clockwork orange
Blind faith in "LVG filoshophy"
that was the only reason we could think of yesterday which could be some kind of rationale behind playing 4-5-1.Gurgen said:Shadow Moses said:I'm usually an advocate of some user's controversy on here, but the arguement in this thread is really baseless. The manager deployed a formation that he thought was good enough to get the job done, we outplayed Porto from start to end, controlled the pace of the game, created countless chances, outscored them and basically did every manager would want from a Champions League tie.
Erm no we didn't. There were about 10 minutes in the first half where we didn't even touch the ball. It was embarassing.
Regardless of the result, you don't play 4-5-1 at home to any team. We're the team that is supposed to dominate, so let the opponent adapt to us. We played 4-4-2 away to Hamburg so I think (and hope) this was done to protect Hoyte last night.
Anyway totally disagree with Shadow Moses. We could have well lost the match if Porto would have scored a chance they had early on. Before that we wasted countless opportunities, not because we created them, but because we had players on the ball capable of delivering the final ball, but had no one to pass it to (resulting either in more passing around or a cross in an empty box).