There is no rule book but I think you need someone to win the ball if you're
having five attacking players.  I don't think having the best ten outfield
players is the right approach

I watched the first half of the Chelsea game this morning and we played very
well.  There was a bit of cat and mouse from Chelsea as they let us come and
then hit on the counter but we were passing nicely and created some good
chances.  Jarvis had a good half and if Edwards and Doyle had got those
headers away from the six yard box we could have scored.  He does look like
a young Mr Bean though.

JVD seemed to offer very little.  He day look very gain and gave the ball
away a lot, which I presume is why he was subbed.  He's turning into another
Freddy Eastwood amongst the fans.  Everyone, including me, was picking him
in their team but he's not very good.

On 25 October 2010 21:24, Andy <swamp...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> where does it say in the rule book that you have to have a defensive
> midfielder?
>
> both SEB and Fletcher can cross the ball as good as any Wolves winger
>
> Hunt on the weekend when he came on had no speed about him to be thought of
> as a winger,  (I know he's coming back from injury) and after watching the
> game I would play him in the center.
>
> iF I'm not mistaken Fletcher has come on and played midfield and made an
> impact, therefore striker or not I would play him at midfield.
>
> this formation with the players involved can be seen as 451 or 433 or 422,
> which ever way the situation needed it and which ever way you want to look
> at it.
>
> as far as moaning about MM playing folk out of position, thats his desicion
> for what ever game they have to play
>
> Wouldn't you if you were manager try and put the best players on the
> paddock regardless of what is next to their name, i.e fullback, midfield or
> forward???
>
> Just my thoughts,!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> On 25/10/2010 8:35 PM, Steven Millward wrote:
>
>  Everyone moans about Mick playing people out of position.  You have two
> wingers playing as central midfielders and two strikers playing as wingers.
>
>
> Plus you have no defensive midfielder to break up play or win the ball.
>
> That's what's absurd.
>
> On 25 October 2010 20:15, Andy <swamp...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>> 4-5-1, is thta what MM is playing now!!!!!!!
>>
>> so whats so absurd about that?
>>
>>
>> On 25/10/2010 1:28 PM, Steven Millward wrote:
>>
>>  That is, without doubt, the most absurd formation I've ever seen
>> proposed for Wolves.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswol...@googlegroups.com] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Andy
>>> *Sent:* Monday, 25 October 2010 11:27 AM
>>> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [BTMO] Classic Mick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> after watching the game my thoughts are that Wolves were a better team
>>> for knocking the ball around instead booting down field. as MM said in the
>>> interview Wolves have to be more committed in front of goal.
>>> I think regardlees of postion,
>>> Sylvan Ebanks-Blake
>>> Steven Fletcher
>>> should be in the starting 11
>>> drop Stephen Ward to the bench and put Jelle Van Damme on in his place.
>>> take off David Edwards and put Stephen Hunt on in his place.
>>> So my starting 11 would be
>>>
>>> Marcus Hahnemann
>>>
>>> Kevin Foley - Richard Stearman - Christophe Berra (c) - Jelle Van Damme
>>>
>>> Stephen Hunt - David Jones - Matthew Jarvis
>>>
>>> Sylvan
>>> Ebanks-Blake
>>> Steven Fletcher
>>>
>>> Kevin Doyle
>>>
>>>
>>> Just my thoughts,
>>>
>>> Swampy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/10/2010 10:19 AM, Marcus Chantry wrote:
>>>
>>> Just in case you haven’t come across this on the BBC Sport website.  If
>>> only his tactics were as sharp as his interview skills…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/wolverhampton_wanderers/9121353.stm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======
>>> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
>>> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16140)
>>> http://www.pctools.com<http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51>
>>> =======
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======
>>> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
>>> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16140)
>>> http://www.pctools.com<http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51>
>>> =======
>>>
>>> --
>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out!
>>> --
>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out!
>>> --
>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out!
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Boo! Thick Mick Out!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======
>> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
>> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16140)
>> http://www.pctools.com<http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51>
>> =======
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======
>> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
>> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16140)
>> http://www.pctools.com<http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51>
>> =======
>> --
>> Boo! Thick Mick Out!
>>
>
> --
> Boo! Thick Mick Out!
>
>
>
>
>
> =======
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16150)
> http://www.pctools.com<http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51>
> =======
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =======
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16150)
> http://www.pctools.com<http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51>
> =======
>
> --
> Boo! Thick Mick Out!
>

-- 
Boo!  Thick Mick Out!

Reply via email to