Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Match Thread: Cambridge United v Charlton Athletic | Tuesday 19 April

12357…14

Comments

  • seth plum
    seth plum Posts: 53,448
    Bring on Harness.
  • eastterrace6168
    eastterrace6168 Posts: 23,038
    edited April 2022
    Mmm..How's Liverpool V Manure doing... B)
  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069

    30' - Despite MacGillivray spilling the following corner, the visitors are able to eventually clear.
  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram Posts: 57,925
    JamesSeed said:
    We seem to be half asleep. 
    Well we started very sharp on Friday and ended up losing. So this is extremely encouraging 
  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069
    eastterrace6168 said:
    How's Liverpool V Manure doing... B)
    Honestly .............. no I must not tell
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,433
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid 
    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. 
    What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfielders
    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. 

    Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying. 
    So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man. 

    I can see why I was confused. 
  • Briston_Addick
    Briston_Addick Posts: 11,932
    Todds_right_hook said:
    Pearce scared me then. I thought he was going to take the guy out and give away a penalty 
    If he got closer he might've done.
  • moutuakilla
    moutuakilla Posts: 7,594
    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 game
  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069
    1. 32'

      Post update

      Hand ball by Sean Clare (Charlton Athletic).

    2. 32'

      Post update

      Jack Lankester (Cambridge United) wins a free kick in the defensive half.

  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,847
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid 
    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. 
    What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfielders
    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. 

    Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying. 
    So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man. 

    I can see why I was confused. 
    No. Try again
     
    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......

  • Sponsored links:



  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069
    1. 33'

      Post update

      Alex Gilbey (Charlton Athletic) wins a free kick in the defensive half.

    2. 33'

      Post update

      Foul by Liam O'Neil (Cambridge United).

  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069
    1. 34'

      Post update

      Jayden Stockley (Charlton Athletic) wins a free kick on the left wing.

    2. 34'

      Post update

      Foul by Jubril Okedina (Cambridge United).

  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,847
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid 
    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. 
    What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfielders
    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. 

    Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying. 
    So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man. 

    I can see why I was confused. 
    Also 442 means 4 in midfield. Or arent wingers/wide players allowed to move. Perhaps in netball or subuteo they dont. 
  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069

    35' Dobson booked for a foul on Tracey. #camutd 0 #cafc 0
  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid 
    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. 
    What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfielders
    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. 

    Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying. 
    So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man. 

    I can see why I was confused. 
    No. Try again
     
    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......
    What formation do you suggest? 
  • paulfox
    paulfox Posts: 2,356
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid 
    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. 
    What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfielders
    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. 

    Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying. 
    So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man. 

    I can see why I was confused. 
    Also 442 means 4 in midfield. Or arent wingers/wide players allowed to move. Perhaps in netball or subuteo they dont. 
    We definitely have a subuteo goalkeeper!!
  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069
    Cafc43v3r said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid 
    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. 
    What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfielders
    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. 

    Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying. 
    So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man. 

    I can see why I was confused. 
    No. Try again
     
    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......
    What formation do you suggest? 
    11.0.0 in front of the goal
  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069
    1. 36'

      Post update

      Corner, Cambridge United. Conceded by Jayden Stockley.

  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram Posts: 57,925
    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 game
    Would love to be reading GolfRedDevil’s posts on ManUre Life tonight :-) 
  • Briston_Addick
    Briston_Addick Posts: 11,932
    paulfox said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid 
    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. 
    What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfielders
    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. 

    Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying. 
    So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man. 

    I can see why I was confused. 
    Also 442 means 4 in midfield. Or arent wingers/wide players allowed to move. Perhaps in netball or subuteo they dont. 
    We definitely have a subuteo goalkeeper!!
    A Subbuteo goalkeeper is more likely to come off his line.

    And his throwing would be better, too.

  • Sponsored links:



  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069
    AFKABartram said:
    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 game
    Would love to be reading GolfRedDevil’s posts on ManUre Life tonight :-) 
    I am listening to Clinton Morrison on SSN on this game. Still cannot stand this man
  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069
    1. 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.

  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069
    1. 40'

      Post update

      Attempt blocked. Wes Hoolahan (Cambridge United) left footed shot from outside the box is blocked.

  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,847
    Cafc43v3r said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid 
    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. 
    What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfielders
    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. 

    Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying. 
    So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man. 

    I can see why I was confused. 
    No. Try again
     
    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......
    What formation do you suggest? 
    I dont think it's the formation that's the problem. Moreso the players & the manager. 
  • CL_Phantom
    CL_Phantom Posts: 5,605
    49 year old Wes hoolahan breezed through our midfield there. Beautiful stuff. 
  • RoanRedNY
    RoanRedNY Posts: 1,154
    edited April 2022
    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 formation
  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    ross1 said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chunes said:
    golfaddick said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    4231 causing us problems .. out numbered in mid 
    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. 
    What you on about.. Nobody is playing 442. Both teams have 3 midfielders
    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. 

    Jeez......not hard to see what I was saying. 
    So you're saying that if we're getting overrun with a 3-man midfield... then we should try a 2-man. 

    I can see why I was confused. 
    No. Try again
     
    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......
    What formation do you suggest? 
    11.0.0 in front of the goal
    Nah you need to fit in the 8 nippy strikers somewhere. 
  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069

    42' Closing in at the break. Still nothing to separate the sides... #camutd 0 #cafc 0
  • paulfox
    paulfox Posts: 2,356
    So how’s it going now we’ve got our most potent strike force playing, tuning up for next season I hope👍
  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 51,069


    Not a shirt pull surely?  :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

“Marketplace”