Well you said we played a 4-2-4. This coming after you moaned about phillips deficiency's tracking back.
He obviously didn't play up front. You are grossly exaggerating the defensive deficemcy and over playing the time he spent forward. He could have done more defensively maybe but I say let him off. Been in our top 3 players3 games running. When has your bum chuum hoilett ever beenthat? And he's not exactly the best defensively and gives sod all going forward.
You then over play Sandro and henry's contribution. By the logic you apply to phillips (not enough going backward and lots going forward). You should say Sandro and Henry are defenders because not enough offensively but lots of pluses defensively
So phillips could do more defensively but Sandro and Henry could do more offensively. So I think you are wrong to discountphillips as a midfielder and say he's an attacker then not disregard Sandro and Henry as midfielders and label them as defenders.
Phillips has set up all 4 of our goals since he has beenin theside. You want to start looking for other weak links especially as you are so in to Hoilett
Peter, I suggest you read that back mate, as it didn't make a lot of sense.
Also, you are so intent on getting all aggressive and confrontational that you're not actually reading what I'm writing.
My last post on this to you, as you're intent on just being confrontational is this:
I agree that Hoilett has been very disappointing this season. I believe we would have got better performances from him had he had a run in the team over a number of games. You don't rate him..........fair enough. At least Hoilett did get back and make tackles in the defensive corner a few times, although he also switched off a couple of times too from this job. (By the way, we probably wouldn't have got to the play off final without Hoilett's contribution in the semi).
I have never rated Phillips and I thought he was pretty poor last night, especially in not tracking back. I know you don't agree that that is important for a wide man in a 4-4-2, but I do. If the wide men don't track back in that formation, it becomes more like 4-2-4 and fails to be effective imo.
If you believe that 4-4-2 can work well without the wide men tracking back then you are entitled to that opinion. I think you're wrong.
Phillips has been much better in recent games and I'm sure a lot of this is down to him being given a run in the team and thus gaining confidence (Swords is right that I wouldn't have given him that run in the team because I really don't rate him). It remains to be seen if his upturn in form is relatively permanent or a flash in the pan. I hope he continues to prove me wrong.
I have already said that I don't expect anything going forward from Sandro and Henry (but you have chosen not to read this presumably). I would play them as two holding midfielders in a 4-2-3-1. This is the system we played at Sunderland to great effect.
I agree with you that the injury to Gabriel actually helped Arsenal to cope much better with BZ, but I maintain that we didn't actually create much at all from banging the ball long to him all game.
I also agree that Ned's injury left us exposed to pace at the back and that Sandro having to go off seriously ****ed us up in the centre. However, I believe that we should then have gone 4-1-4-1 with only Henry holding and not brought Kranjcar on at all or played him on the left.
It's all opinions and I'm just a little disappointed that CR decided to go back to 4-4-2 and hoof ball after such a good display at Sunderland with 4-2-3-1.
Now, please do read this before you start getting all hissy and accusing me of being Hoilett's bum chum and what not, there's a good chap.
