- Apr 21, 2007
- 558
- 745
This was the exact team I proposed with an arse mate:
----------------Gomes-------------------
---Corluka---King-----Dawson----BAE-----
---Bentley--Palacios---Jenas----Krancjar--
-------------Crouch--Keane---------------
I put Jenas and Dawson in, because even though I liked the King-Bassong and Palacios-Huddlestone partnerships its arsenal away that those two seem to thrive in.
Krancjar is there because he has a great element of consistency about him. We are missing our best left mid and I would have been confident that Krancjar would have done an OK job there which is just what I would have required from him - it's what I expected when we signed him and I thought it was an extremely clever signing.
4-4-2 because its our formation, simple as. We've looked fantastic with it and I have faith in it to give any side a good challenge even without the likes of Woodgate, Defoe, Modric and Lennon.
Looking at the team again now, and how they actually played today, I still think we would have lost. We would have created a couple more chances I think, maybe give a couple for keano to put wide or something
If you look at it from Harry's point of view though, Arsenal are a strong midfield side and cutting that out could have been brilliant. It was a gamble and you have to respect a manager for taking a gamble in such an important game. If it had worked I'm sure there would be a long queue of us waiting to kiss his scrotum or something.
I think overall his mistake was focusing on Arsenal's strengths instead of their weaknesses. Learning from the Chelsea and United games has to be mentioned too.
So what would you have changed SCers?
Do you think it would have worked?
What do you think went wrong for the lineup we out out?
----------------Gomes-------------------
---Corluka---King-----Dawson----BAE-----
---Bentley--Palacios---Jenas----Krancjar--
-------------Crouch--Keane---------------
I put Jenas and Dawson in, because even though I liked the King-Bassong and Palacios-Huddlestone partnerships its arsenal away that those two seem to thrive in.
Krancjar is there because he has a great element of consistency about him. We are missing our best left mid and I would have been confident that Krancjar would have done an OK job there which is just what I would have required from him - it's what I expected when we signed him and I thought it was an extremely clever signing.
4-4-2 because its our formation, simple as. We've looked fantastic with it and I have faith in it to give any side a good challenge even without the likes of Woodgate, Defoe, Modric and Lennon.
Looking at the team again now, and how they actually played today, I still think we would have lost. We would have created a couple more chances I think, maybe give a couple for keano to put wide or something
If you look at it from Harry's point of view though, Arsenal are a strong midfield side and cutting that out could have been brilliant. It was a gamble and you have to respect a manager for taking a gamble in such an important game. If it had worked I'm sure there would be a long queue of us waiting to kiss his scrotum or something.
I think overall his mistake was focusing on Arsenal's strengths instead of their weaknesses. Learning from the Chelsea and United games has to be mentioned too.
So what would you have changed SCers?
Do you think it would have worked?
What do you think went wrong for the lineup we out out?