4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
Moderators: Charnwood, Bluemike
-
- Posts: 33308
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:30 pm
- Location: Ipswich Town F.C.
4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
Drop Smith
Parr....Chambo....Berra....Mings
Parr....Chambo....Berra....Mings
- marko69
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 25833
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:16 am
- Location: Somewhere between here and there.
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
4-4-3?
He'll be disqualified.
He'll be disqualified.
- Ohiotractorboy
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:48 am
- Location: Central Ohio
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
4-4-3? Drop Smith?
Did I miss something?
Did I miss something?
-
- Posts: 33308
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:30 pm
- Location: Ipswich Town F.C.
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
Balls...I obviously meant 4-3-3
- barmy billy
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:19 pm
- Location: Wherever I rest my head
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
Nice one Hallam.hallamblue wrote:Balls...I obviously meant 4-3-3

Have another glass!
- Ohiotractorboy
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:48 am
- Location: Central Ohio
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
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.
- J4ck22
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:55 pm
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
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.
- marko69
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 25833
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:16 am
- Location: Somewhere between here and there.
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
I was trying to be a twit. Hopefully I'll now go over the knee for a spanking.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.
- marko69
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 25833
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:16 am
- Location: Somewhere between here and there.
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
Yes, according to Bianca on Sky Sports, ITFC played very well indeed......, just couldn't score the second.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.
- Ohiotractorboy
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:48 am
- Location: Central Ohio
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
marko69 wrote:I was trying to be a twit. Hopefully I'll now go over the knee for a spanking.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.
Well marko, it will take me a couple of weeks to get over there if you can wait.
Or did you mean Liz?
- number 9
- Posts: 6747
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:35 pm
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
Glad we played well, but we desperately needed this one. Oh well, it's not over yet.
- marko69
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 25833
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:16 am
- Location: Somewhere between here and there.
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
Couple of weeks? Can't you get a quicker flight?
- TODD66
- Posting Game Moderator
- Posts: 6954
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:22 pm
- Location: Chester
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
He's swimming overmarko69 wrote:Couple of weeks? Can't you get a quicker flight?

- herforder
- Posts: 2764
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:34 am
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
....or walking!TODD66 wrote:He's swimming overmarko69 wrote:Couple of weeks? Can't you get a quicker flight?
- arana peligrosa
- Posts: 10877
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:41 pm
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
She wants to play Gerken in attack and leave no-one in goal..marko69 wrote:4-4-3?
He'll be disqualified.
- Shed on tour
- Posts: 8672
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:21 pm
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
I bet Gerks would have put that one away that Murph missed at the start of the 2nd half.saint jude wrote:She wants to play Gerken in attack and leave no-one in goal..marko69 wrote:4-4-3?
He'll be disqualified.
- number 9
- Posts: 6747
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:35 pm
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
Maybe Murph is on Chopra's payroll.Shed on tour wrote:I bet Gerks would have put that one away that Murph missed at the start of the 2nd half.saint jude wrote:She wants to play Gerken in attack and leave no-one in goal..marko69 wrote:4-4-3?
He'll be disqualified.

- marko69
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 25833
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:16 am
- Location: Somewhere between here and there.
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
WALKING? Jesus. That's a long way!herforder wrote:....or walking!TODD66 wrote:He's swimming overmarko69 wrote:Couple of weeks? Can't you get a quicker flight?
- herforder
- Posts: 2764
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:34 am
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
Not Jesus! Ohio walking on the water! 

- marko69
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 25833
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:16 am
- Location: Somewhere between here and there.
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
My version was too subtle was it, Herford? 

-
- Posts: 33308
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:30 pm
- Location: Ipswich Town F.C.
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
barmy billy wrote:Nice one Hallam.hallamblue wrote:Balls...I obviously meant 4-3-3![]()
Have another glass!
Just am thanks barmy!

- Ohiotractorboy
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:48 am
- Location: Central Ohio
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!

Marko, I have a couple ahead of you, alright?
- herforder
- Posts: 2764
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:34 am
Re: 4-4-3 FFS MICK!!!
Ha, ha! The most subtle things I've seen recently are Jay Tabb's set-pieces - they seem to go over everyone's heads!marko69 wrote:My version was too subtle was it, Herford?
