Tractor-Boys.com

Drop Smith

Parr....Chambo....Berra....Mings

4-4-3?

He'll be disqualified.

4-4-3? Drop Smith?

Did I miss something?

Balls...I obviously meant 4-3-3

hallamblue wrote:Balls...I obviously meant 4-3-3

Nice one Hallam.

Have another glass!

hallamblue wrote:Balls...I obviously meant 4-3-3

No offense, wasnt trying to be a twit. Just when you posted this, someone on TWTD chat said 4-4-3 also and I thought I missed something said on radio.

I totally agree on 4-3-3. The strength seems to lie in our strikers over MF, so why go with a 4-4-2 and no goals?

I don' get why Smith has become the first name brought up to be lashed to a whipping post and give 9 of the Queen's best if we dont win by 3 goals. He is the least of our worries at this point.

Sorry but tactics had nothing to do with not winning today. Had we taken some of the chances we had, we'd have hammered them. Don't get me wrong I'm all for trying 4-3-3 but absolutely no need for this thread when we actually played well.

Ohiotractorboy wrote:

hallamblue wrote:Balls...I obviously meant 4-3-3

No offense, wasnt trying to be a twit. Just when you posted this, someone on TWTD chat said 4-4-3 also and I thought I missed something said on radio.

I totally agree on 4-3-3. The strength seems to lie in our strikers over MF, so why go with a 4-4-2 and no goals?

I don' get why Smith has become the first name brought up to be lashed to a whipping post and give 9 of the Queen's best if we dont win by 3 goals. He is the least of our worries at this point.

I was trying to be a twit. Hopefully I'll now go over the knee for a spanking.

J4ck22 wrote:Sorry but tactics had nothing to do with not winning today. Had we taken some of the chances we had, we'd have hammered them. Don't get me wrong I'm all for trying 4-3-3 but absolutely no need for this thread when we actually played well.

Yes, according to Bianca on Sky Sports, ITFC played very well indeed......, just couldn't score the second.

marko69 wrote:

Ohiotractorboy wrote:

hallamblue wrote:Balls...I obviously meant 4-3-3

No offense, wasnt trying to be a twit. Just when you posted this, someone on TWTD chat said 4-4-3 also and I thought I missed something said on radio.

I totally agree on 4-3-3. The strength seems to lie in our strikers over MF, so why go with a 4-4-2 and no goals?

I don' get why Smith has become the first name brought up to be lashed to a whipping post and give 9 of the Queen's best if we dont win by 3 goals. He is the least of our worries at this point.

I was trying to be a twit. Hopefully I'll now go over the knee for a spanking.

Well marko, it will take me a couple of weeks to get over there if you can wait.

Or did you mean Liz?

Glad we played well, but we desperately needed this one. Oh well, it's not over yet.

Couple of weeks? Can't you get a quicker flight?

marko69 wrote:Couple of weeks? Can't you get a quicker flight?

He's swimming over

TODD66 wrote:

marko69 wrote:Couple of weeks? Can't you get a quicker flight?

He's swimming over

....or walking!

marko69 wrote:4-4-3?

He'll be disqualified.

She wants to play Gerken in attack and leave no-one in goal..

saint jude wrote:

marko69 wrote:4-4-3?

He'll be disqualified.

She wants to play Gerken in attack and leave no-one in goal..

I bet Gerks would have put that one away that Murph missed at the start of the 2nd half.

Shed on tour wrote:

saint jude wrote:

marko69 wrote:4-4-3?

He'll be disqualified.

She wants to play Gerken in attack and leave no-one in goal..

I bet Gerks would have put that one away that Murph missed at the start of the 2nd half.

Maybe Murph is on Chopra's payroll.

herforder wrote:

TODD66 wrote:

marko69 wrote:Couple of weeks? Can't you get a quicker flight?

He's swimming over

....or walking!

WALKING? Jesus. That's a long way!

Not Jesus! Ohio walking on the water!

My version was too subtle was it, Herford?

barmy billy wrote:

hallamblue wrote:Balls...I obviously meant 4-3-3

Nice one Hallam.

Have another glass!

Just am thanks barmy!

Marko, I have a couple ahead of you, alright?

marko69 wrote:My version was too subtle was it, Herford?

Ha, ha! The most subtle things I've seen recently are Jay Tabb's set-pieces - they seem to go over everyone's heads!