|
Post by Parksy on Mar 27, 2010 15:00:03 GMT
West ham have a terrible defence at the moment and they don't like Big, strong players in their face. I guess TP thinks both Kitts and Mama will cause their defence loads of problems
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 27, 2010 15:00:34 GMT
I think this could work. When I first saw it I felt like kicking something. But West Ham haven't got a midfielder on that You would expect can beat Mama. And Kitson is a striker and his best role should be up front. It's strange but it just may work!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Rottweiler on Mar 27, 2010 15:02:29 GMT
More Bullshit from a PHW. Where is the proof we dallied with formations. We have ALWAYS played 4-4-1-1. The only difference in the last couple of weeks is the form of Mama, he hasn't played well so the rest of the side have suffered. Nothing to do with attacking formations And today's team is the most attacking as any we have put out all season. TWO wingers??? Alright that may have been a slight exaggeration.
|
|
|
Post by jacka118 on Mar 27, 2010 15:03:54 GMT
Goarn Mama! Stop moaning you lot and get behind the lads, I know mama is shite but he scores the odd goal and might get a winner today, come on stoke!
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 27, 2010 15:14:01 GMT
Hmm, interesting. This is the fifth strike partnership that I'd have put ahead of Tuncay and Fuller together. I'm not fond of it, because there's no Fuller style player to take on the opposition defence, just two target men. We've got to rely on Lawrence and Etherington to do everything today, which is perhaps why we've put in Lawrence instead of, say, Pugh. I think March has a point about work off the ball. Kitson doesn't put the same amount of work into the opposition midfield as a fully fit Mama does (although there's a perfectly reasonable argument about the extent to which the current 3% fit Mama performs that much work) and Tuncay is a lame duck when we don't have the ball, apart from the 30 seconds he spends chasing after the opposition defence. Kitson and Tuncay up front may well have given them a completely free rein when they have the ball, even if it could possibly have given us more options in attack.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 27, 2010 15:57:07 GMT
Ric on after 60 mins please
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2010 15:58:15 GMT
Ric on FOR MAMA. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD FOR MAMA after 60 mins please Completely agree march.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 27, 2010 16:00:26 GMT
Ric on FOR MAMA. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD FOR MAMA after 60 mins please Completely agree march. I'd take Kitson off, although I suspect that might be a minority view.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2010 16:01:25 GMT
Completely agree march. I'd take Kitson off, although I suspect that might be a minority view. I suspect so, since Kitson is playing well and Mama is offering less than nothing.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 27, 2010 16:04:26 GMT
It takes all sorts!
|
|
|
Post by fromafar07 on Mar 27, 2010 16:07:07 GMT
oh dear. Tuncay and Sidibe together again!!
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 27, 2010 16:14:51 GMT
I'd take Kitson off, although I suspect that might be a minority view. I suspect so, since Kitson is playing well and Mama is offering less than nothing. Told you Kitson would be taken off ;D March always first with the news. 10 minutes before it happens
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 27, 2010 16:26:19 GMT
I also said that Mama would last the 90 mins
|
|