One For The Road Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Would a draw be a decent result here? Since we've all apparently given up hope on a win, then I guess it is. Absolutely it would. We need 2/3 more points to stay up so a draw today would be a big help. I'd much rather we went for a win though. Its Palace FFS! Edited April 12, 2014 by One For The Road Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Let's change formation \yet again and confuse the players. Well done Lambert. You piece of shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Would a draw be a decent result here? given the run they are on and our last three games then without a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Would a draw be a decent result here? Since we've all apparently given up hope on a win, then I guess it is. Absolutely it would. We need 2/3 more points to stay up so a draw today would be a big help. Thatshow far we've fallen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 12, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 12, 2014 I think we'll win it. The two fellas under most pressure are the two fellas with a big chance - Lambert for changing the formation up and Gabby for the space this formation might afford him. I'm going for a 3-1 victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 12, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 12, 2014 Would a draw be a decent result here? If we had Benteke I'd say no, but our other strikers are so out of form I think a draw would be okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwishIwasalivein1982 Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Would a draw be a decent result here? Since we've all apparently given up hope on a win, then I guess it is. Absolutely it would. We need 2/3 more points to stay up so a draw today would be a big help. Thatshow far we've fallen. Palace doing the double on us would make this a very bad season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 12, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) If you cant see the lunacy of this formatiom, then I don't know. I don't think you can possibly get a formation more negative than this Well, it's obvious we can't lose this game. Palace are good on the counter attack, if we go at them we'll lose. Not losing this game is more important than winning imo. It's not a philosophy I like but on this occasion I think it's correct. Hoping for a point against Palace. That just gets me going What formation/team would you play then to setup for a win? We have players on the bench who can come on and change it. If we start with them all the only changes we can make are negative ones. Edited April 12, 2014 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Let's change formation \yet again and confuse the players. Well done Lambert. You piece of shit This is absurd. What's the need for the abuse? The game hasn't even started yet. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwan Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 If you cant see the lunacy of this formatiom, then I don't know. I don't think you can possibly get a formation more negative than this Well, it's obvious we can't lose this game. Palace are good on the counter attack, if we go at them we'll lose. Not losing this game is more important than winning imo. It's not a philosophy I like but on this occasion I think it's correct. Hoping for a point against Palace. That just gets me going What formation/team would you play then to setup for a win? We have players on the bench who can come on and change it. If we start with them all the only changes we can make are negative ones. 442 I think was what I said. Guzan Lowton Vlaar Clark Bertrand Albrighton Westwood Delph Tonev Holt whoever not named weimann Simple formation. Everyone knows what to do and who to pass it to. But hoof and pray it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Would a draw be a decent result here? If we had Benteke I'd say no, but our other strikers are so out of form I think a draw would be okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwishIwasalivein1982 Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 If you cant see the lunacy of this formatiom, then I don't know. I don't think you can possibly get a formation more negative than this Well, it's obvious we can't lose this game. Palace are good on the counter attack, if we go at them we'll lose. Not losing this game is more important than winning imo. It's not a philosophy I like but on this occasion I think it's correct. Hoping for a point against Palace. That just gets me going What formation/team would you play then to setup for a win? We have players on the bench who can come on and change it. If we start with them all the only changes we can make are negative ones. 442 I think was what I said. Guzan Lowton Vlaar Clark Bertrand Albrighton Westwood Delph Tonev Holt whoever not named weimann Simple formation. Everyone knows what to do and who to pass it to. But hoof and pray it is With Benteke out I was hoping we'd get less of Guzan hoofing it up top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 12, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 12, 2014 Would a draw be a decent result here? If we had Benteke I'd say no, but our other strikers are so out of form I think a draw would be okay. You know what they say, one swallow doesn't make a summer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I think Holt and Gabby could work, guess we'll see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwan Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 If you cant see the lunacy of this formatiom, then I don't know. I don't think you can possibly get a formation more negative than this Well, it's obvious we can't lose this game. Palace are good on the counter attack, if we go at them we'll lose. Not losing this game is more important than winning imo. It's not a philosophy I like but on this occasion I think it's correct.Hoping for a point against Palace. That just gets me going What formation/team would you play then to setup for a win? We have players on the bench who can come on and change it. If we start with them all the only changes we can make are negative ones. 442 I think was what I said. Guzan Lowton Vlaar Clark Bertrand Albrighton Westwood Delph Tonev Holt whoever not named weimann Simple formation. Everyone knows what to do and who to pass it to. But hoof and pray it is With Benteke out I was hoping we'd get less of Guzan hoofing it up top. Nah. We're going to press and launch the ball up as fast as we can before palace can get their shape. Hope to it to Gabby and stretch the field or knockdown from holt. Don't think we'll try to string together any passes. Get. Excited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One For The Road Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Let's change formation \yet again and confuse the players. Well done Lambert. You piece of shit Are you for real.? Ok, I don't like the 5-3-2 personally but that is a mad thing to say. Have you considered the possibility that it might not be OUR players it confuses when we change our formation but the opposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedClaretAndBlue Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Bacuna must be the latest injury. Weimann and Albrighton will come on around the 70 min mark when we've just gone 2-0 down , to, you guessed it, no effect. Lambert out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 12, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 12, 2014 If you cant see the lunacy of this formatiom, then I don't know. I don't think you can possibly get a formation more negative than this Well, it's obvious we can't lose this game. Palace are good on the counter attack, if we go at them we'll lose. Not losing this game is more important than winning imo. It's not a philosophy I like but on this occasion I think it's correct. Hoping for a point against Palace. That just gets me going What formation/team would you play then to setup for a win? We have players on the bench who can come on and change it. If we start with them all the only changes we can make are negative ones. 442 I think was what I said. Guzan Lowton Vlaar Clark Bertrand Albrighton Westwood Delph Tonev Holt whoever not named weimann Simple formation. Everyone knows what to do and who to pass it to. But hoof and pray it is That midfield of 4 will get murdered against Palaces' 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 All the expert tacticians are out I see. Why not wait til the game is at least started before ye start bitching about everything.....OK, see you back here at 3:08 then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Lambert doesn't want to disrupt his central midfield trio of Delph - Westwood - El Ahmadi. I'm not saying whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but all his choices are revolving around that. I think he'll be hoping Lowton will be crossing a fair share of ball from the right, hence why there's no Albrighton at the start (whose inclusion would also unsettle the midfield 3) and on the left that Bertrand, Delph and Gabby's movement from deeper positions can unsettle and overload their right flank. I would be quite content with a point. Take any that you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts