still cannot stand this manAFKABartram said:
Would love to be reading GolfRedDevil’s posts on ManUre Life tonight :-)moutuakilla said:This will be a shock to many but the Liverpool match just about shades this one in terms of quality. Although saying that, Man U wouldn't look out of place in our game1 -
- 38'
Post update
Attempt missed. Jayden Stockley (Charlton Athletic) header from very close range misses to the left. Assisted by Albie Morgan with a cross.
0 -
- 40'
Post update
Attempt blocked. Wes Hoolahan (Cambridge United) left footed shot from outside the box is blocked.
0 -
I dont think it's the formation that's the problem. Moreso the players & the manager.Cafc43v3r said:
What formation do you suggest?golfaddick said:
No. Try againChunes said:
So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man.golfaddick said:
I was making the point that posters on here are wanting to go back to 442 but it being pointed out that going back to the "old" system wouldn't work as the midfield would be over run.....but it seems that we are being overrun playing with wingbacks.Chunes said:
What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfieldersgolfaddick said:
I thought we keep being told we can't play 442 as the midfield will be ripped to shreds. So wingbacks aren't the answer either then.RonnieMoore said:4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid
Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying.
I can see why I was confused.
I was saying that we were told that we can't go to 442 as we would be over run in midfield. But playing 3 in midfield isnt working either.
Maybe try 4 or 5......0 -
49 year old Wes hoolahan breezed through our midfield there. Beautiful stuff.0
-
We may line up as 3-5-2 but that’s not what we play. We play 3 CB with a RB, a defensive Midfielder with 2 other geezers wandering aimlessly about, plus a deep left winger bringing a threat from a distance, and a big bloke and a runner up front. Not sure how you would adequately explain that, maybe a 3 and 1 over there to the right - 1 with 2 looking about somewhere and 1 on the left side - 2 formation5
-
Nah you need to fit in the 8 nippy strikers somewhere.ross1 said:
11.0.0 in front of the goalCafc43v3r said:
What formation do you suggest?golfaddick said:
No. Try againChunes said:
So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man.golfaddick said:
I was making the point that posters on here are wanting to go back to 442 but it being pointed out that going back to the "old" system wouldn't work as the midfield would be over run.....but it seems that we are being overrun playing with wingbacks.Chunes said:
What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfieldersgolfaddick said:
I thought we keep being told we can't play 442 as the midfield will be ripped to shreds. So wingbacks aren't the answer either then.RonnieMoore said:4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid
Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying.
I can see why I was confused.
I was saying that we were told that we can't go to 442 as we would be over run in midfield. But playing 3 in midfield isnt working either.
Maybe try 4 or 5......0 -
0
-
So how’s it going now we’ve got our most potent strike force playing, tuning up for next season I hope👍0
-
Not a shirt pull surely?
0
This discussion has been closed.
