- Jan 31, 2013
- 1,350
- 3,363
That wasn’t me? ?Mine's still there.... ?
That wasn’t me? ?Mine's still there.... ?
No, I know it wasn't. I was just saying.That wasn’t me? ?
I started work on the buses in the summer of 1976 just after getting married so I didn't get to many matches in the old Div 2 years due to shift work, by end of the 78 season I was working for my old man and hardly missed any game from 78 to the early nineties.
Ndombele so much better deeper. Controls games and drives at defenders instead of having his back to goal more.
haha, I went to loads of games on Keith's busesWasn't, Keith Robbins busses, was it?
You weren't a clippy on the No73 (to Victoria) out of the bus garage next to Tottenham Town Hall were you? She was a right scrubberI started work on the buses in the summer of 1976 just after getting married so I didn't get to many matches in the old Div 2 years due to shift work, by end of the 78 season I was working for my old man and hardly missed any game from 78 to the early nineties.
it reminded me of more than one skin flick ive watched on xhamster. inter racial bukkake party 3 comes to mind
haha, I went to loads of games on Keith's buses
You weren't a clippy* on the No73 (to Victoria) out of the bus garage next to Tottenham Town Hall were you? She was a right scrubber
haha, I went to loads of games on Keith's buses
You weren't a clippy on the No73 (to Victoria) out of the bus garage next to Tottenham Town Hall were you? She was a right scrubber
haha, I went to loads of games on Keith's buses
From which we learn that "formations" are really not very important. Every match, we get pages and pages of garbage, ahead of the match, going on and on about the formation. Nominally "defensive" players are not defensive if they are briefed to play in an attacking role, which we all know good, fast fullbacks can do.
This was never set up as a defensive five-at-the-back strategy. The intention, right from the kick off, was to pin the Sheffield wide players back, so they couldn't get any sustained attacking momentum going. It worked well until we were 2-0 up, at which point some of our mentality issues showed for about 20 minutes.
The formation and, more importantly, the instructions given to the players enabled us to play a vigorous, skilful attacking game whenever we had the ball, which was often for about two thirds of the match.
Judging managerial intent based on formations, in modern football, is bollocks. Players move. They play fluid, changing, multi-functional roles, under orders to alter their roles depending on whether or not we have the ball.
But the next time Mourinho selects three defenders and two wing-backs, we'll have the same chorus of wailing and moaning about "defensive formations" all over again.
From which we learn that "formations" are really not very important. Every match, we get pages and pages of garbage, ahead of the match, going on and on about the formation. Nominally "defensive" players are not defensive if they are briefed to play in an attacking role, which we all know good, fast fullbacks can do.
This was never set up as a defensive five-at-the-back strategy. The intention, right from the kick off, was to pin the Sheffield wide players back, so they couldn't get any sustained attacking momentum going. It worked well until we were 2-0 up, at which point some of our mentality issues showed for about 20 minutes.
The formation and, more importantly, the instructions given to the players enabled us to play a vigorous, skilful attacking game whenever we had the ball, which was often for about two thirds of the match.
Judging managerial intent based on formations, in modern football, is bollocks. Players move. They play fluid, changing, multi-functional roles, under orders to alter their roles depending on whether or not we have the ball.
But the next time Mourinho selects three defenders and two wing-backs, we'll have the same chorus of wailing and moaning about "defensive formations" all over again.