Jit

[afc_blockhead]

Fine line between 4-5-1 and 4-3-3 Stoneward.

 

Not in Stoney's head . He is just on a massive fishing trip today anyway. Don't feed the (manic depressive) troll.

[Stoney]

Fine line between 4-5-1 and 4-3-3 Stoneward.

 

 

Correct, Gavin rae playing further forward than your two wingers = 4-5-1

 

Only time it even looked close to a 4-3-3 was when hayes, magennis and fallon were up top near the end when desperate to find the winner.

 

Nothing wrong with the 4-5-1 - gaurantees the point at home, very safe and sensible. You just arnt going to win much games at pittodrie playing with it as very little teams come up here looking to attack.

[Stoney]

Not in Stoney's head . He is just on a massive fishing trip today anyway. Don't feed the (manic depressive) troll.

 

[afc_blockhead]

 

Nice try grumpy

[Stoney]

There's no way on Earth that the formation was the reason we didn't win the game, given how dominant we were and how many openings were created.

 

So we wouldnt have won that game if we had started 4-4-2?

[The Boofon]

Correct, Gavin rae playing further forward than your two wingers = 4-5-1

 

Only time it even looked close to a 4-3-3 was when hayes, magennis and fallon were up top near the end when desperate to find the winner.

 

Nothing wrong with the 4-5-1 - gaurantees the point at home, very safe and sensible. You just arnt going to win much games at pittodrie playing with it as very little teams come up here looking to attack.

 

Does it?

 

Here was me thinking it was a slightly inaccurate shot that stopped Hearts scoring when in fact all we needed to do to keep a clean sheet was play 5 in midfield.

[Stoney]

Does it?

 

Here was me thinking it was a slightly inaccurate shot that stopped Hearts scoring when in fact all we needed to do to keep a clean sheet was play 5 in midfield.

 

[Foster14]

So we wouldnt have won that game if we had started 4-4-2?

 

It would be guesswork.

 

Maybe we would have been over-run in central midfield. Maybe crosses could have benefitted from having two strikers.

 

Who would your central midfield pairing have been out of interest? I am going to guess Rae and Jack? If so, I think our defence would have had a lot more to deal with.

[The Boofon]

 

 

You started it.

[Stoney]

It would be guesswork.

 

Maybe we would have been over-run in central midfield. Maybe crosses could have benefitted from having two strikers.

 

Who would your central midfield pairing have been out of interest? I am going to guess Rae and Jack? If so, I think our defence would have had a lot more to deal with.

 

Possible but the way hearts played in the first half i dont think that would have been the case.

 

I would have kept osbourne at right back, does a double job as him getting up the pitch means driver / granger cant get forward as much + hes been playing well there.

 

Central midfield Would have been Rae and Jack with fraser / hayes down the wings. Up front would have started with Megginson / magennis with vernon - get somebody running off him and pulling webster and barr out of the way creating openings for vernon.