The Official Off topic thread-the place for off-topic stuff

I thought about defensive forward, but I have no idea how that position works. It seems no matter what role you give him, there will be some attributes that let him down, but he has decent technical attributes for a DLF (finishing, first touch, passing, technique) and it should also take advantage of his high work rate and stamina.

His height might make up for his poor heading and jumping, and an advantage of being a DLF is that he'll drop away from the opposition centre-backs so he won't have to tussle with them too much in the air like a target man would. He won't get on the end of many crosses, but he could be a useful target from goal kicks if you get the team instructions right. He's good off the ball, so he could have a lot of success dropping back and marking opposition midfielders, who will mostly be shorter than him.

 

How old were you when it happened? I have very clear memories of watching it on TV. It looked pretty realistic.

 

How about Trequartista, which ditches the Decisions and utilizes his reasonably impressive Flair stat? Isn't it basically the same role as DLF?

 

I was 6.I still remember it vividly.I got back from school and I couldn't believe it.

 

Similar, but with less defensive responsibilities, and he would probably need better dribbling to go with that flair. The DLF creates a better link between the midfield and attack. If he had a poacher just ahead of him, and an advanced playmaker just behind him, they could create a nice little triangle and play simple short passes, and he wouldn't be isolated. Long balls forward to him could be nodded down to the playmaker or flicked on to the poacher, and he'd have teammates surrounding him quickly so they could put some nice moves together. That's the way I like to play anyway - covering all the zones and making sure everyone has plenty of support.

 

Fair enough, I'll give that a go. I always thought I was solid with the nitty gritty of FM, but I've never thought of it that deeply. The only thing which I could definitely say I had nailed was set-pieces. Corners in particular, I always seem to get a lot of goals from one CB, but then I guess anyone could get a good set-piece going.

 

Set pieces are something I've never really experimented with, but I have recently discovered the merits of playing a 3-5-2/3-4-3. Having three CBs does wonders from set pieces. I won Serie A with Palermo playing a 3-4-1-2 I created. I played defensive wingers to cover the gaps at the back, so obviously I was lacking in width up front, but focusing through the middle and playing a slow, short passing game proved very effective, and all the goals from corners helped a great deal as well.

 

Joe, I've just read the international thread, and you think that England played well .

 

They played far better than they ever did at the Euros. They didn't play any stupid long balls, the passing was good between Gerrard, Lampard and Cleverley, they ran at the opposition defence, got crosses in from dangerous areas, got in decent positions and created several good chances. Glen Johnson was fantastic all game and was a nightmare for their left-back, Defoe scored a perfectly good goal that was disallowed, and Welbeck got into excellent positions in the box. Cleverley should have got one, and Welbeck should have got a couple. It was a performance that deserved 4 or 5 goals.

There were two things missing:

1) Clinical finishing.
2) Midfielders' defensive responsibilities. Lampard and Gerrard playing as the two deepest CMs is good for the passing game, but they don't do enough when closing down the opposition. Gerrard didn't get tight enough for Ukraine's goal, and it's partly because he's not a defensive player. With someone like Rodwell in the team, that would be much less of a problem.

Let's not forget Ukraine are a very talented team, with some excellent players. They were still second best though and were lucky to get a point. It took a wonder goal and a lot of luck at the back to get it.

 

I was about 16 when the two planes hit the WTC. I saw the second tower come town live on tv. A plane also hit the Pentagon.

 

I was 11. Watching the buildings collapse was definitely the saddest part. We were watching the news for ages while they were covering the rescue efforts, and hoping the firemen would somehow be able to save most of the people in there, but when the buildings collapsed, you knew hundreds of people were dead in an instant. There have been worse disasters than that in terms of loss of life, but that was the first that was broadcast live for the whole world to see. I remember thinking this could well be the start of a massive war.

 

I was 8 when it happened. I remember it all so vividly, coming in from school with a mate of mine. I think I got in just as the Towers collapsed. It was so surreal watching it.

IIRC, my mum's friend lost her brother, who turned out to be the only person from Northern Ireland who died in 9/11.

 

The hood's where it's good homeboy, I thought you knew.

West side! (west sussex)

 

http://www.flightradar24.com/

This website gives me so much pleasure.

 

One time I went on that and there was a plane in Iceland doing donuts. Turns out one of its engines had failed after take-off and it was burning fuel before making an emergency landing back in Reykjavik.

 

I'm going to work now... all for the C.R.E.A.M!

 

So who's watching Strictly Come Dancing then?

I am.
1. The future Mrs Pieking watches it.
2. Victoria Pendleton, Denise van Outen, and FERN BRITTON in skimpy outifts.

 

I'll be watching it, purely because I actually enjoy it.

 

I love that website so much .