|
Post by galpharm2400 on Nov 24, 2014 16:02:02 GMT 1
I have no problem with 'formations'.
how you play within that formation is the key.
we really played;;
4/5 huge expanse of grass/occasionally a wide area had a town shirt in it 1 till wells came on..
butterfield never really getting closer than 30 yards to their goal is not my idea of being the attacking central midfielder..
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Nov 24, 2014 16:11:41 GMT 1
I have no problem with 'formations'. how you play within that formation is the key. we really played;; 4/5 huge expanse of grass/occasionally a wide area had a town shirt in it 1 till wells came on.. butterfield never really getting closer than 30 yards to their goal is not my idea of being the attacking central midfielder.. I was puzzling about that during the match. The midfield was set up according to CP for Poyet to play deep to allow Butterfield and Coady to play more forward - don't think CP was expecting them to run through to support Holt though. Not blaming Poyet too much but I thought there was a bit of a disconnect between him and Butterfield / Coady. When Coady plays the deeper role he tends to push the whole team up the pitch. So I think that lack of cohesion in midfield was why we looked to be spread out all over the pitch with a lot of players isolated. Other times when we have played 4-3-3 we have looked more of a unit. As you say its how you play the formation that's the key.
|
|