|
|
Topic Originator: kba
Date: Sat 12 Mar 12:05
Times running out for us, we have to go for it from now on. Think like big JC with his quality 244 formation, obviously not 244 but we do need 442 from today. Attack attack attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Sat 12 Mar 13:59
It was interesting to see Kilmarnock`s formation last night. They played two up front, but instead of the traditional Big Man / Wee Man approach they played Two Big Men (Lafferty and Shaw) with some success.
It would be an enormous gamble, but what price Todorov and McCann???
_________________
Support Dunfermline Athletic Disabled Supporters` Club when you shop online with one of 7000 firms: http://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dadsc
Or donate £5: text "DADSC" to 70970
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GJS93
Date: Sat 12 Mar 14:00
we need wins but that doesnt mean 442 is the answer which always comes out when a side doesnt play 442.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sat 12 Mar 15:36
Quote:
GJS93, Sat 12 Mar 14:00
we need wins but that doesnt mean 442 is the answer which always comes out when a side doesnt play 442.
It always makes me smile when some folk claim 4-4-2 is an attacking formation. What would that make Alf Ramsey` s WC winning 4-3-3, Brazil`s 4-2-4 before that and the 2-3-5 played in the classic WM formation of yesteryear?
I remember Parma using a 4-5-1 formation v European Champions Milan playing 4-3-3 in the early 90s. Tino Asprilla was the lone striker. He`d hold the ball up and release it when his midfielders flooded forward.
Parma won 4-0.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
