gazza1988 wrote:1 is a hell of alot closer to promotion than the other.
Why even bother ? No point. Ray Charles levels of vision from him.
gazza1988 wrote:1 is a hell of alot closer to promotion than the other.
gazza1988 wrote:1 is a hell of alot closer to promotion than the other.
Dan wrote:gazza1988 wrote:1 is a hell of alot closer to promotion than the other.
Still the same outcome though. I could have 6 numbers on the lottery all one away from the 6 winners and I’ll still end up with nothing. People don’t remember the failures. That’s why he’s not a manager anymore. Because he’s a failure. There’s only 4 of you on here who think different.
Dan wrote:gazza1988 wrote:1 is a hell of alot closer to promotion than the other.
Still the same outcome though. I could have 6 numbers on the lottery all one away from the 6 winners and I’ll still end up with nothing. People don’t remember the failures. That’s why he’s not a manager anymore. Because he’s a failure. There’s only 4 of you on here who think different.
And since he was sacked we've been constantly near the bottom of the league. Not a great place to be. Would rather be near the top end, even if we are not promoted..Dan wrote:gazza1988 wrote:1 is a hell of alot closer to promotion than the other.
Still the same outcome though. I could have 6 numbers on the lottery all one away from the 6 winners and I’ll still end up with nothing. People don’t remember the failures. That’s why he’s not a manager anymore. Because he’s a failure. There’s only 4 of you on here who think different.
bellwhiff wrote:gazza1988 wrote:1 is a hell of alot closer to promotion than the other.
Why even bother ? No point. Ray Charles levels of vision from him.
James wrote:In fairness, Flitcroft started the MK game with MacDonald RWB, that wasn't much better...
MTFCMusings wrote:James wrote:In fairness, Flitcroft started the MK game with MacDonald RWB, that wasn't much better...
I still don't really see the issue with this and didn't at the time.
Ok, it didn't work, put think a hard working right winger who had played the majority of the previous two years playing as a box to box midfielder could play as a right wing back I don't think was much of a stretch. The role of a wing back is basically a hybrid of winger/box to box midfielder/full back roles. Macca playing at RWB had no bearing on us not drawing that game, IMO.
Parkinsons Perm wrote:MTFCMusings wrote:James wrote:In fairness, Flitcroft started the MK game with MacDonald RWB, that wasn't much better...
I still don't really see the issue with this and didn't at the time.
Ok, it didn't work, put think a hard working right winger who had played the majority of the previous two years playing as a box to box midfielder could play as a right wing back I don't think was much of a stretch. The role of a wing back is basically a hybrid of winger/box to box midfielder/full back roles. Macca playing at RWB had no bearing on us not drawing that game, IMO.
What was Macca, I don't think anyone could work it out?
George Lapslie is a box to box midfielder who without even looking has scored more for us already than MacDonald?
MTFCMusings wrote:Parkinsons Perm wrote:MTFCMusings wrote:James wrote:In fairness, Flitcroft started the MK game with MacDonald RWB, that wasn't much better...
I still don't really see the issue with this and didn't at the time.
Ok, it didn't work, put think a hard working right winger who had played the majority of the previous two years playing as a box to box midfielder could play as a right wing back I don't think was much of a stretch. The role of a wing back is basically a hybrid of winger/box to box midfielder/full back roles. Macca playing at RWB had no bearing on us not drawing that game, IMO.
What was Macca, I don't think anyone could work it out?
George Lapslie is a box to box midfielder who without even looking has scored more for us already than MacDonald?
Yes he has. Macca was a winger his whole career before Evans played him in central midfield against Coventry away where he put in a match winning performance. He was then crucial to a really good run of form when we were unbeaten in around 8-10 games from memory.
MTFCMusings wrote:James wrote:In fairness, Flitcroft started the MK game with MacDonald RWB, that wasn't much better...
I still don't really see the issue with this and didn't at the time.
