Barnet

[gazan]

So, no Sanders. Will there be a rejig or will there just be just a change of personnel? It should be an opportunity to bolster numbers in midfield as with the return of Thomas gives the chance for a 3 man midfield. Maybe O'Reilly can be rested on to the bench for an hour.
I can't see us winning but maybe we can hold on for a draw.

[lukcour]

Expect Thomas to replace Sander if fit. Think it will be another display of Bells negative strategy. Depends on how good or bad Barnet will be.

[gazan]

Any optimism from anybody?

[gazan]

Anyone watching? Camera work is dreadful. Camera is not close enough. Can't make anyone out?
Connolly gives another goal away!

[MikeSB]

Four at the back and one striker. These managers will get the game done away with.

Ignorance is paramount as usual. These people do not understand the game as we spend over one million pounds on coaches and managers.

[Timmy58]

Four at the back and one striker. These managers will get the game done away with.

Ignorance is paramount as usual. These people do not understand the game as we spend over one million pounds on coaches and managers.

There aren't any teams that don't play 4 or 5 at the back and we ain't got enough strikers on the books, never mind fit, to field your preferred option of 10. You are an authority on the game in the 60s and maybe before, but you haven't a clue about the modern game. If everything was better in the "old days" maybe we should be going back to sending small boys up chimneys, have women doing the washing in the local river. Jesus Christ it is almost impossible to access this site most of the time these days and when I do manage to get in I am confront by your incessant ramblings about how modern football managers don't have a clue. God help us!

[MikeSB]

There aren't any teams that don't play 4 or 5 at the back and we ain't got enough strikers on the books, never mind fit, to field your preferred option of 10. You are an authority on the game in the 60s and maybe before, but you haven't a clue about the modern game. If everything was better in the "old days" maybe we should be going back to sending small boys up chimneys, have women doing the washing in the local river. Jesus Christ it is almost impossible to access this site most of the time these days and when I do manage to get in I am confront by your incessant ramblings about how modern football managers don't have a clue. God help us!

As I said, if this is the so called modern game, you can keep it...I would not have started playing football ever if ever the game was like this...10 bloody defenders....Great!!!

[MikeSB]

Oh by the way, my ramblings are fact...one bloody goal in a team played by 30 players...The modern game?

btw, you don't have to read my posts, just pass them by...Its really dead easy..

If we have any less posters we may as well close this site down! Its a useless site anyway..

[MikeSB]

Oh by the way, my ramblings are fact...one bloody goal in a team played by 30 players...The modern game?

btw, you don't have to read my posts, just pass them by...Its really dead easy..

If we have any less posters we may as well close this site down! Its a useless site anyway..

BTW, if you think the 'modern game' is the best there is and better than the 'old days' then you must think that playing 10 at the back, having 400 to 500 passes in the game and not one shot on goal is progressive then I feel sorry for you. Have you noticed how many empty seats there are in the lower leagues?

I would rather have 10 attackers, but that's just me, I thought football was about attacking the other goal and obviouslt no place today for Jimmy Greaves, George Best or even Frank Lord hey?

[MikeSB]

Go and look at the highlights of last night's game and see the thousands of empty seats....Now if you can argue this is due to the success of the 'modern' game, then you are a better man than me Gunga Din...

You would be better using your ire on the poor standard of football nowadays if you ask me...But no, have a go at people that want the game to be played better!

[lukcour]

There aren't any teams that don't play 4 or 5 at the back and we ain't got enough strikers on the books, never mind fit, to field your preferred option of 10. You are an authority on the game in the 60s and maybe before, but you haven't a clue about the modern game. If everything was better in the "old days" maybe we should be going back to sending small boys up chimneys, have women doing the washing in the local river. Jesus Christ it is almost impossible to access this site most of the time these days and when I do manage to get in I am confront by your incessant ramblings about how modern football managers don't have a clue. God help us!

There is no need for posts like this. Complete opposite of what we want on this site. Surprised that no other Alex supporter has not taken issue with this.

[gazan]

A better point is that Man City had no empty seats playing 'the modern game'. Saying Barnet had lots of empty seats is a reflection of the modern game is disingenuous at best.

[lukcour]

Selecting one of the best exponents of the modern game is simple. The other 2 are Klopps Liverpool and Arsenal. And quite often all 3 play with 5 forwards at times. They manage to get away with thatth through excellent fitness, constant high level of concentration, and knowing which position to take up automatically. At the same time some clubs are learning how to cope with this strategy.

To even suggest that Crewe under LB and RD is playing the modern game is beyond belief

[MikeSB]

Selecting one of the best exponents of the modern game is simple. The other 2 are Klopps Liverpool and Arsenal. And quite often all 3 play with 5 forwards at times. They manage to get away with thatth through excellent fitness, constant high level of concentration, and knowing which position to take up automatically. At the same time some clubs are learning how to cope with this strategy.

To even suggest that Crewe under LB and RD is playing the modern game is beyond belief

Its strange and crazy that some so called fans and sorry to call them that as nobody in their right mind can pay what 27 quid to watch fourth division football where they have 10 defensive players and one or no shots on goal. They have clearly lost the plot as what football is supposed to be about. These fans would rather criticise some other people's opinion than stick two fingers up at the team and the club.

The modern game is crap as babies know how to play football better. These players in the fourth division are on two to five thousand pounds a week and a heart surgeon may be lucky to get a small part of that.

Anyway, I will say for the millionth time that I have finished posting here as most of the people posting apart from a couple do not know the game or what it stands for and so that's me finished. The fans forum was great wasn't it or didit ever take place, we will never know as nobody cares, one way or the other.

Thanks Lukcour for your support and your posts!

[gazan]

Selecting one of the best exponents of the modern game is simple. The other 2 are Klopps Liverpool and Arsenal. And quite often all 3 play with 5 forwards at times. They manage to get away with thatth through excellent fitness, constant high level of concentration, and knowing which position to take up automatically. At the same time some clubs are learning how to cope with this strategy.

To even suggest that Crewe under LB and RD is playing the modern game is beyond belief

Tell that to MSB!
I also think you need to define 'forward'.