Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
J.Warman

we shouldnt of...

Recommended Posts

we shouldn''t of started with 5 at the back, we have tried it a few times and it has never worked, if we started with Bennett in instead of whitbread and played a 4-4-2 i think we could of won.

but i still think we played incredibly well and i hope they show that on MOTD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="J.Warman"]we shouldn''t of started with 5 at the back, we have tried it a few times and it has never worked, if we started with Bennett in instead of whitbread and played a 4-4-2 i think we could of won.

but i still think we played incredibly well and i hope they show that on MOTD.[/quote]The system was working until the sending off, smells a bit like hindsight here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We switched to a 4-4-2 when Whitbread came off for Pilkington, and that''s when we looked much better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="J.Warman"]we shouldn''t of started with 5 at the back, we have tried it a few times and it has never worked, if we started with Bennett in instead of whitbread and played a 4-4-2 i think we could of won.

but i still think we played incredibly well and i hope they show that on MOTD.[/quote]Did you go to school ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree

We fell behind not because of the formation but because we allowed them too much respect, time and space.

Our best period of the game came in the 15 mins up to whitbreads injury. We were still 5-3-2 yet we did not allow chelsea and chances and should have already been level had holt & martin taken the chances being created by wes. We were completely dominant in that period.

Once pilkington came on we changed formation and while still competing we did not dominate or create as much despite going to the diamond.

For me the 5-3-2 was a success, and we should use it again when the circumstances are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="J.Warman"]sorry about my spelling mistakes, i rushed the few sentences.[/quote]A mistake is an obvious typo. ''Should of'' is the product of a sh!t education system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Gene Tierney"][quote user="J.Warman"]sorry about my spelling mistakes, i rushed the few sentences.[/quote]A mistake is an obvious typo. ''Should of'' is the product of a sh!t education system.[/quote]Actually you''ll find it has a lot to do with regional dialect.Another common error made by many school children is ''are house'' instead of ''our house''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Woman in the Stands"][quote user="Gene Tierney"][quote user="J.Warman"]sorry about my spelling mistakes, i rushed the few sentences.[/quote]

A mistake is an obvious typo. ''Should of'' is the product of a sh!t education system.
[/quote]

Actually you''ll find it has a lot to do with regional dialect.

Another common error
made by many school children is ''are house'' instead of ''our house''.

[/quote]

School children? I don''t think the OP is a child. The amount of times this mistake is replicated on this forum indicates either a genetic retardation of the younger generation or a poor education system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a lot of "it''s" instead of "its" and "whose" instead of "who''s" on this and other message boards.

It''s not my place to criticise any individual poster on here (except the illiterate binner troll), but it is amazing how often these basic rules of grammar are broken.

You even see the "it''s" error on the BBC news site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Joanna Grey"]

[quote user="Woman in the Stands"][quote user="Gene Tierney"][quote user="J.Warman"]sorry about my spelling mistakes, i rushed the few sentences.[/quote]

A mistake is an obvious typo. ''Should of'' is the product of a sh!t education system.
[/quote]

Actually you''ll find it has a lot to do with regional dialect.

Another common error
made by many school children is ''are house'' instead of ''our house''.

[/quote]

School children? I don''t think the OP is a child. The amount of times this mistake is replicated on this forum indicates either a genetic retardation of the younger generation or a poor education system.

[/quote]

It''s a mixture of this,text talk,the rise of Facebook,where poor English is rife and just general laziness.No doubt people who moan about it will get accused of pedantry,but it is a bugbear for a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Herman "][quote user="Joanna Grey"]

[quote user="Woman in the Stands"][quote user="Gene Tierney"][quote user="J.Warman"]sorry about my spelling mistakes, i rushed the few sentences.[/quote]A mistake is an obvious typo. ''Should of'' is the product of a sh!t education system.[/quote]Actually you''ll find it has a lot to do with regional dialect.Another common error made by many school children is ''are house'' instead of ''our house''.[/quote]

School children? I don''t think the OP is a child. The amount of times this mistake is replicated on this forum indicates either a genetic retardation of the younger generation or a poor education system.

[/quote]

It''s a mixture of this,text talk,the rise of Facebook,where poor English is rife and just general laziness.No doubt people who moan about it will get accused of pedantry,but it is a bugbear for a lot of people.

[/quote]IMO, "should of" is the incorrect spelling of the abreviation "should''ve"; they sound very similar. As for the use of semi colons!Also, I think that if you want your opinion to sound well considered, then being grammatically, punctually and lexically(?) correct does give the impression that the author is intelligent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="spencer 1970"]Most of the posters on here are semi colons IMO. This is a football forum, not a grammatical society.[/quote]

True, but good spelling and grammer are important for making yourself understood. Some of the stuff posted on here without any punctuation is pretty much impossible to understand.

 

English is an envolving language and many people now say "should of" rather than the correct "should have", it is not surprise the spelling has followed to change suit. We can either be like the French and refuse to change anything, or be like the Americans and have the written language reflect to spoken language. As long as it is possible to understand one another I can''t see the problem.

 

Where you have to be correct is when the meaning can be changed through the lack of punctuation - the example I often use for the apostrophe is when talking about Richard''s tray. It''s either Dick''s tray or a dicks tray, a tray for dicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English lessons aside I do not think playing 5 at the back worked - we were much better when Pilkington came on and took control of the play.  With 5 at the back we were inviting Chelsea to attack and providing no width to pass to.

and yes, i was at the game, not basing this on radio or highlights...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the content of your post, San Miguel, I agree entirely, Pilkington coming on improved our formation. Three CBs had simply invited pressure on to us.

 

For the first goal, Whitbread didn''t know whether to stick with his man or close down the man in possession (Bosingwa). Bosingwa ended up having too much time to line up a shot, and duly scored.

 

Grammar wise, the grammar police are bound to attack your dangling particle ("providing no width to pass to") and how you started the next sentence with a lower-case ''and''. They need to get off of there hi horses.

 

Exemplary spelling, San Miguel, but note to others: Yourd off thort that wiv all the wizards on here every1 shud be abel to SPELL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I think Lambert went with the 5-3-2 because he was expecting Chelsea to line up 4-3-3, when it turned out that Chelsea were going with the diamond Lambert was probably always looking to change the formation to get more width.[/quote]

 

But 4-3-3 is often more of a 4-5-1. Chelsea often play Drogba as the lone striker with Kalou and Malouda wide and Lampard, Ramires and Mikel behind them. Playing three central defenders against that doesn''t really work as you often end up with three defenders marking only one striker and being forced to step into midfield to pick up a man. It was far more likely to work against a 4-4-2 where you have two defenders marking the strikers and the third spare. The popularity of the many variants of 4-3-3/4-5-1 were what caused many teams to abandon the 5-3-2/3-5-2 formation as they were often playing an extra defender who had nobody to mark. That extra defender is much better deployed as a holding midfielder hence the popularity of 4-2-3-1 over the last few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×