Ok, it didn't work, put think a hard working right winger who had played the majority of the previous two years playing as a box to box midfielder could play as a right wing back I don't think was much of a stretch. The role of a wing back is basically a hybrid of winger/box to box midfielder/full back roles. Macca playing at RWB had no bearing on us not drawing that game, IMO.
part time pete wrote:Gethin Jones deserved to be dropped after his performance in the defeat at Oldham.
Sedgwick wrote:MTFCMusings wrote:James wrote:In fairness, Flitcroft started the MK game with MacDonald RWB, that wasn't much better...
I still don't really see the issue with this and didn't at the time.
Ok, it didn't work, put think a hard working right winger who had played the majority of the previous two years playing as a box to box midfielder could play as a right wing back I don't think was much of a stretch. The role of a wing back is basically a hybrid of winger/box to box midfielder/full back roles. Macca playing at RWB had no bearing on us not drawing that game, IMO.
Too complex of an answer for some on here that. Stagsnet says a winger can only play on the wing! Simple as that
Haha I think you're spot on tbh.
gazza1988 wrote:Sedgwick wrote:MTFCMusings wrote:James wrote:In fairness, Flitcroft started the MK game with MacDonald RWB, that wasn't much better...
I still don't really see the issue with this and didn't at the time.
Ok, it didn't work, put think a hard working right winger who had played the majority of the previous two years playing as a box to box midfielder could play as a right wing back I don't think was much of a stretch. The role of a wing back is basically a hybrid of winger/box to box midfielder/full back roles. Macca playing at RWB had no bearing on us not drawing that game, IMO.
Too complex of an answer for some on here that. Stagsnet says a winger can only play on the wing! Simple as that
Haha I think you're spot on tbh.
Winger/wing back are similar. Winger/full back aren't similar. A wing back is a winger that is positioned further back (wing back) and expected to contribute more, defensively, than a traditional winger would. You've got a right midfield position too, I have erroneously interchanged this with winger in the past, this is a wide player who is about 50/50 split on attacking and defending duties. These look for an overlap from the full back behind him, who has more license to go forwards than a defensive full back who hardly ever leaves his own half.
I try not to get too deep and simplify my opinions with it or the older posters start crying about making football complicated and it's a simple game.
Answer me this, would you support Tyrese sinclair at RB instead of Gordon? Or did Keith Curle mess up not playing Wayne corden at left back?
Parkinsons Perm wrote:gazza1988 wrote:Sedgwick wrote:MTFCMusings wrote:James wrote:In fairness, Flitcroft started the MK game with MacDonald RWB, that wasn't much better...
I still don't really see the issue with this and didn't at the time.
Ok, it didn't work, put think a hard working right winger who had played the majority of the previous two years playing as a box to box midfielder could play as a right wing back I don't think was much of a stretch. The role of a wing back is basically a hybrid of winger/box to box midfielder/full back roles. Macca playing at RWB had no bearing on us not drawing that game, IMO.
Too complex of an answer for some on here that. Stagsnet says a winger can only play on the wing! Simple as that
Haha I think you're spot on tbh.
Winger/wing back are similar. Winger/full back aren't similar. A wing back is a winger that is positioned further back (wing back) and expected to contribute more, defensively, than a traditional winger would. You've got a right midfield position too, I have erroneously interchanged this with winger in the past, this is a wide player who is about 50/50 split on attacking and defending duties. These look for an overlap from the full back behind him, who has more license to go forwards than a defensive full back who hardly ever leaves his own half.
I try not to get too deep and simplify my opinions with it or the older posters start crying about making football complicated and it's a simple game.
Answer me this, would you support Tyrese sinclair at RB instead of Gordon? Or did Keith Curle mess up not playing Wayne corden at left back?
Don't get too complex Gazza, you'll tie Sedgwick in knots, he's not too bright with on the pitch matters but thinks he's Don Howe
Return to Stagsnet Main Discussion Forum
Users browsing this forum: Drezden1, hucknall stag, Scothie the Stag, STAGS FOR LIFE and 150 guests