I cannot work out the reasoning behind watering the pitch before the game. Is it to reduce the bounce height of the ball that Bruce was complaining about, or what. If so it clearly does not work, or would it have been even worse.
Firstly, Wigan play 3-4-3 and it works fine for them. Secondly, the 3-5-2 isn't even that attacking, we got way more men forward yesterday when we switched to 4-4-2 Every time Brady had a chance to cross he was aiming at 4 or 5 players instead of the usual 2. I don't think there's any risk that a 3-5-2 would leave us more exposed than other systems.
It's working for Wigan is it???? DOH! Point about 3-5-2 is that it is the worst possible formation at combatting counter attacks. At this level we are fine because the strikers are not that good, but in the Premiership we would get picked off over and over again.
Well they're hardly getting beat every week, they're the smallest club in thr PL and they've survived about 5 seasons now. Their 3-4-3 is a proper attacking formation because of the 2 in central midfield. We play with a packed midfield 3 so it's not much more attacking than a 4-5-1 really. I don't know how you can watch City playing 3-5-2 and think we're too open. We have to be one of the least adventurous sides in the league in terms of going forward and leaving gaps, which proves theres more to every team than just looking at the formation they play. If we were winning 5-4 every week you might have a point.
We aren't winning 5-4 every week because AT THIS LEVEL we can handle only having 3 defenders because the strikers AT THIS LEVEL arent very good and our defenders are. We don't win 5-4 also because our strikers are hopeless, but if you look at the opportunities created we will be one of the best in this division. That being said you should have noticed that more and more teams are coming to the KC with a definite game plan. That is to flood the midfield, defend deep, press the ball and attack with pace on the counter. Because of our formation that strategy allows them to outnumber us because Brady and Elmo get caught up the pitch and cannot get back quickly enough.
Balls. You're trying to be a master tactician when really none of us can ever understand exactly why managers do what they do. Bruce said last night that the only problem with the 3-5-2 is it makes it hard to pt pressure on the ball. That's something I'm confident in saying none of us on here will be able to make sense of and sometimes we just have to accept that. All teams come to the KC knowing we're a footballing team and have to try and stop us, this has been the case for years and far longer than we've been playing any particular formation. How they do that varies, and the only constant is that they all waste time and try to slow the game down which is just common sense. We're getting away from the point which is that you keep saying it's impossible to play a back 3 in the PL despite clear evidence that it works for a current PL team who we'd be competing with if we did go up even though they play with a much thinner midfield than us and therefore much more open. The only thing to suggest your claim was true (ignoring the compelling evidence to the contrary) is that number 3 in the formation. You're ignoring the fact we don't actually play very open at all just because there's a number 3 in the formation.
What's up with you? Can't you read? I said WE cannot play 3 at the back in the PL, not that it's impossible to play that system. The reason is, if you want to do such you must have 3 defenders with lightning speed and a great deal of quality. That tends to cost a great deal of coin which we don't and will not have. THAT is why WE will not be able to successfully use the 352 formation. Ever since Joachim Loew rolled out the highly innovative 4231 formation 3 years ago most of Europe has followed the German's lead as it has proved dominant over just about every other formation. Nick Barmby used it last season to great effect apart from the fact he had one piece of the puzzle missing; a quality lone striker. Ultimately that was what cost us promotion. When Steve Bruce came in he realised what was going on and bought Prossy (as well as some much needed squad deepening) as the solution to that problem. Unfortunately Prossy has, so far, proved a dud in the role for which he was bought. Bruce's solution, rather astutely, I thought was to move from 4231 to a 352 which was the only way to maintain a 5 man midfield as well as address the striking problems. Initially this worked and we started to score more goals. However as the season has progressed teams have learned how to combat our wingbacks. The point I have made is valid. We will have to change our formation if we get into the Premiership as our budget will not enable us to acquire the quality of player necessary to play 3 centrebacks with wingbacks. Also, if you are not capable of understanding football tactics, fair enough. But that doesn't mean everybody suffers from the same deficiencies you do.
Stadiums have their 'best stand' orientated to to west for that very reason, those in the posh seats don't want the sun in their eyes, leave that for the great unwashed! We're not unique in this, the majority of stadiums old and modern follow this design. It's been stated a few times that the stadium as a whole is not great for getting sunlight onto the pitch.
If the stadium hadn't been rotated as much from the actual compass points we'd be better off. As it is the "West" Stand is just as close to being the South Stand as it is the West look on Google Earth, it's about half way between. Even for the lunchtime kickoffs, from the middle of the East Stand the sun is already behind the South end of the West Stand before kickoff. If it were properly aligned then at least the North end of the ground would get a decent amount of the middle of the day sun light available during the winter. (South end would still be knackered by the shadow mind) On that alignment point. Was the South Stand at Boulevard behind a goal like it was at BP? Only I can't help but think they've only kept the compass point descriptions as fans were used to South being behind the goal, and East and West being down the sides. Oh, and were away fans in the North stand at Boulevard now I'm on it? The point was made about the difficulty combatting pacey counter attacks when you're using wingbacks. No good them dropping back if they're 20 yards upfield from the ball all the time they're coming back.
I seem to remember we used to have 'winter' at Boothferry Park. As did eeefffccceeee at the world famous two sided boulevard. Difference being BP was considered and won awards for being one of the best playing surfaces in the league and the bullyvard was like a dairy farmers field. Last year they blamed parasites, personally I know who I would blame.
s The boulevard never had any stands behind either of the goals. It had piles of rubble with weeds growing from them. Laughingly called terracing both ends were also some distance from the playing area as the world famous rugby league ground started life as a athletics track. They also used the perimeter for speedway meetings. The main stand which also housed the changing rooms occupied about one third of the side/pitch on the eastern side. It was mainly brick and asbestos built with wooden planks for seating. It operated without a safety certificate for the last 2/3 years before the club ceased to exist and reformed as Gateshead Thunder trading as Hull FC. Down the other flank there was a low level single storey stand, similar to your average gents urinal, and the smell was very similar. Half was seating which backed onto some private sponsors boxes and the other half was standing, once called 'the threepenny stand' It held about 500 people when full but for some obscure reason it was said to be 'world famous' Yeah sure it was. The pitch was a disgrace. Yet one of the muppets posted on the HDM site this week that the ground was valued at £3.5m when it demolished and the club moved to the KC. It may have ben a typo and the muppet actually meant £3.50p.
We'd rather sit in the sun and we've all got designer sunglasses, so that was some seriously ****e planning.
Well if FC don't want to pay for anything and expect to just get it for free I think they blamed them as well.
Theoretically then, North/South behind goals, East/West down the sides? I think the threepenny stand is either because of it's value or the fact it was an odd shaped coin and the stand was poorly built.
