You don't agree then...?

 

From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswol...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Steven Millward
Sent: Thursday, 7 October 2010 11:38 AM
To: nswolves@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [BTMO] Trouble [sec=unclassified]

 

What a load of bollocks.

On 7 October 2010 10:42, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com>
wrote:

I think Milijas is our Berbatov or Cantona (albeit on a much lower
level).  They each have the technical ability to change a game with a
flick or a special pass but they just look like they're not trying or
look lazy.  That style of play is never going to sit well with Thick
Mick.

 

From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswol...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Steven Millward
Sent: Thursday, 7 October 2010 10:39 AM


To: nswolves@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [BTMO] Trouble [sec=unclassified]

 

He might get a game on Saturday apparently, if he looks good in
training.   He's been on a special programme to get him fit.

Otherwise it will be Jones, which presumably means 442

On 7 October 2010 10:17, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com>
wrote:

Last time I checked Thick Mick refused to play our 'only' creative
midfielder, Milijas, so the chances of us ever playing 2 creative
midfielders is absolutely zero, because we don't have two in our entire
squad.  If you're looking for hard work and graft, then Mick reckons
we've got that in spades.

 

 

From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswol...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Steven Millward
Sent: Thursday, 7 October 2010 9:57 AM


To: nswolves@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [BTMO] Trouble [sec=unclassified]

 

I picked this as it's the closest formation and team to the one that
beat West Ham 3-1 last season.  451 works fine, especially if there are
two "creative midfielders"

442 hasn't worked for us at all this season and it's widely regarded to
have no place in modern football so I can't understand why so many
people demand it, even if it's dressed up as 4132

On 7 October 2010 09:51, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com>
wrote:

Can we please drop Edwards and put SEB up front.  A nice simple 4-1-3-2
formation.  If we don't go in with an attacking game plan against West
Ham then we can forget staying up.

 

From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswol...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Steven Millward
Sent: Thursday, 7 October 2010 9:49 AM
To: nswolves@googlegroups.com


Subject: Re: [BTMO] Trouble [sec=unclassified]

 

Hard choice for West Ham:



--------------------Hahnemann-----------------------------
Foley-----Craddock------Berra---Big Gay George
------------------------Mancienne--------------------------
Edwards-----Jones------------Miljas------------Jarvis
--------------------------Doyle--------------------------------

On 7 October 2010 09:07, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com>
wrote:

Same old, same old Lee.

 

Thick Mick picks his favourites irrespective of whether or not they are
in form or even playing in their natural positions.

 

Hahneman is out of form and doesn't look the same commanding player he
was last season.

Craddock is another 5 yards off the pace compared to last year

Berra wants to join a hugging commune

Jarvis has forgotten how to cross

Ward can't see past the end of his nose

Doyle wants to be a one-man-show

 

The rest are just sh1te.

 

 

From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswol...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT
Sent: Thursday, 7 October 2010 9:03 AM
To: nswolves@googlegroups.com
Subject: [BTMO] Trouble [sec=unclassified]

 

Guidiera out long term, Hunt and Kightly not ready, Edwards being
picked, Henry suspended and now Jean Claude wants out......we are in
trouble chaps.

-- 
Boo! Thick Mick Out!

The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not
the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in
this email in any way and should destroy any copies. Macquarie does not
guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or
opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or
opinions of Macquarie.

 

-- 
Boo! Thick Mick Out!

 

-- 
Boo! Thick Mick Out!

-- 
Boo! Thick Mick Out!

 

-- 
Boo! Thick Mick Out!

-- 
Boo! Thick Mick Out!

 

-- 
Boo! Thick Mick Out!

-- 
Boo! Thick Mick Out!

 

-- 
Boo! Thick Mick Out!

-- 
Boo!  Thick Mick Out!

Reply via email to