Thick Mick Out...... you won't have any problems finding someone who agrees with that.
________________________________ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswol...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Thursday, 7 October 2010 10:40 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [BTMO] Trouble [sec=unclassified] Milijas = Cantona? No, no I don't agree. Can you find me soneone else that does? On 7 October 2010 11:38, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com> wrote: 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! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out!
